The Clash of Orthodoxies

I recently finished reading "The Clash of Orthodoxies", by Robert P. George.  Dr. George describes the clash that is at our doorstep between those who claim the Judeo-Christian worldview and those who have abandoned that worldview in favor of, what he calls, the "secular orthodoxy".  "The issues immediately in play," he says, "have mainly, though not exclusively, to do with sexuality, the transmitting and taking of human life, and the place of religion and religiously informed moral judgment in public life."

In this post I want to look at Dr. George's critique of secular views on sexuality as contrasted with the traditional, Judeo-Christian view.  Professor George is a philosopher.  As such, it might take a few readings of the included quotes to fully grasp what he is saying.  If you take the time however, I think you will find his views quite enlightening. 

Professor George claims that the liberal misunderstanding of sexual morality is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the human person.  He explains it this way:

Implicit in [secular views on sexual morality] is a particular understanding of the human person as an essentially non--bodily being who inhabits a nonpersonal body. According to this understanding--which contrasts with the Judeo--Christian view of the human person as a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit--the "person" is the conscious and desiring "self" as distinct from the body which may exist as a merely "biological," and, thus, sub-personal, reality.

Secularist ideology holds to a 'dualistic' view of the human person.  The body is seen as a mere instrument of the true "self".  The real "you" is your consciousness.  Your body is not truly part of you, but rather an instrument to be used by your consciousness in seeking pleasure and other forms of personal fulfillment.  Thus bodily unity, through sex acts that are procreative in type can never be personal unity because the body is not truly part of the person.  The most that can ever be achieved between two individuals is emotional unity.  Sexual conduct is simply a means to express affection, experience pleasure, and heighten the emotional intensity of a relationship through sex play.  This emotional unity through sex play can be achieved as easily by two men or two women as it can by a man and a woman (or as Professor George asks, "...if it is a purely emotional bond, some ask, why only two?)

Contrast the secular view of sexual morality with the traditional, Judeo-Christian view.  Professor George describes it as follows:

Rational reflection on marriage as it is participated in by men and women makes it clear: since men and women are essentially embodied (and not simply inhabitors of a suit of flesh [contrasting with the secular view]), the biological union of spouses in reproductive--type acts consummates and actualizes their marriage, making the spouses truly, and not merely metaphorically, "two in one flesh." The sexual union of spouses--far from being something extrinsic to marriage or merely instrumental to procreation, pleasure, the expression of tender feelings, or anything else--is an essential aspect of marriage as an intrinsic human good. Marital acts are the biological matrix of the multi--level (bodily, emotional, dispositional, spiritual) sharing of life and commitment that marriage is.

But, one might ask, is a true bodily or "biological" union of persons possible? Indeed it is. Consider that for most human functions or activities, say, digestion or locomotion, the organism performing the function or act is the individual human being. In respect of the act of reproduction, however, things are different. Reproduction is a single act or function, yet it is performed by a male and female as a mated pair. For purposes of reproduction, the male and female partners become a single organism, they form a single reproductive principle. This organic unity is achieved precisely in the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species--even in cases (such as those of infertile couples) in which the nonbehavioral conditions of reproduction do not obtain.

Properly understood in light of a non--dualistic account of the human person, the goodness of marriage and marital intercourse simply cannot be reduced to the status of a mere means to pleasure, feelings of closeness, or any other extrinsic goal. Indeed, it cannot legitimately be treated (as some Christians have, admittedly, sought to treat it) as a mere means to procreation, though children are among the central purposes of marriage and help to specify its meaning as a moral reality even for married couples who cannot have children. [Marital] acts realize the unity of marriage (italics added), which includes the coming to be of children.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition bodily, sexual union is personal union.  Since the body is not seen as a mere instrument of the conscious and desiring "self", sex cannot be reduced to a means of pleasure seeking, expressing affection, or even to the begetting of children.  It is properly viewed as a biologically unifying act that forms the foundation of a multi-level (biological, spiritual, emotional, etc.) sharing of life between two individuals.  As I have noted in a previous post, this view helps to make sense of the consummation requirement that is part of the legal tradition of all western civilizations.  Short of a sex act that was procreative in type, the marriage of a couple was not viewed as legally complete since it lacked the biological unity that was seen as an essential element of a completed marriage.

