The wonderfully articulate and interesting Roman Catholic, and Thomistic philosopher, Ed Feser has written a very valuable blog post about the psychological mechanisms by which sexual revolution has broadly corrupting effects- drawing substantially on the insights of Aquinas.
Many of these observations ring true, and indeed I have often witnessed the way in which unrepented sexual sin has a very generally destructive effect on morality. It is, indeed, so common as to be normal in recent decades.
This helps us to understand the synergy between the sexual revolution and Leftism: since the middle 1960s, Leftism has promoted the sexual revolution as perhaps its primary weapon, and those who have most avidly embraced the sexual revolution in their own lives, tend to become the craziest (most irrational and aggressive) Leftists.
Read the whole thing - but here is a sample:
Aquinas notes that “lust…is about the greatest of pleasures; and these absorb the mind more than any others.” Sexual pleasure is like the pleasure of alcohol use in being perfectly innocent in itself, but also very easy to abuse.
Hence, even in someone with otherwise normal sexual desires, a preoccupation with matters of sex has a tendency to cause him to act foolishly in various ways – to exaggerate the importance of sex, to pursue it in ways that are detrimental to his own well-being and that of people who depend on him, to construct rationalizations for such foolish pursuit, and so forth.
In someone with abnormal sexual desires, the effect is even worse. For what determines the good use of a human faculty is the end or purpose toward which it is directed by nature. Hence a healthy moral psychology requires a firm intuitive grasp of what is natural and what is contrary to nature’s purposes.
Repeatedly taking sexual pleasure in activity that is directly contrary to nature’s ends dulls the intellect’s perception of nature, to the point that the very idea that some things are contrary to the natural order loses its hold upon the mind. The intellect thereby loses its grip on moral reality.
Note: This links in my mind with the way that systematic perverse sexual initiation practices have, apparently, been used to create and sustain a politically leftist, upper class, secret combination within the evangelical wing of the Church of England; which - by its control of appointments and promotions; by blackmail and bribes - has engineered the corruption of Anglicanism from the top. If you wondered why such an incompetent, lying mediocrity as Justin Welby effortlessly became the Archbishop of Canterbury, you need wonder no more...
9 comments:
Similarly, in Summa Theologiae II-II.46.3 he says that foolishness as a general moral vice arises chiefly from sexual sin. He isn’t saying that sexual sins are of themselves the worst sins – obviously there are worse sins, such as murder – but rather that they have a special tendency to dull general moral understanding, like the first domino that knocks down the others.
It's interesting that clearly this has been observed for a long time, since Aquinas wrote about it. I have known it for a number of years as well. A conversation - really, a warning - I plan to have someday with each of my children runs something like this:
Dear child: You are heading off to university / away from home / etc. There is a phenomenon that you are likely to observe, which is this: a friend of yours, whom you have respected for many years, that you think of as a devoted Christian follower, will suddenly appear to cease being a Christian. This will take you by terrible surprise, and you will be somewhat hurt, and not know what to make of it.
You will find out, through some means, that this friend of yours has secretly begun having sex with his or her boyfriend/girlfriend, as he or she was not supposed to, and that this was the cause of the loss of faith - because invariably, when young Christian people begin to indulge in sexual sin, it dulls their minds, and they become susceptible to the lie that they "never really believed all that stuff anyway".
I tell you this so that you understand the world a little better, and so you will not be as surprised when (not if)it happens.
This was a really good post. When your ideas about sex are wrong, it ruins your ideas about everything.
"Hence, even in someone with otherwise normal sexual desires, a preoccupation with matters of sex has a tendency to cause him to act foolishly in various ways – to exaggerate the importance of sex, to pursue it in ways that are detrimental to his own well-being and that of people who depend on him, to construct rationalizations for such foolish pursuit, and so forth." This part is so true. It ruins your moral reasoning to put the pursuit of sex before other important considerations.
That's why people who decide to do this become a drain on other people and let people down, and it's even a surprise to them that they are dropping the ball so much. That's why I think there is a bit of the mysterious in the gospel, because following God teaches you things you could not otherwise know and could not understand otherwise. It's like a language, you have to believe that the gospel is saying something and learn the 'vocabulary' if you will, before the understanding begins to dawn. It is a sacrifice in the real sense, a putting of something lesser in its place as lesser than something greater.
