Nova et Vetera, English Edition, Vol. 19, No.

4 (2021): 1257-1270 1257

The Politics of Chastity

EDWARD FESER
Pasadena City College
Pasadena, CA

REINHARD HUTTER HAS AUTHORED an excellent and much-needed

essay on the virtue of chastity, with a special focus on the unprecedented
threat to this virtue posed by contemporary online pornography.' His essay
addresses the moral and spiritual aspects of the issue, as illuminated by both
natural law and divine revelation. But there is also a crucial political dimen-
sion that the essay does not address, though it too is illuminated by Hiitter’s
insights. I propose in this essay to supplement Hiitter’s account with some
remarks on this dimension.

Sex and Human Nature

The political dimension I want to address is neither peripheral to chastity
nor related to it only contingently. For, together with the moral and spiri-
tual aspects of chastity, it follows directly and necessarily from our nature as
rational social animals. This is evident from the traditional Thomistic natural
law account of the foundations of sexual morality, so I will begin with an
exposition of that.
The fundamental way in which we are social animals is by being familial
animals. And sex—both in the sense of there being two sexes, and in the
sense of the sexual act—exists for the purpose of creating new families. In
particular, the distinctive physiology and psychology of male human beings
exists for the sake of making them fathers, and the distinctive physiology

1 Chapter 8 of Bound for Beatitude: A Thomistic Study in Eschatology and Ethics

(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2019). The chapter is a
revised version of the article “Chastity and the Scourge of Pornography,” The Thomist
77 (2013): 1-39.
1258 Edward Feser

and psychology of female human beings exists for the sake of making them
mothers. Of course, not all men and women actually become fathers and
mothers, but the point is that that is what their being either men or women
in the first place is for. If we did not reproduce in a way that required
fathers and mothers, there would be no males and no females. Hence there
would be no sex organs, no sexual arousal, and no sexual act.
Now, the most obvious respect in which sex has this teleology is that
male sexual physiology and arousal have the biological function of getting
semen into the vagina, whereas female sexual physiology and arousal have
the biological function of facilitating reception of the semen, so as to get
the sperm it contains into proximity with an ovum, so that pregnancy
will result. It is often assumed that getting this plumbing right is the main
concern of the natural law theorist. Nothing could be further from the
truth. To be sure, the natural law theorist does insist on getting the plumb-
ing right, but that is because the plumbing w/timately exists for the sake of
a larger and more important end—just like a beaver’s teeth u/timately exist
for the sake of building shelters for beaver families, their function of gnaw-
ing trees so as to provide materials for beaver dams (which in turn provide
the setting for the shelters) being merely an essential means to that end.?
The locus classicus for Aquinas’s treatment of these matters is the discus-
sion in Summa contra gentiles III, ch. 2, nos. 122-26. There is a little bit
there about emissions of semen and the like, but there is much, much more
about what children and mothers need in order for family life to be possi-
ble, and how fathers have to provide it. That is to say, Aquinas’s treatment
of what it is to be a man or a woman goes well beyond having sex organs of
a certain kind and using them in a certain way, and that is exactly what we
should expect given that we are social animals, and rational social animals.
Sex is for making you a father or a mother, with a// that that entails given
our social and rational nature, and any deliberate use of sex that positively
frustrates that end (with a// that it entails given our rational and social
nature) is as contrary to what is good for us as breaking off teeth or gnaw-
ing only rocks rather than trees is contrary to what is good for beavers.
Now, one way this might happen is when a man sleeps with a woman to
whom he has not committed himself in the way definitive of marriage. For
any children that result from such acts, and the woman too who becomes
a mother as a result, will be left helpless by such a man. Aquinas empha-
sizes several respects in which this is so. First, mother and children are
in need of material provision, yet especially when the children are young

2 I borrow this example from Steven J. Jensen, Knowing the Natural Law
(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2015), 72-73.
 The Politics of Chastity 1259

