Is “Sexual Immorality” a Useful Concept?

The expression “sexual immorality” seems overly contentious to people today. To say someone has acted immorally is usually to say he’s acted in a way that’s morally repellent. But most people don’t feel that way about non-standard sexual activity. It’s not fornication, adultery, or sodomy that leaders of thought consider repellent, but the pharisaical judgmentalism (so they consider it) of those who view such things as seriously and categorically wrong.

That view has made a great deal of progress within the Church. Jesus startled His followers by His rigorist views on marriage, not to mention His warnings about what He evidently considered the great sin of adultery-in-thought. It seems then that the current view would make Him a judgmental Pharisee. Such a conclusion wouldn’t be surprising in Richard Dawkins, but it’s remarkable how many Catholics, even high churchmen, seem inclined toward the understandings that lie behind it. They find it unacceptable to say that an inclination toward sexual sin is “intrinsically disordered,” and view the continuing disapproval of such things in some places a strange cultural taboo that rational people ignore.

The issue of sexual morality is often mixed up today with the issue of respect and acceptance. Many pious people say that nothing should lead to a loss of those things. We are all sinners and all children of God. None of us can claim to be more, and none should be viewed as less, so we should all be accepted, loved, and respected. The conclusion is that people in “irregular situations” should be treated equally and supported in their difficulties, for example by emphasizing whatever positive values may be implicit in their relationships and removing disciplinary sanctions such as exclusion from holy communion.

As stated, the principle of nonjudgmentalism is either not meant seriously or not thought through. Whatever its value in settings such as the relation between a spiritual advisor and one seeking counseling, it’s clearly unrealistic to make comprehensive unconditional acceptance a first principle of social life in general. The principle has no special connection to sex, and people who insist on it there ignore it elsewhere. No one thinks it pharisaical, for example, to exclude Mafiosi from holy communion no matter how lenient Jesus sometimes seemed toward the peddlers of vice and brutal corrupt extortioners of His day, the prostitutes and publicans, or how many positive values are implicit in Mafia enterprise, decisiveness, and mutual loyalty.

The reason, of course, is that Mafia crimes, unlike sexual sins, are generally taken seriously today. Social respect is driven by ideals of life. We have more respect for people who live by our idea of a good society than those who reject and undermine it. If Bob’s social ideal involves networks of stable families, sexual irregularities violate that ideal, and those involved in them lose respect in his eyes. If Bill’s ideal puts individual autonomy first, then distaste for nontraditional connections is an attack on something he thinks we should all accept and support, so he’ll look down on Bob as a bigot.

It makes no sense to claim Bill is more tolerant than Bob, or more accepting of others and so more truly in line with the Gospel, when both think less of some people because of their outlook and actions. We should hope, of course, that both moderate their distaste for others by remembering what we all lack and what we all have in common. To insist though that everything suggesting a negative attitude be eradicated, in the case of people who habitually violate what are accepted as basic principles of good social order, is to insist on abolishing all sanctions backing such an order. And that can’t possibly be a top item on our moral to-do list.

So even without regard to religious standards, but simply from a rational human perspective, the question remains whether sexual conduct traditionally considered immoral interferes with realizing whatever ideal of life is most in accord with man’s nature and good. If such conduct does interfere with human flourishing, it would be better if people were aware of the problem, tried to avoid adding to it, encouraged others to do the same, disapproved of violations, and one way or another demonstrated their disapproval.

People today want to say the answer to that question is no. Freedom is best, so everyone should be free to work out his own pattern as long as there’s consent. The issue is often presented as if the question were whether there’s some sharply-defined list of behaviors that suit everyone, so that any deviation leads to obvious disaster for all involved. If that’s the issue then the obvious answer is cuique suum, to each his own, and after all these years people today have finally gotten it right.

The matter is not an individual affair, though, any more than standards regarding theft and fraud are. If property were simply an individual affair, then such standards would be an attempt to restrict acquisitive behavior to a narrow list of options that are supposed to suit everyone and invariably lead to the best results no matter what the circumstances. No one thinks that’s the way to understand rules relating to property though, so why should it be right for sex?

Sex is intrinsically a social matter, even more so than property, since it bears more deeply and directly on our relation to others. In particular, it deals with them as objects of personal desire and as partners in physical intimacy and fundamental arrangements like family life. It is therefore basic to our relation to those to whom we are closest and owe the strongest obligations, and through them to the larger society and the human past and future.

Human beings, like epic poems, the global economy, living cells, and other extremely complex systems, function in some ways and not others. Sex, as a fundamental aspect of human life, also has a particular nature and way of functioning. Like food, clothing, shelter, language, and government, the patterns to which it gives rise have a cultural as well as simply natural aspect. The former specifies the particulars that are needed so (if all goes well) there can be a definite system that works reliably and well, and recognizes both the demands of nature—e.g., the connection between sex and babies, and babies’ need to be brought up—and other human realities and aspirations.

Even from a strictly human and rational perspective, those cultural aspects need to be settled and made authoritative so we can rely on them. We don’t invent them for ourselves any more than we invent our own language, system of manners, or form of government. They are intertwined with shared understandings of the most fundamental, enduring, and pervasive human realities: man and woman, birth and death, life and family. That ties them further to enduring features of human life, and makes them even more necessary and more difficult to change productively.

How could a principle of consent and writing your own ticket possibly be the right approach for dealing with such a situation? The idea that it could shows an absolutely fundamental misconception of human life. It treats man as nonsocial, mistaking him for a beast, machine, or god. The most striking feature of current disputes relating to sex is therefore the hopeless unreality of the progressivist viewpoint. Whatever its adherents are talking about, it’s not human beings as they are. Actual human beings need to live in a functional social world, and such a world exists through standards governing basic features of life, which obviously include sex.