Why is the liberal view on sexuality so damaging?  Because it is a lie.  And like all lies, once it is accepted it leads to other lies.  Liberal views on abortion are a natural outgrowth of their views on sexual morality.  They want sexuality to be an innocent pleasure, but they cannot hide from the fact that quite often, sexual behavior manifests its biologically unitive characteristic in the creation of new life.  Rather than recognizing the error of their ways, they claim that the fetus (while human) is not yet a person (lacking the conscious and desiring aspect to qualify as a 'self').  Thus, it is not due full respect under the law and can be discarded at the mother's whim.  The mother, buying into the secular lie, is often faced with tremendous guilt following an abortion because she senses the lie at some level of her soul.  Once again, rather than acknowledging the lie, secularists hope that by repeating the lie often enough and loud enough, the guilt will be removed.

Sexual activity is immoral, secularists claim, only when it is non-consensual or when the consenting persons do not take proper precaution to avoid unwanted pregnancy or disease.  When presented with evidence of continued unwanted pregnancies, disease, and the emotional distress that are a natural outgrowth of their secular dogma (and this in spite of their best efforts to promote safe-sex and abortion as necessary), they blame it on 'Christian Fundamentalists'.  These problems are easily solved, they claim.  If Christians would stop blocking secular policy efforts and join the secularists in advocating abortion and safe-sex practices, individuals could continue to enjoy the free and easy pleasures of sex without the unpleasant side-effects.

What if secularists achieved their goals?  What if all of humanity joined in the crusade to make sex the innocent pleasure that secularists want it to be?  What if abortion put an end to all unwanted pregnancy, and safe-sex was practiced so perfectly that sexually transmitted disease was completely eradicated (actually if safe-sex was practiced perfectly I suppose there would be no need for abortion)?  Would we have reached the state of sexual nirvana where we could have our proverbial cake and eat it too?  Dr. George thinks not:

The psychosomatic integrity (i.e. mind/body unity) of the person is another of the basic or intrinsic goods of the human person. This integrity is disrupted in any sexual act that lacks the common good of marriage as its central specifying point. Where sex is sought purely for pleasure, or as a means of inducing feelings of emotional closeness, or for some other extrinsic end, the body is treated as a sub--personal, purely instrumental, reality. This existential separation of the body and the conscious and desiring part of the self serves literally to dis--integrate the person. It takes the person apart, disrupting the good of acting as the dynamically unified being one truly is.

Did our Christian forebears invent this idea of integrity? Did they dream up the notion that sexual immorality damages integrity by dis--integrating the person? No. Christianity has had, to be sure, a very important role in promoting and enhancing our understanding of sexual morality. But in the dialogues of Plato and the teachings of Aristotle, in the writings of Plutarch and the great Roman stoic Musonius Rufus, and, of course, in Jewish tradition, one can find the core of this central, important teaching about the way sex is so central to integrity, and therefore so central not only to us as individuals but to us as a community. Disintegrated, individual human beings cannot form an integrated community.

Individuals who are 'disintegrated' will be incapable of then integrating with other individuals to form lasting families, and communities that are necessary to the functioning of a free society.  The truth of this claim is most easily witnessed in those countries where state sponsored welfare is most prevalent.  Is it any coincidence that those countries that are most heavily dependent on the government to provide for basic welfare needs are also those countries most entrenched in secular orthodoxy?  As the voluntary forms of social bonding and support break down, it falls to the state to perform these welfare functions.  Once again, rather than recognize that this unfortunate result is the natural consequence of secular ideology, secularists pretend that state sponsored welfare is 'enlightened' and 'desired.'  This socialist dream, which sounds so wonderful in theory, does not look so rosy when viewed in the light of history. Perhaps it is this destructive state that the leaders of my faith had in mind when they said:

"We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."