it is very difficult for the mother to supply this herself. Second, it is not
only material provision children need, for they are rational animals and
thus need education as well, which takes a long time. Third, they need not
only maternal nurturing but paternal discipline. All of this is the work of
many years, and thus requires the stable commitment of being a husband.
Providing all of these things is no less part of the role of father than emit-
ting semen is, and thus it is toward the fulfillment of this whole paternal/
husbandly function that a man’s sexual faculties point. A woman’s sexual
faculties point toward the fulfillment of the whole maternal/wifely function
that complements the paternal one. In this way, there is for the natural
law theorist a natural teleological connection between sex, marriage, and
child-rearing, rather than a merely conventional one.
When natural law theorists say that sex has a procreative function,
then, they do not mean merely that it has the function of generating new
animals, but that it has the function of generating new animals of the social
and rational type, with the long-term commitment that that entails. The
making of a new rational social animal is not completed with birth, but
only when children have matured to the point that they are capable of leav-
ing home and beginning families of their own. To have sex is to carry out
an action that has a// of that as its teleology, just as for a beaver to gnaw ata
tree is to carry out an action that has the sheltering of the beaver’s family as
its teleology. And in both cases, this larger teleological context determines
what counts as healthy or dysfunctional (and thus good or bad) behavior.
Of course, sex is pleasurable, but the pleasure of sex has its own teleol-
ogy, just as the pleasure the beaver takes in gnawing trees or eating nuts
and the like does. In both cases, the end or point of the pleasure is to draw
the animal toward carrying out the action with which the pleasure is asso-
ciated. But here too, it is the whole teleological picture that must be kept
in view, not just the sexual act considered in isolation. And here as in every
other aspect of our animal nature, our social and rational nature gives new
significance to what in a non-human animal might be mere pleasurable
sensations. Hence the pleasure of sex has as its natural end the drawing of
the rational animal toward fatherhood or motherhood and the family life
that that entails. And that is why, in rational animals, sexual desire comes
to be associated with romantic fantasy, idealization of the sexual partner,
a disposition toward playfulness and affection, and so on. What cognitive
scientists call “theory of mind” plays a crucial role as well, insofar as sexual
desire typically involves not just a desire to sleep with another person but
also the desire that the other person wants the same and feels a similar
attraction. The pleasure looked forward to is not the mere release of one’s
own bodily tension but rather a shared pleasure in an essentially interper-
1260 Edward Feser

sonal activity. The perceptual and affective components of sexual arousal

and pleasure are, in human beings, fused with an irreducible conceptual
element. Thus, as Aquinas writes, “the lower powers follow the motion of
the higher if that motion is more intense (as we see that a man’s whole body
is inflamed and set in motion at the sight of a woman he loves).”*
Thomistic natural law theorists thus hold that in addition to its procre-
ative end, the sexual act has a wvitive end, but that this second end is
subsidiary to the first insofar as it exists in order to facilitate the first. Aqui-
nas notes that “the greatest friendship between husband and wife” can be
produced by their commitment to a common domestic project together
with “the act of fleshly union, which produces a certain gentle association
even among beasts.” But it is because sex is for creating new families that
it also happens in this way to facilitate a bond between spouses. If there
were no such procreative end, there would not be two different sexes, and
thus no sexual act, and thus none of the pleasure and gentle association
the sexual act produces. In short, the procreative end provides the larger
teleological context within which the unitive end must be understood.

Unnatural Sexuality
Now, it is for the purpose of facilitating this unitive end, so that the procre-
ative end might in turn be fulfilled, that sex involves “the greatest of plea-
sures ... [which] absorb the mind more than any others.”* The upside of
this is that sexual pleasure can function as a kind of superglue that bonds a
man and woman together long enough for a new family to get started, and
retains enough strength to help maintain a stable bond even after the initial
intensity of romantic passion has subsided. The downside is that, precisely
because sexual pleasure is the most intense of pleasures, it has the greatest
tendency to cloud reason. In particular, when we take pleasure in what is
contrary to the teleology of sex, and especially when we become habituated
in doing so, it becomes harder for us to acknowledge that teleology, and
easier to engage in rationalizations that blind us to it. And this can corrupt

3 Thomas Aquinas, On Love and Charity: Readings from the “Commentary on the
Sentences of Peter Lombard,’ trans. Peter A. Kwasniewski, Thomas Bolin, O.S.B.,
and Joseph Bolin (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2008),
34.
4 Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles Ill, ch. 123, in Summa Contra Gentiles,
Book Three: Providence, Part II, trans. Vernon J. Bourke (Notre Dame, IN: Univer-
sity of Notre Dame Press, 1975), 148.
5 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae [ST] IVI, q. 46. a. 3, in Summa Theologica,
trans. the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 5 vols. (New York: Benziger,
1948); emphasis added.
 The Politics of ‘Chastity 1261