Editor’s note: The image above depicts the Ten Commandments monument outside the Texas state capitol in Austin.

James Kalb


James Kalb is a lawyer, independent scholar, and Catholic convert who lives in Brooklyn, New York. He is the author of The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command (ISI Books, 2008), and, most recently, Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It (Angelico Press, 2013).

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    “It treats man as non-social…”

    That is the crux of the matter. It was a fundamental principle of the Enlightenment that the nature of the human person can be adequately described without mention of social relationships. A person’s relations with others, even if important, are not essential and describe nothing that is, strictly speaking, necessary to one’s being what one is. This principle underlies all their talk about the “state of nature” and the “social contract,” and from it is derived the notion that the only obligations are those voluntarily assumed.

    By Bentham’s time, this was axiomatic. For him, the idea of “relation” is but a “fictitious entity,” though necessary for “convenience of discourse.” And, more specifically, he remarks that “the community is a fictitious body,” and it is but “the sum of the interests of the several members who compose it.”

    Freedom thus came to mean freedom from interference, especially state interference. The Ancients’ idea of freedom as a community living under laws of its own making and magistrates of its own choosing was largely lost.

    Rousseau was more astute: “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

    • Since you insist on citing Rousseau as authoritative, credible and laudable, I will insist on presenting the other side of this morally cretinous, misanthropic monster. Indeed one could regard widespread sexual immorality as the “general will” and the state mandated acceptance of, and fealty to sexual deviancy as a tenet of the “civil religion”.

      The implications of Rosseau’s philosophy as the roots of totalitarian were discussed by Robert Nisbet in 1943 .

      Paul Johnson in his book “Intellectuals” (among others) noted that Rousseau was a man of extraordinarily low character, whose relationship with a concubine resulted in the serial abandonment of their offspring to asylums that invariably offered death or a life of begging because he did cared to be burdened with a home “filled with domestic cares and the noise of children.”

      I simply fail to see how this man offers us anything worthwhile, or why people are so attracted to the shiny baubles of his nebulous abstractions.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        “I simply fail to see how this man offers us anything worthwhile, or why people are so attracted to the shiny baubles of his nebulous abstractions”

        As to why people are attracted, Hilaire Belloc explained it best: “What English readers rarely hear is that the triumph of Rousseau depended not only on the first element in persuasion, which is vision, but also upon the second of the two co-related instruments by which a man may influence his fellows—to wit, style. It was his choice of French words and the order in which he arranged them, that gave him his enormous ascendancy over the generation which was young when he was old.”

        Of the Contrat Social, Belloc observes, “Now it is not too much to say that never in the history of political theory has a political theory been put forward so lucidly, so convincingly, so tersely or so accurately as in this short and wonderful book… if it be closely read the Contrat Social will be discovered to say all that can be said of the moral basis of democracy.”

        I believe Belloc’s assessment is right on both counts

        • “What English readers rarely hear is that the triumph of Rousseau depended not only on the first element in persuasion, which is vision, but also upon the second of the two co-related instruments by which a man may influence his fellows—to wit, style. ”

          Belloc was apparently afllicted with the some sort of hero worship and to be honest, apart from his prescience regarding of the rise of Islam that he predicted would occur when piety met prosperity, much of what he wrote doesn’t wear quite as well.

          I don’t care about the supposedly secret wit employed in prose that can only be understood depending on one’s mother tongue In this I am guided by the injunction to know them by their fruits- and Rousseau had been the handmaiden for tyrants and statists for the past centuries. Belloc’s contention that Rousseau gave us the moral basis for democracy is wrong. Rousseau gave us democratic despotism, a tyranny of the majority.

          The record of history is full of Pipe Pipers, whose gifts of persuasion seduce either vast numbers or the influential.

          His grave should be a public lavatory.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            For Belloc, the fruits of Rousseau’s teaching were the Revolution and the Empire, which was its consummation – “Those who ask how it was that a group of men sustaining all the weight of civil conflict within and of universal war without, yet made time enough in twenty years to frame the codes which govern modern Europe, to lay down the foundations of universal education, of a strictly impersonal scheme of administration, and even in detail to remodel the material face of society—in a word, to make modern Europe—must be content for their reply to learn that the Republican Energy had for its flame and excitant this vision: a sense almost physical of the equality of man.” That vision was Rousseau’s legacy.

            • Your post does nothing to rehabilitate Rousseau and impeaches Belloc as a fawning schoolgirl.

  • JP

    “So even without regard to religious standards, but simply from a
    rational human perspective, the question remains whether sexual conduct
    traditionally considered immoral interferes with realizing whatever
    ideal of life is most in accord with man’s nature and good.”

    If we believe what the Church teaches, sexual immorality can lead to eternal damnation. Of course, that kind of ends the debate. But, I think it is a good starting point for discussion. For those who oppose what the Church teaches, well there are other forums. Before there can be any Mercy, there has to be an acknowledgement of Judgement. Otherwise, all of the Strum und Drang concerning sexual immorality is quite useless – it becomes nothing but White Noise.

    We all know the cultural aspect of sex today is to tolerate as much sexual deviancy as we can. If our adult children are shacking up with their “partners”, well we can tell ourselves that at least our children are in loving, committed relationships. And if one of them dies in a car accident (which still living in a state of sin), we are told that they become angels and look after us. Just ask Pope Francis. Who are we to judge?

  • AcceptingReality

    Mr. Kalb, don’t you know that phrases like “sexual immorality” and “intrinsically disordered” are not “pastoral” enough. Nor are traditional morays “forward looking” enough to consider. All that old traditional truth stuff is so passe’. You need to “come to the party” as they say…..of course I am being facetious. Great article!