Interestingly, even at the level of modern utilitarian morality; it seems pretty clear that the sexual revolution In Practice entails a systematic selfishness, an indifference to consequences, which is at totally at-odds-with the justification that an 'easing' of traditional morality reduces personal suffering.
Successful sexual revolutionaries very often - perhaps always - wreak havoc (of one sort or another, psychological, sometimes physical) on those around them; 'yet' this kind of chaos and misery is accepted as 'necessary'.
Since the miserable outcomes of the actually-existing SR cannot honestly be justified on utilitarian grounds (i.e. the SR doesn't really make most people happier over the long term; but the opposite); the SR could only be regarded as 'necessary' (in the way that is clearly is, by the mainstream) if there was a transcendent goal. And there is a transcendent goal behind the SR - that goal being 'demonic evil' - i.e. the long term strategic assault, led by purposively evil supernatural beings, on God and creation.
Of course, there is a pervasive and elaborate dishonesty about the actual real-life consequences of the SR - eg the the international, officially-supported/ enforced and massively-subsidised propaganda of 'Pride'; which presents the lifestyle in with such extremes of dewy-eyed falsity (and on the other side micro-censorship enforced by crushing sanctions) as to render Victorian Christian bowdlerisations and morality tales feeble by comparison.
from a post at JrGanymede:
True religion is reality ~ Good morality is good psychology.
Search for Miriam Grossman on Youtube and watch a couple of her videos. One of her famous books is “You’re Teaching my child WHAT? : A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child.” You can see/hear the gist of it in a couple of videos of her talks. She laid the groundwork, at least for me, in explaining how libertinism is bad psychology.
(her other book is: "Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student".)
I was recently browsing a short book on spiritual healing. It was free, so I downloaded it, and started reading before I realized what it was about. Had I known the intended audience (women seeking spiritual healing from sexual abuse/addiction/promiscuity), I likely would not have read it.
The author drew striking parallels and connections between the spiritual/religious and the psychological. Without being preachy, without saying or even implying “Because God says so!”, she made it obvious through explanation that Christian morality, ie. chastity, is just plain good psychology. It’s good because of the nature of human minds: how we are wired.
The standard Christian approach, “loss of blessings, application of punishment,” has no sway with non-believers. Non-religious carrots and sticks are needed for those who don’t believe. And this author works those non-religious angles, but then also ties them in to a loving God.
Her raw-ness and bluntness (a sistah who tells it like it is) is uncommon, at least for me. She’s a black female counselor, who had been through exactly what she was talking about, speaking to black women.
It then hit me that she was making an excellent case (though not saying it directly) that “(True) Religion is Reality.” That God’s laws (of behavior) are not arbitrary, not mere tests, nor made-up hoops to jump through just to get a doggie-treat; that there really are practical psychological reasons to obey God’s commandments; that the denial of God does nothing to negate real practical psychological consequences. In other words, the whole sexual revolution is based on lies and denial of reality, not just denial of God.
anyway, watch a couple of Grossman's videos, 45 to 60 minutes, to get some good sound bites in making these arguments.
-Books.
Matt Walsh’s views on the sexual revolution also have a “The results are in.... and so how has that all worked out?” perspective.
--
Let’s Try Saving Sex For Marriage. Clearly, The Other Way Isn’t Working.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/24862/walsh-maybe-we-should-try-saving-sex-marriage-matt-walsh
--
You Feel Violated After Casual Sex Because You Degraded Yourself. Not Because It Was Rape.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/25928/walsh-you-feel-violated-after-casual-sex-because-matt-walsh
--
He uses simple and clear language to describe things, much as Dr. Miriam Grossman in her youtube videos. His essays show that it’s not just a religious matter. There are common sense reasons and real human psychology in play.
You parents may wish to preview those two articles, and maybe a couple more by Matt, to see if they could fortify your own children, and give them the word-armor and word-ammo to not only stand firm, but be a positive influence on their peers.