reason in general, insofar as the very idea of a natural order of things that
implies that indulgence of some pleasures is dysfunctional, and therefore
bad, becomes hateful to us. Accordingly, Aquinas identifies what he calls
“blindness of mind” as the chief of the “daughters” of lust or sexual vice,
and argues that sexual vices more than any other tend to erode “prudence”
or the capacity for practical reason.°
Hence, consider some of the behaviors and habits that natural law
theory condemns as contrary to the natural teleology of sex. Fornication
tends to bring children into the world outside of the stable two-parent
family unit they need for their full maturation. Hence while an act of
fornication is not per se contrary to the proximate end of the sexual act
(the climax which brings both insemination and emotional bonding), it is
contrary to its “/timate end (the creation and maintenance of a stable mari-
tal-cum-family unit). You might say that such an act is directed toward the
right sort of object, but in the wrong sort of context. Homosexual acts,
though, are not even directed toward the right sort of object, and are on
the natural law analysis contrary to the proximate end as well as the remote
end. If the fornicator is like a beaver who gnaws on trees but does not build
dams, the person acting on homosexual desire is like the beaver who gnaws
on rocks instead of trees.
Now, repeated indulgence in and rationalization of fornication dulls
the intellect’s capacity to see the natural end of sex and the will’s capacity
to pursue it, making sexual pleasure an end in itself rather than a facilitator
of a larger purpose. Repeated indulgence in and rationalization of homo-
sexual desire has an even greater tendency to dull the intellect and will in
these ways, since it is not even directed toward the right sort of object. The
intense pleasure associated with such behaviors “superglues” the mind onto
ends other than the natural one, hardening one’s orientation in an unnat-
ural direction, like a kind of psychological crippling. Aristotle compares
habituated homosexual desire to the compulsion to eat dirt or other
nonnutritive substances, a disorder known as pica.’ Just as pica would be
no less dysfunctional even if it turned out to have a genetic basis, so too,
for the natural law theorist, homosexual desire would be no less dysfunc-
tional even if it turned out to have a genetic basis. That would entail, not
the absence of psychological dysfunction, but rather the presence of both
psychological and genetic dysfunction.
As habituated and rationalized sexual vice becomes more widespread,
it inevitably takes a toll on the stability of the family, as individuals no

¢6 Aquinas, ST IL-IL, q. 153, a. 5; q. 53, a. 6.

7 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 7.6.1148b15-19a 20.
1262 Edward Feser

longer see it as the end for which sexual desire exists. Instead of seeking to
restrain and reform disordered sexual desire in a way that will be conducive
to strengthening the institution of the family, they seek to alter the insti-
tution of the family in a way that will be conducive to indulging whatever
disordered sexual desires they happen to have. The tail comes to wag the
dog. The natural order of things becomes harder to see and people become
less willing to see it. Increasing numbers of children come to lack the
stability and discipline provided by parents who sacrifice their short-term
desires for the good of the family, and are neither encouraged nor prepared
to form such stable and self-sacrificing unions themselves. In these ways,
sexual vice strikes deep at both our rational nature and our social nature.

Sexual Immorality as Social Injustice

It has become a cliché in modern political life that what happens in the
bedroom between consenting adults hurts no one else and therefore ought
not to be the concern of the state. The account just sketched implies that
nothing could be further from the truth, and recent history confirms it.
Consider the effects of fornication, which has become extremely common
as the social stigma against it has virtually disappeared in the decades since
the beginning of the Sexual Revolution. One effect has been widespread
fatherlessness, which has trapped millions of children in poverty, drug
addiction, gang activity, and other criminality. Another effect has been
millions of abortions. In short—and as Aquinas would have predicted—
widespread fornication has led to an enormous number of poor children,
delinquent children, and dead children. Thus does sex, which has as its
natural end the generation, rearing, and education of children, now regu-
larly lead by way of illegitimacy and abortion to the impoverishment, moral
corruption, and murder of children.
Another effect has been widespread denial of this reality. To be
sure, academic social scientists and political commentators occasionally
acknowledge the ill effects of fatherlessness. But very few are willing to
draw the conclusion that the Sexual Revolution was a mistake and that
the social stigmas it swept away ought to be restored. The tendency is
to blame the resulting pathologies on other things—racism, insufficient
government spending, and so on—when the true cause is staring them
in the face. Thus has habituation in sexual vice brought about exactly the
sort of corruption of intellect and will that Aquinas characterized as the
“daughters of lust.”
The mainstreaming of fornication as a way of life has also harmed
women, and even men, in ways Aquinas would not be surprised by. Having
made themselves sexually available throughout their fertile years but also
 The Politics of ‘Chastity 1263