  • GG

    Excellent piece as usual. One of the problems is that it is too profound for most folks to grasp. They operate by emotions and are educated through pop culture and media.

    • No kidding! This is why I absolutely refuse to hand over my kids to the care of leftist institutions, whether state funded or supposedly Catholic. Their job boils down to destroying traditional Christian values by creating a culture of acceptance (celebration) of “alternative” lifestyles and sexualities.

      So it becomes imperative to for them to destroy Biblical authority because it is an unambiguous source that keeps faithful Christians in check. So what leftists do is attack the unity and inspiration of Scripture. And surprise! It has nothing to say about homosexual relationships. Isn’t that convenient?

      • St JD George

        The sensation of stunning is the first step in self realization, depression might be the second step in feeling overwhelmed. By like in any good three step process to recovery, there is always a third step that brings hope.
        The more I read and hear about what is taking place in our schools and society today the more in shock and depressed I become. The accelerated pace towards insanity is maddening beyond comprehension. The only step that brings hope is drawing closer to Christ.

      • GG

        Yes, the key is to believe one is superior to all those who lived before us. If they even believe in heaven then they believe the only ones not going are Hitler, Manson ,and traditional Catholics.

        The only objective moral truth is that “judging” is always wrong and sexual “sin” does not matter because no malice is involved. Besides we must reduce all of Scripture into some nebulous concept of emotional love devoid of truth, logic, and reason.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          “the key is to believe one is superior to all those who lived before us”

          As Catholic historian Lord Acton explained, this idea really began with Turgot. “He taught mankind to expect that the future would be unlike the past, that it would be better, and that the experience of ages may instruct and warn, but cannot guide or control. He is eminently a benefactor to historical study; but he forged a weapon charged with power to abolish the product of history and the existing order. By the hypothesis of progress, the new is always gaining on the old; history is the embodiment of imperfection, and escape from history became the watchword of the coming day. Condorcet, the master’s pupil, thought that the world might be emancipated by burning its records.”

          Turgot has many disciples, most of whom have never heard his name.

          • Disney’s Carousel of Progress song comes to mind: “There’s a great big beautiful tomorrow!”

    • fredx2

      Emotions are the new thought.

  • St JD George

    Why bother stopping at sexuality … is there any sin deemed immoral in this world today? People revel in the sins of their own destruction daring the fire to consume them. How beautiful and shiny is the golden calf that mesmerizes many with its allure. People don’t really sin after all, they suffer from enabling diagnoses like victim-hood or having conditions that predispose them a certain way, it’s not their fault. What is sin to a person who rejects God? The only definition of sin in this world seems to be that if you have worked hard and acquired more than another it must be ill gotten and therefore redistributed by force and not by choice. That and daring to defend Christianity.

    • Vinny

      I agree. “It seems then that the current view would make Him (Jesus) a judgmental Pharisee.” No, because like with everything else, they remake Jesus into the, “whatever feels good do it” guy from the Bible.
      A mafia Don receiving Communion wouldn’t phase those who know he’s just born that way.

      • Liberals are the most pharisaical of them all: they are self-righteous fundamentalists who can’t abide the idea that compassion requires repentance. Like everything else, they divide that which God has joined: Man and Woman, Spirit and Letter, Body and Soul, Sex and Marriage, Truth and Virtue, Knowledge and Philosophy.

        • GG

          And if they even believe in an objective moral truth they make the standard to be a mafia hit man and not Jesus. The bar is so low that we are all “good” as long as we do not commit physical violence.

          • St JD George

            I’m not so sure of the last point – I think they find justification even in that if the means are justified by their ends. Kind of like the lady who wore the poster board “Save the planet, go kill yourself, I’ll help you”.

            • Too bad somebody didn’t say to her “you first”.

              • It’s hilarious. The leftists are usually the most unenlightened Neanderthals of the gene pool, yet they’re ready to off those offensive rednecks and hillbillies they so much despise (you know, the virtuous folks that form the backbone of our nation) and their progeny.

                They Lefties need to be reminded constantly that their own toothless, blind fundamentalism has far reaching disastrous consequences.

                Now, how do you say in Common-Core the phrase, “Leftism kills?”

                • Rod Serling’s introduction to this Twilight Zone is telling where the the dictatorial left is leading us. He just about nailed it when he said
                  “…it has one iron rule: logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.” He could have added that in order to supplant tuth and logic, emotion is made supreme, emotion with all its haste and isolation.


                  • That sums up the insanity of the new heretics: we rally around the appetites of mankind. His reason, tradition, and morals must serve these.

                  • asmondius

                    Many great lessons and shrewd insight on the foibles of human nature from the Twilight Zone. Look at the lessons televised entertainment gives us today.

                  • fredx2

                    What did he do? Refuse to participate in a gay marriage?

                    • No, he was inconvenient to the designs of the state.

            • GG

              Several years ago I was in St. Patrick’s Cathederal in NYC waiting in line for confession.

              Two middle aged women came in sight seeing. One Catholic and one non Catholic. The non Catholic sees the confession lines and says to her friend: ” Oh, I see confession is offered if you want to go please go ahead and I will wait for you, it is no problem.”

              The Catholic lady replies: “Confession? Oh no, I do not need that. It is not like I murdered anyone.”

              The poor non Catholic lady just ignored her and they kept on sight seeing.

              • St JD George

                We had a number of interesting discussions about that in RCIA, particularly cultural differences. The main point was that most who have “progressed” in the west have come to view it that way, a burden and not a blessing, and never give a second thought about denying themselves the Eucharist for anything they do. That was contrasted with our many Latin American parishioners who are there to confess nearly every week (it would seem) and it wouldn’t even occur to them to receive the Host until reconciled, for offenses most wouldn’t even give more than two seconds of thought. I confess I am not as regular attender as I should be and am somewhere in between.