-Books
@Books - The trouble is that we know, from decades of experience, that common sense does not work and genuine utilitarianism (doing what most likely minimises sufferinging or enhances gratification) does not work. Our culture is now deep-inside psychotic levels of irrationality; and most individuals are aggressively (and/ or hysterically) resistant to reality.
I don't have 'an answer' - not least because each person is an individual; except that there is a great deal more individual responsibility for individual choices than is commonly allowed for. There are a lot of bad people around! - people who are, from early life, actively-seeking excuses to induge their own worst qualities, and who are incensed by even a suggestion that they have erred and ought to repent (no matter that Jesus has made it so very easy for us to repent).
My current assumption is that we all began differently, from eternity, and some of us began with a strong tendency to reject God and creation, and to prefer the demonic alternatives. When we leave the pervasive goodness of Heaven and are incarnated, there is only a small hope that such persons will align with God and creation.
Under modern conditions such God-rejectors, damnation preferrers, have set-up and maintain and extend an alternative, demonic 'virtual reality' which they are determined to protect against truth, beauty, and virtue. Most of modern culture and almost all institutions are becoming primarily dedicated to this false, ugly and wicked fake-reality.
But (such is their success in this project) that the evil nature of the evil virtual reality - and its falseness - is becoming so blatantly obvious that it is less alluring than ever - and those who have good hearts are able immediately to know it for what it is, even without anybody to tell them.
E. Michael Jones is regarded as a crank (in no small part because of his no-punches-pulled criticism of Judaism) but in the matter of sexual "freedom" as a means of social control I think he's rather cogent.
He has a gigantic book on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Libido-Dominandi-Liberation-Political-Control/dp/1587314657
but if you just search him on YouTube there are many videos where he summarizes this thesis.
"The trouble is that we know, from decades of experience, that common sense does not work and genuine utilitarianism (doing what most likely minimises sufferinging or enhances gratification) does not work. Our culture is now deep-inside psychotic levels of irrationality; and most individuals are aggressively (and/ or hysterically) resistant to reality."
I doubt that many reality-resistsnt people are reading your blog. I suppose that you and your commenters are writing for those who either have some common sense, or are not "too far gone."
Hence, my comment was intended to supply some backup (an amen, perhaps) to your opening premise, and to provide "ammo" and "armor" for those readers who are still raising children and/or are in positions to influence those who aren't "too far gone" or have not yet bought into the virtuality. Culture change happens in the homes, raising up a new generation, and in "proselyting", perhaps gaining those who are on the margins.
I realize that you mostly avoid low-level nitty-gritty things and specific examples against which the anarchists love to argue and never stop; and you stay at bird's eye or airplane level view with big picture analysis. Yet, your followers, those many silent readers, likely do want some more low-level "things" to use when they themselves are out in the trenches.
"But (such is their success in this project) that the evil nature of the evil virtual reality - and its falseness - is becoming so blatantly obvious that it is less alluring than ever - and those who have good hearts are able immediately to know it for what it is, even without anybody to tell them."
Even most good-hearted people are "outer driven" as opposed to "inner-driven", no? As you often say, we absorb our basic assumptions from surrounding culture and contacts -- media and social circles. The links and references I like to give in comments are given in hopes that both the silent and non-silent readers, who are already on your/our side, will use them as tools to be influencers in their own right, taking light to those who have not been duped yet, or who are not too far into the darkness.
You hobnob in higher circles of academia, bureaucracy, socio-political leadership, and intelligentsia than I do. So maybe people at your level, and in your circles, are too far gone. But many more people at the grass roots of society still have some common sense. _They_ still need facts and figures, and voices of reason, such as Dr. Miriam Grossman, and commentator Matt Walsh, who can assure them they aren't the crazy ones, and "arm" them in raising up children, and influencing those others who they can.
By the way, I often quote and link to your posts and books in comments on LDS blogs. :-) (And yes, I also occasionally link to the "Possum Lady" of youtube, MEpearlA. One can't keep the bow strung 100% of the time.)
-Books.
@Books - I have done less hobnobbing than anybody I know over the past decade; although earlier in my life I did a fair bit and have known or met several of the Establishment - including the UK's ?next prime minister!
Post a Comment