The Atlantic Report: The Catholic Church Explains Sexual Mores—With Economics

One of the earliest turning points in my adult life of thought happened because of Harper's. I was deep in my policy magazine days, reading "thought-provoking" articles with an eye a bit less jaundiced than today.

I don't remember the article but I clearly remember thinking that I agreed with the left that all this stuff--celebrity culture, sports, and other media events--were distractions.

But what was it that was important and being obscured?

The left's answer was politics.

It's enough to make one nauseous. In the broad scheme of the world and human life, the most important element is skirmishing over laws and administration?

That's it? Their answer was completely unsatisfying. If that is all there is, then life is a lot less than it's been made out to be.

This is why Emma Green's article, "The Catholic Church Explains Sexual Mores—With Economics," has a large picture of Marx attached to it. In a politicized world, individuals are reduced to economic actors, just the way ol' Karl thought about them.

Green does have some insight:

It's ironic that Vatican is being cheered for softening its stance on homosexuality and premarital sex by advocates of personal sexual freedom, yet this shift has nothing to do with endorsing individualism—it's more of a recognition that sometimes, people don't have the ability to make the sexual choices the Church wants them to.

In true critical theory fashion, Green makes several references to Pope Francis' opposition to the "free market" and "capitalism." "Critical theory" because the assumption is that the opposite of capitalism is Marxism.

Green points out that the mid-synod report differs from the pre-synod agenda only in language:

The pre-synod document relies on the straightforward language of right and wrong, not references to structural market forces that affect people's behavior in ways they can't control; economic logic shifts the responsibility for traditionally "immoral" acts away from people and onto the economic system they live in.

It appears that Green's position is that the Church is cloaking its moral judgments in economic terms in order to appeal to modern progressives. A moral wolf in "objective" sheep's clothing, so to speak.

I'm Catholic because the vision it promotes is more accurate, more positive and all-around better than that provided by kitchen-sink modernism. Responding to the charges of the sexual revolutionaries seems to be the wrong tactic. If they're thinking about branding, a good slogan would be, "A Life with Meaning Starts Here."

The Atlantic Report: Can Sex Be Just a Little Bit Sinful?

Elizabeth Tenety asks, "Is the Catholic Church changing its teaching on sexual sin?"

Speaking about those who live together without being married, one bishop reportedly said, “There are absolutely valid and important elements even of sanctification and of true love that may be present even when one does not fully realize this ideal.”

Within the Church, this idea isn’t new, but some see it as radical: It’s theological concept known as graduality, or gradualism, which suggests that since most people develop in their moral behavior gradually over time, the church should engage individuals where they are, rather than reject them outright for not meeting an ideal.

I'm not too wrapped up in this issue, even though it affects me directly. I prefer to wait to see what happens.

What I think is at issue here is the transition of Christianity being the dominant force of the West to becoming an embattled force. The Church has to reckon with individuals who have built their lives in the modern world before coming to the Truth.

It's the difference between saying, "Don't go off the path," and "Come onto the path." When the path of traditional marriage was the norm, it was easier to address the more difficult aspects of moral life.

I expect that the Church will eventually settle on some kind of "wounded seekers" perspective. Modernity has led us astray and encouraged individuals to--not just reject--ignore moral teaching. What is a forty-five-year-old to do, divorced twice and with children from each marriage, when he or she turns to the Church?

The Christian mission in our century is to reclaim lost ground. It's an overwhelming task; how can the church reintroduce the concepts of the self and the self's place in the universe when most Westerners, even those with a desire for conversion, have no basis for understanding them?

Prudence is Our Greatest Virtue

Adam Gurri at The Umlaut tells us Prudence is a Virtue:

If you assume a notion of justice, or an extremely other-directed moral philosophy, in which the entire purpose of our lives is to provide for other people, prudence is still a crucial virtue. If you cannot provide for yourself, you cannot hope to provide for others. Au contraire; the selfless and imprudent saint becomes nothing more than a sinking ship, who is more likely to pull those he wishes to help to the bottom of the ocean with him, rather than improving their lot. If you cannot provide for yourself, how can you hope to provide for others?

In my foot-dragging path back to Catholicism, contemplating prudence was a major step. To hear progressive Christians and holier-than-thou leftists tell it, there is no martyrdom too stupid to avoid. Better to open one's borders to foreign cultures and endanger one's neighbors than to be intolerant. Better to allow all manner of sexual deviance at one's doorstep than to be judgmental. It's no virtue to allow one's children to be slaughtered because one is a pacifist. A pacifist is not what the children need.

As Gurri points out, prudence is the balance by which all moral judgments must be measured.

When thinking about human society, my starting point is the isolated village of the pre-modern age. The population and resources are small. Travel to the nearest city takes days. The monarch's army is nowhere close.

Assume you are the patriarch of that village and a stranger has come into town and murdered a resident. He is captured and brought to you for justice. He swears that, given a chance, he will kill again, and will do so as long as he is able.

What is the appropriate action? There is no prison in the village--the crimes committed there don't require major penalties. It's impossible to confine the man for the rest of his life--the necessary resources aren't there nor is there a way to keep him permanently locked away. The prudent action is to execute him.

But isn't taking a life a sin? Yes, but the patriarch has an obligation to his village, who look to him for protection and guidance. Is it better to let the man loose to wreak violence on them? Say he is escorted out of the village--is it moral to sentence a stranger to certain death?

No. The patriarch's obligations to the dependent and the innocent outweigh his obligations to the murderer as a fellow human. So he orders an execution and prays for forgiveness.

The progressive evolution described by Moldbug as an outgrowth of Quakerism and Unitarianism is really just Christianity stripped of prudence. There is no hierarchy of virtues or vices--every moral failing or achievement can be thrown into an enemy's face, like when Alec Baldwin discovered that his years of championing liberal poverty and environmental policies meant nothing because he was thought homophobic.

Prudence tells us how to make the best of the world as it is. That's why it's the highest of virtues man can achieve without God's intervention.