              • MrRightWingDave


          • Ahhh! The rarefied air of Progress™!

            • St JD George

              Like fresh manure in a barn on a hot, calm summer day.

              • Barn? Ewwwww! That’s too close to rustic folk with decent religious moorings.

              • Kilo4/11

                Beg to disagree: that is a good smell, the smell of life. “Progress” reeks of death; or, as its torch-bearers would have it, “creative destruction”.

                • St JD George

                  You suspect you know I’m in agreement with you. Rather be in a barn than in the WH now any day, though they are working hard to turn it in to a laughing stock.

        • St JD George

          Fundamentalists? Now there’s an interesting pairing of words that I don’t associate. However, fundamental they are in their belief in self and man, and disdain for or discomfort in acknowledging their creator.

      • St JD George

        It’s because people have no idea what love means, it’s just like a feel good phrase on a Hallmark card, like the one you mentioned. When you love the Father you just naturally want to please him, and when you stumble and fall from time to time like we all do you feel sad and want his forgiveness, including accepting his judgment in reconciliation. So, how do we keep our sanity feeling more isolated every day in a rising sea of non believers? It challenges me sometimes.

        • Vinny

          I’d bet a lot more than sometimes. You keep hitting the perceived brick wall of faith. Perceived because of our fallen nature. I recently decided that whenever I feel “challenged” I will read Hebrews 13 1-8.

          Let brotherly love continue.
          Do not neglect hospitality,
          for through it some have unknowingly entertained angels.
          Be mindful of prisoners as if sharing their imprisonment,
          and of the ill-treated as of yourselves,
          for you also are in the body.
          Let marriage be honored among all
          and the marriage bed be kept undefiled,
          for God will judge the immoral and adulterers.
          Let your life be free from love of money
          but be content with what you have,
          for he has said, I will never forsake you or abandon you.
          Thus we may say with confidence:

          The Lord is my helper,
          and I will not be afraid.
          What can anyone do to me?

          Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you.
          Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
          Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

          • St JD George

            Funny, that was just last Friday’s liturgy and still fresh in my mind. It did move me to read as well and thanks for sharing. Truthfully, reading scripture, reflecting, praying and my family and friends at church (and Crisis) are about the only things that help keep me sane.

            • Vinny

              The editor won’t like this but maybe taking a break from this website will help you to not have this societal demise in your face everyday. I have to now and then. To just focus on the situations that are put in front of me each day as part of my life. In other words, put into use some of what I learn on Crisis Magazine rather than just dwelling on it.

              • St JD George

                It is sound advice. Believe it or not I have already decided to make it my Lenten pledge to give up the internet, Crisis and all. I’ve been wrestling whether to be preemptive. If I fail you can (kindly) point it out to me to hold fast to my promise.

                • Vinny

                  You’ll know it yourself. This is appropriate. It’s from Pete Jermann’s essay yesterday. Just substitute “no internet” for chastity.

                  “When we see chastity as denial we buy into the enemy’s agenda. It becomes a perpetual fast, a deprivation of something others have. To engage on such terms centers attention on ourselves, and it is the focus on self that is the very enemy we fight”….”It is not in denial that we become lovers but in giving ourselves freely to others. Chastity based on denial shrivels and embitters. Chastity based on a gift given expands and frees us to love.”

            • Hope

              Don’t for a minute think you’re alone. Yes, it does feel often that you are the lone dissenter/traditionalist/conservative (I’m speaking g about my experiences here, presuming you feel the same). But you are “surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses” both the saints and the here-and-now Catholic siblings (other “adopted sons”) that you really are never alone – not really. Our Catholic faith is Jesus’s church that he established, and though the rest of the world may grow dim about this and their affection for truth cold, that doesn’t diminish that it is the truth. Stay close to those who remember this. I find it helps to read CS Lewis.

        • asmondius

          Ever hear a divorced and remarried person refer to their ‘starter marriage’? My spouse thought of me as a ‘fixer upper’ and never wanted to leave behind all of the effort invested in me.

          • St JD George

            That’s funny. I had an old colleague who had a dry writ about him, and would on occasion refer to his wife as his first wife. He only ever had one.

    • And not even that- for there are many who strongly defend working *smart*, cheating your neighbor out of his due, and acquiring MUCH more than can be acquired by hard work.

  • John O’Neill

    omnis caro ad te veniet. (Requiem mass)

  • St JD George

    Sorry Jim to hijack your fine article, but I was getting to a calm state when I stumbled across these gems today. Apparently lying isn’t a sin any more as long as it means you obtain your ends:

    Axelrod explains in his book that the president consistently misled the American people about his stance on gay marriage in order to get elected. Though he says he knew he fully supported same-sex marriage from the beginning, he deliberately and repeatedly deceived the nation by claiming to support traditional marriage and civil unions as part of a political calculation.

    I am shocked to learn the truth finally. No really.

    At a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel Monday, the president said he believed a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons was possible because Supreme Leader Khamenei said it would be “contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon.”

    He also said that the US is their sworn enemy and has repeatedly denied the holocaust, plus wants to wipe Israel off the map. So which are we to believe, from the man who will say anything as a political calculus?

    • “Axelrod explains in his book that the president consistently misled the American people PERIOD” would have been more accurate.

      Of course you know when a politician is lying-their lips are moving.

      • St JD George

        I honestly don’t know if he ever does, publically. Krauthamer diagnosed him as a pathological narcissist. Pathological liar also comes to mind. The ends always justify the means no matter what the cost, because power over others is ultimately all its about.

  • Harry

    What is commonly referred to as “sexual immorality” by those who still believe there is such a thing is actually much more than that. To understand what is natural and good, and what isn’t, when it comes to human sexuality, we must have a proper understanding of humanity itself. What is humanity, anyway?

    What we have today is an all out assault on the traditional understanding of humanity itself which becomes very apparent when it comes to the area of human sexuality. This new, contemporary understanding of humanity we tend to refer to as “sexual immorality” because that is an obvious manifestation of the redefinition of humanity.

    If humanity is only the unintended, accidental product of mindless, purposeless natural processes and no more than that, then how we make use of our sexual faculties really doesn’t make any difference as long as our behavior doesn’t hurt anybody else. One could still make the argument that certain behaviors aren’t really natural, but that wouldn’t mean those behaviors were immoral. If humanity is merely an unintended accident of nature then there is no basis for deciding that unnatural behavior is immoral. If it feels good and everybody involved consents to it, do it, for tomorrow we die.

    On the other hand, if we are the creatures of an intelligent creator then that creator had intentions for our use of human sexuality, and departure from that is immoral.

    To me it is all very simple: Sex often makes a new human being who begins life completely helpless and utterly dependent upon Mom and in nine months upon both his/her parents. Helpless babies require care or they die. Couples who make babies ought to be willing to remain together and care for and raise the babies they make together. The institution of marriage makes perfect sense to me.

    That the act that has the power to bring new human beings into existence is only for married people to engage in because they have committed to remaining together to care for and raise those new human beings also makes perfect sense to me.

    What happens when such common sense notions are discarded and sex is completely disconnected from procreation, and becomes merely recreation? In spite of the advances of modern medicine (the perversion of medicine?) sex still often makes a baby when medical measures have been taken to prevent that, or when engaged in by couples without the maturity to be consistent in taking such measures. Unintended procreation occurs so often that humanity in its earliest stages of development, when it is completely helpless, is destroyed by the billions, either by abortifacient pills and drugs or by surgical abortion.

    This is obviously not the plan of our creator. The new understanding of humanity is lethal to humanity. This new understanding is in fact not new at all. It is the same old immorality warmed over and served up to the most gullible generation in the history of the world.

  • James

    Many social liberals are quite conservative in their personal lives (e.g. married, monogamous), but refuse to preach what they practice. I wonder why that is?

    • St JD George

      Because they are like lemmings running to the sea, afraid to stick their neck out and defend their faith and quite content to go along to get along because “all the other liberals are doing it”, wouldn’t want to get dis-invited to any fun parties.
      There’s that, then there are the elitists who feel they are superior to others and that others are like heathens incapable of making wise moral judgments for themselves and so must be coddled as a protected class from their own stupidity. I actually read that and is a near verbatim quote from a “prominent liberal” just last week.

    • You have no idea whether or not a marriage is monogamous. Few people hang out their dirty laundry. When unimpeded by convention or the economics of divorce, social liberals are serially monogamous (see Hollywood), at best.

      • James

        Actually, there isn’t much difference in divorce rates between social liberals and social conservatives, at least from what I have seen. Conservatives have plenty of dirty laundry of their own.

        • Try to stay on topic.

    • Our governing classes want to get rid of traditional functional social arrangements (religion, the family, inherited culture) because then social functions only get carried on through commercial and bureaucratic institutions they understand and control. On the other hand they want their own personal lives to be functional. You’re describing the compromise that works for them.

      • James

        I honestly don’t think that many of them think it through as much as that.

        I think most of them simply assume that everyone else has the same inherited culture they do and would make similar decisions. They see traditional social arrangements as perfectionistic, not as protective.

        In other words, those who complain the loudest tend to be the “good girls” who feel like traditional norms expect them to be “perfect”.

        • My comment had to do with the conditions that mean things sort out as they do, not how people consciously think about the situation. I certainly agree that it’s not thought through. I doubt though that most social liberals make the assumption you mention.

          • Anybody who has read the “holy books” of the adherents of the superstate, from Machiavelli to Sunstein, knows the “governing classes” (I prefer Angelo Codevilla’s description of the “ruling class”, since governing implies an accountability that is quickly eroding), knows that those in charge are always thinking of how to acquire, augment and retain power.

            • There aren’t many Machiavellis, and most people like soothing descriptions of what they’re doing. Instead of saying “let’s disrupt inherited culture so the people become a formless aggregate we can use for our purposes” they say “let’s eliminate deeply rooted stereotypes that limit people and prevent them from realizing their true potential in today’s global society.”

              • “There aren’t many Machiavellis, and most people like soothing descriptions of what they’re doing.”
                Definitely. That fits the Sunsteins of the world perfectly. I assume you are familiar with “Nudge”.

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              Talleyrand would have agreed with you :”Governing has never been anything other than postponing by a thousand subterfuges the moment when the mob will hang you from the nearest lamp-post, and every act of government is nothing but a way of not losing control of the people”

              • I’m guessing I would find Talleyrand agreeable, assuming he was making an observation and not justifying everything in the name of maintaining civil order.

                • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                  It is not easy to divine what lay behind any remark of the prince of diplomats.

                  On hearing the news of Talleyrand’s dath, Prince Metternich mused, “I wonder what he meant by that.”

      • Our governing classes want to get rid of traditional functional social arrangements religion, the family, inherited culture- because those institutions inculcate virtue and mediate against the “vissisitudes of fortune”.

        Its more than just subjecting humans to a framework of commercial and bureacratic institutions, its about destroying the alternatives (of family, religion and voluntary association)-indeed destroying any thought of the alternative, producing a durable and near inescapable and physical and psychological dependency.

        Every time I read some “Christian” defend a counterproductive, ineffective and inefficient welfare apparatus or the administrative superstate as necessitous proxies of charity, I realize how successful the campaign has been not only in institutionalizing these things, but voiding the mind of any thought of a different possibility.
        Of course presuming others would not be charitable “enough” is a sin against charity.

  • Sexual immorality, Fiscal immorality, there’s a core sin that is intrinsic to both: anonymity. Anonymity, being unknown, is the enemy of love. And all immorality, sexual or fiscal, comes from hiding behind masks, for both abuser and victim.

    • Don’t worry! Big Sister is feverishly at work to make sure there is no anonymity.

    • St JD George

      Are you sure of your accusations? The bumper sticker I read said most transparent administration in history. Surely a million bumper stickers can’t be all wrong.

      • Transparency is not equal to Intimacy.

        One can be incredibly transparent. But human beings aren’t God, and there is a natural limit to our ability to be intimate.

        Sexual immorality almost always is about a *failure* to be intimate in sex; it’s using the other person without understanding what is best for that person.

        Fiscal immorality too is a failure of intimacy- it is the appearance of a free contract without the information needed on one or both sides to actually freely consent to a contract.

        As I said below, Big Sister can listen to all your conversations, using modern techniques to turn them into text and store them in giant databases someplace, and never, ever, come close to knowing who you are as a person.

  • thebigdog

    “But most people don’t feel that way about non-standard sexual activity.”

    As St. Thomas Aquinas said, “an error in the beginning, is an error indeed” Therefore, when baby boomers decided that sin was no longer “that which offended God” but to be defined rather as that which “makes me feel guilty” — it was inevitable that licentiousness would become the norm.

  • samnigromd

    No sexual mores means mankind has removed itself from
    “nature” by the change of human sexuality into an excretory act
    rather than consistent with reproduction. We are creatures in nature and belong in nature naturally. Nature knows best and sex is regulated, unless biochemical abnormality, by pheromones which confine copulation to between opposite sexed adults of the same species at a time consistent with reproduction (get a cat if in doubt)–which the Church has always done and, in fact, does not know how right and natural it is about contraception and sexuality. That is, marital love in the Sacrament of Matrimony is the psychosocial pheromone for humans as God reminds through the Church. If humans had biochemical pheromones in charge, there could be no love.

    But contraception and abortion have removed the “consequences” so to speak from unregulated-by-nature sexuality, and thus today, copulation for humans-not-in-nature has become irrelevant, replaced by ejaculation: squirting by males and sliming by females–anyway, anywhere, anytime, using anything. Such is “excretion” not sex. Especially, the unnatural sexualization of females–what I have called the turning of American women into the world’s first community harem–by masturbation education as from Planned Parenthood, is unique for the animal kingdom. No other creature has females seeking ejaculation as such, which is therefore another totally human contribution to planetary pollution. With “jaculasis” (1), “ejaculation as culture,” sex is for “relief”–“sexcretion” rather than for reproduction as in the rest of the animal kingdom and nature. Nature obviously knows best because without pheromones, animals would likely do nothing except try to ejaculate all the time as do humans in today’s masturbatory culture. Needless to say, if we forced animals to act sexually as humans now do, it would be bizarre animal cruelty. But with contraception and abortion, non-reproductive ejaculation has taken over with anyone, anything, anytime, anywhere with marital love discarded as natural sex for humans. Thus meaningless (not consistent with reproduction) sex is pollution–sexcretion–rather than nature defined reproduction-consistent sex. Without traditional family and virtuous men (and with unnatural selfish feminists and gay cult genital maniacs), mankind cannot be more out of touch with the planet. All pollution has its adverse consequences,
    readily confirmed by the obvious social problems due to loss of traditional
    family and virtuous men because sex is not based on factors of natural humanbeingness.
    It is Natural Law understood and used to be known as sexual morality. “Sin” is “willful entropy” and it includes contemporary culture of masturbation–check out “Theogeocalculus.”

    • Nooooooooo!
      But thanks for keeping it shorter.

    • “No sexual mores means mankind has removed itself from
      “nature” by the change of human sexuality into an excretory act
      rather than consistent with reproduction.”

      It has been twenty years since I heard a workplace acquaintance tell me that women needed to understand that for men, the act was only the most satisftying method of release and that it was no more complicated than excretion. It was all the more shocking because he analogized sex with defecation, in the crude vernacular.

      At the time, I thought he had expressed something peculiarly self-centered and disordered, a sentiment limited only to a few, many of whom were incarcerated for rape.

      A more reflection on human behavior makes me think that it is a widespread sentiment, actually common among both sexes and the source of much confusion and misery.

      • samnigromd

        Thank you DE-173…from SSBN 598 GOLD…

        • I hope you aren’t thanking me for military service, I have none.

          I chose the name for a different reason. DE-173 was the U.S.S. Eldridge, claimed to have the subject of an attempt to achieve radar invisibility in the 1940’s that went horribly wrong (The Philadelphia Experiment). detailed in a book by the author of the Bermuda Triangle book.. Among other things it was claimed that the ship became optically invisible, and crew members observed a green fog and became ill as the ship disappeared. It was claimed that the experiment caused dislocation in space and time; and upon return to Philadelphia, 1943, crewmembers were fused to the ship to die a horrible death. It was the subject of a sci-fi film in 1984 and a less successful follow-up in 2012.
          It reminds me that when dealing with the left facts don’t matter. There’s no record of the Eldridge being in Phila in 1943, there’s no known laws of Physics that could allow for an electromagnetic field to displace an object through space and time (forget returning to the starting point), and the idea that Einstein finished his unified field theory to lose or discard it is beyond belief.

          Yet, like the people that believe in an all-wise, all knowing and incorrupt government, the following is fanatical.

          • samnigromd

            prevent the establishment of “Royalty” and the “hand of Herod” (our
            government at work)

            “LEGICARE” By Samuel A. Nigro, MD June

            Charles Dickens said, “The law is an ass.” I have discovered that government law is a
            capitalist system scheme to control and extort citizens under the guise of
            “promoting the common good.”
            It makes money for politicians and all in the law system, selected
            favored groups and individuals, all employees of the metastatic law megabureaucracy,
            and for their dictating friends in the press and media. Seeking a veiled totalitarianism, government
            law manages occasionally to be virtuous, but overall, it seeks neither truth or
            justice, but inflated preening self-righteousness. Totally unconstitutional, it is an “established
            religion” with pompous courtroom rituals and dogmatisms second to none in
            authoritarianism. It is an opiate for
            those in power. It deserves neither
            respect or admiration but fear and contempt pretending safety, respect and
            admiration. The best way to understand
            government law and those in it is by the New Testament metaphors of
            “scribes and Pharisees.” The
            following corrective measures are needed.
            Until then, the law will be as Dickens said.

            True Justice requires
            all political systems to address CORRUPTION by these rules for all political leaders
            of any nature (elected, appointed, appropriated):

            All citizens will be covered for all
            legal matters by a third party system as is health care.

            All in government and law (and family
            members) are not exempt from any laws.

            All in government and law (and family
            members if employed) are to be paid only by a base salary determined by
            procedure and service codes which will be the only source of paying for
            personal benefits received when in office. All procedure and service codes will be
            equally required for plaintiff and defendant in all litigation in search
            for “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” as sworn by
            all parties (including judges and lawyers); and in all government
            administrative procedures (including Internal Revenue Service) such that
            “equality before the law” requires government provided services “on
            behalf” of citizens to equal those actions “against” citizens.

            All in government and law (and family
            members) will be prohibited from any investment in prison or prison
            support industries. All
            incarcerations will be overturned whenever this has happened in the past.

            All in government and law (and family
            members) will study, review and sign-off annually on Stanley Milgrim Suggestibility, Stanford
            Penitentiary Experiment, and Nifong Prevention Programs.

            All laws, whenever mentioned in any
            legal proceeding, will be completely read into the record each time with
            all parties in attendance so that the defendant is assured that all
            parties know the law.

            “Plea bargains” will be
            prohibited, and prosecutors must prove ALL initial charges and counts for
            “guilt” to be found (Each “count” is a

            All in government and law and their
            family members’ retirement, health care, travel without specific
            government mission, job security & protection, and any other benefits
            are determined by the same laws and rules which govern the common citizen
            and will be paid for as common citizens pay from personal finances.

            All in government and law and their
            family members will be taxed at a 90% rate for any and all increases
            beyond salary based assets accrued while in office and for five years
            after leaving government employment.

            All in government and law must have served
            4 years in the military and have their children and grandchildren serve in
            the military for 3 years without special consideration.

            All in government and law and family
            members’ estates will be taxed at 90% at death for all assets over 3
            million dollars accumulated during government employment and for 5 years

            All laws will be repealed which give
            any government employee or person in law any benefit not given to the
            common citizen.

            No remuneration of any kind is to be
            received for enhancing reputation, business generation, client and
            associate management, civic activities, bar association activities, pro
            bono activities, speeches, appointments to corporation boards or
            equivalents. There will be no origination
            fees, referral fees, fiat retainers, or name value payments or any other
            payments unless appropriate to the legal work actually performed.

            All members of law firms can bill only
            for work personally performed and documented, time and service, by open

            Immediate members of politicians’
            families are prohibited from practicing law.

            Appearances of impropriety and
            conflicts of interest are to be avoided, disclosed immediately, undone,
            and prevented.

            All legal and financial records of all
            in government and the law (and employed family members) are open to the

            The right to privacy and prohibition
            of unreasonable searches require that all medical records for all citizens
            are absolutely confined to the doctor patient relationship.

            All in government and law (and family
            members) are prohibited from any financial remuneration from or investment
            interest in any press and/or media business.

            All in government at all levels must
            wear cameras and recorders for all government related activities with
            permanent retrieval forever.

            To SERVE THE PEOPLE is a privilege to be paid for…SERVING
            THE PEOPLE is not a method of becoming ROYALTY.

            Similar rules are needed to prevent the corruption in the
            legal system because attorneys especially have innate conflict of interest in that the more they complicate and
            aggravate the problem, the more fees they can
            charge. Recording and
            documentation of Federally defined and fee-fixed procedure and service codes
            are needed for every attorney, judge, and bureaucracy member. Essentially, now THE SYSTEM only works well
            for those IN it i.e., politicians, judges, attorneys, and those in the
            bureaucracy. For the rest of us, THE
            SYSTEM is basically anti-freedom and anti-independence because it exerts
            fascist-like control almost automatically
            oppressive. The people are entitled to
            EQUALITY before the law. This basically
            means that the Legal System for attorneys must be equivalent to Obamacare for
            physicians. The government and law has
            become a business rather than a profession for the Common Good. The tendered rules will correct this and
            prevent the corrupting influence of “power.”

  • Maggie Sullivan

    Souls falling into hell like snow flakes……………………………………………..

  • samnigromd

    A “new” way to understand the “older” …from basic science to Last Words…

    LIVE THE LAST WORDS OF CHRIST—A POETIC EFFORT of sorts… These are the eight
    ensoulment “plays” to win the “game” of life by following the “rules” of life. They constitute “LOVEOLUTION” (page
    616)–the revolution/evolution brought by Jesus through the Church.. Sacramental living is to participate in the
    pre-Big Bang Eternity…the Statimuum with God.

    From Samuel A. Nigro, M.D.’s books ANCIENT


    (One of the LAST WORDS OF CHRIST can apply to every activity…

    ENSOULMENT (the Anthropic Schema) of the basics of
    Christian living—

    Sacramental, universal, scientific, virtuous, transcendental


    as existing in basic physics. (Otherwise,
    it is entropy.)

    [Mass Mantra: Life,
    Sacrifice, Virtue, Love, Humanity,

    Freedom, Death without Fear]

    “Father, forgive them for they know not
    what they do.”

    “Pater, dimitte illis, quia nesciunt, quid

    Confess into a unity spectrum giving
    hope and identity…

    {Selective Ignoring.

    “spectrum”-a splitting of energy
    into position-time


    [ Humanity]

    “This day thou shall be with me in Paradise.”

    mecum eris in Paradiso.”

    Holy Order into a dimension
    for Life (the Father) giving

    and being…

    {Non-Reactive Listening.

    coordinates (length, width,height) and


    [ Virtue ]

    “Woman, behold thy son. World, behold your mother.”

    ecce filius tuus. Omnes, ecce mulier

    Baptism into a dignity
    event giving faith and matter…

    {Living Things are Precious.

    “event” –a point in space-time of something certain that


    [ Life ]

    “My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

    meus, Deus meus, utquid dereliquisti me?”

    Holy Communion into an
    integrity field giving charity and


    {Subdued Spontaneity Non-Self

    “field” –a matrix existing throughout space and time.

    [ Sacrifice ]

    “I thirst.”


    Matrimony into an uncertainty for Liberty (the Son)

    temperance and

    {Personhood…Conscious of
    Consciousness (C2) for the


    “uncertainty” –accuracy of position is inverse to accuracy of


    [Freedom ]

    “It is finished.”


    Extreme Unction into a spirit
    singularity giving justice and


    {Detached Warmth and Gentleness.

    “singularity” –a point of space-time curvature infinity at

    gravitational collapse.

    [Death without Fear ]

    “Into thy hands I commend my spirit.”

    manus tuas, Domine, commendo spiritum meum.”

    Confirm into an identity
    quantum giving prudence and


    {Affect Assistance.

    “quantum” –the indivisible unit of giving and receiving


    [Peace ]

    “The earthquake finale.”


    Grace into a force Pursuing the Transcendentals (the

    Spirit giving holiness and being.

    {Make that relationship count! The Flag of Mankind and:

    pledge to treat all humanely by caring for and respecting other’s bodies; by
    understanding other’s minds but being true to myself without disrespect; and by
    accepting the emotions of others as I control my own. I will have mercy on others with gentle
    liberty and empathic justice for all.”
    (Check out

    “force” –that which affects matter particles—transcendental

    between human particles.

    [ Love ]

  • Thomas J. Hennigan

    When I as a kid in a small town in Ireland, adultery was practically unknown. Why? Because anyone found out practicing it would be ostracized by the neighbors and generally considerred obnoxious. Of course in small towns the neighbors find everything out about one another. So, those with such desires simply knew the social consequences of it and refrained from doing it. We children were raised with the idea that our family had certian values and that we were not to use profanity, to lie or generally cuase any trouble around the street or the school and we didn’t. We were expected to study hard and get good grades and we did. Of course, these days in Ireland, in one generation people have gone from being part of one of the most Catholic countries in the world to hating the Church, partly because it doesn’t aprove of their sexual morality, o rather their lack of it. , although priests are so cowed down and afraid of ridicule these days that they keep quiet about sex in homilies. The ordinary guy cannot practice virtue without social control and virtue being held in high esteem by the society and vice being condemned. It just doen’t happen.
    As a priest I have served in 8 countries and I realize that adultery is rampant in all of them. Which situation is better? The modern Irish accuse the older generations of hypocrisy, of gooing to Church and not being “compassionate” toward unsed mothers and such. Who are the real hyocristes?

  • clintoncps

    The sexual addiction and insanity being exalted today at the highest levels of society, and even by many in the Church, is a pathway to Satan’s plan of Transhumanism.

    The devil knows very well that, if he can dislodge people from their faith in the most primordial, God-given aspects of human self-awareness — husband and wife, father and mother and child, even maleness and femaleness as such — then the concept of “human” itself will come to mean nothing at all. In its place, an artificial life form will emerge with immense technological powers and, at the same time, without any restraint or reference for communal relations other than dominate or be dominated. The spirit of Anti-Christ, to be sure.

  • Veritas

    The question becomes how do we change hearts and minds about sexual morality? It is not a dry intellectual topic that we discuss over tea, this is the down and dirty of daily life. Talk sex and people listen. If you present a case for moral behavior without the word morality, but in terms of love and respect for the people involved and the beauty of their intimacy, you may not get agreement right away, but you plant the seed and I have seen it grow. Those who objected to that view at first, embrace it because the pain of taking it casually lives inside of them and their family and friends. We all yearn for love and beauty.

    Immorality is an offense, not against our sensibilities, but against love, whether that be love of neighbor, God or His creation. Even the most progressive believe in love and beauty. It is our way into the discussion without Judgementalism.

    Casual attitudes toward sexuality show varying levels if indifference towards the other person involved and despite how society tries to be enlightened about it, we all bear the pain of this and we all see the pain it causes, if we just take the time to connect the dots. Being “cheated on” is an offense to almost anyone, from high schoolers to adults… Why? Because we find that we are not loved as we thought we were…. We were lied to.

    How committed is a committed relationship? If not so committed that we will not walk away, then not so committed that we would never risk to break your heart. This is something people understand. No where is the need for the term morality because even those of us who live the moral life may have lost sight of why something is immoral, other than to just know it is.