practicing contraception and abortion, large numbers of women now

find themselves without husbands, childless, and lonely when those years
are past. Large numbers of men have become aimless and prone to risky
behavior without the purpose and discipline that the role of husband and
father provides.
The pathologies resulting from fornication do not merely harm the
men, women, and children immediately involved, but spread out to soci-
ety at large. Women become more dependent on state assistance, which
undermines subsidiarity. The greater tendency toward gang activity and
criminality among young men who grow up without fathers leads to neigh-
borhoods becoming unsafe. These neighborhoods also become impover-
ished, since their lack of safety makes them less able to support businesses.
Gang activity and criminality also lead to higher incidences of violent
confrontations with police, the sequel to which is greater distrust of
police, racial tensions, and the like, which then lead to further criminality
and general social unrest. Children who do not know anything but these
dysfunctional arrangements tend to create them anew when they grow up
and have children of their own, so that the pathologies recur generation
after generation.
Other aspects of the Sexual Revolution reinforce this breakdown in
the stability of the family. Even when people do marry, liberalized divorce
laws and the disappearance of the stigma against divorce make it less
likely that marriages will last. The normalization of homosexuality has
massively reinforced the attitude that sex is fundamentally about pleasure
and personal fulfillment, with child-rearing and the formation of a new
family unit coming to be seen as optional extras rather than the whole
point of sex. The influence of feminism has massively eroded the once
commonsense understanding that women are by nature directed toward
a maternal/wifely role and men are by nature directed toward a paternal/
husbandly role. Transgenderism has eroded this understanding even
further, and popularized the idea that sex roles are entirely conventional,
fluid, and optional. Indeed, feminism and transgenderism have repre-
sented traditional sex roles as positively oppressive.
Now, the family is the fundamental social unit, so that the common
good of society as a whole depends on the health of the family. This
traditional conclusion of natural law theory is confirmed by the patholo-
gies that have followed upon the weakening of the family in the wake of
the Sexual Revolution. Though some aspects of this revolution are often
defended in the name of social justice, they are in fact instances of the
most fundamental kind of social imjustice, destructive as they are of the
fundamental unit of society.
1264 Edward Feser

Since government exists in order to safeguard the common good,

government has a grave duty in justice to promote the health of the family,
and thus to oppose the tendencies I have been describing. In fact, though,
modern Western governments have not only not opposed them, but have
encouraged them and in some cases even written them into law. Examples
would be the legalization and subsidization of abortion, liberalized divorce
laws, the legalization and subsidization of contraception, the legalization
of pornography, the legalization of same-sex marriage, the subsidization of
day care in order to facilitate the entry of mothers into the work force, the
inculcation of feminism and acceptance of homosexuality and transgen-
derism via the public education system and antidiscrimination laws, the
forcing of businesses and religious organizations to fund contraception for
employees, and so on.
In these ways, the modern state has to a large extent become a kind of
“pornocracy” that directly pits itself against the family and against the
virtue of chastity that is its safeguard. It has to that extent made itself the
agent of the most basic kind of social injustice—and thus, to that extent,
tyrannical. (It is worth recalling Plato’s warning in the Republic that the
tyrant is the man dominated by his passions, and above all by lust.) To be
sure, there are countervailing tendencies, and much that modern states do
that is perfectly legitimate and necessary. All the same, we must face up
to the reality, disturbing as it is, that the modern liberal democratic state
seems to be evolving into something diabolically contra naturam.

Pornography as a Universal Acid

To begin to tie my discussion in to the themes of Hiitter’s essay, we might
note the role that pornography, and our highly sexualized popular culture
more generally, play in upholding this unjust regime.
The bad effects of habitual pornography use are often noted even by
secular psychologists. Habitual viewers often have unrealistic expectations
of real-life sexual partners and sexual encounters, a tendency to deperson-
alize the sexual act, and sometimes even problems with impotence. They
often become desensitized to what was once titillating and require ever
more extreme content in order to maintain arousal. Pornography use often
becomes compulsive, as does the masturbation that is its concomitant. A
spouse’s addiction to pornography is implicated in many divorces.
Naturally, the procreative end of sex recedes from the habitual pornog-
raphy user’s view, as the pleasure of sex becomes an end in itself. But the
unitive end of sex is undermined as well. Sexual arousal and desire have as
their natural teleology the direction of a person outward toward another
 The Politics of Chastity 1265

person, and the intensity of the pleasure of climax is intended to bond the
person emotionally to that other. By contrast, the fantasy world of the
pornography user is izternal to himself, and the pleasure of his mastur-
batory climax locks him into this private fantasy realm and increasingly
unable to find similar satisfaction in a real human being. Worse, the need
to find ever more extreme subject matter in order to achieve the same levels
of titillation entails that the pleasure he takes in the associated mastur-
batory climax will “superglue” him onto ever more disordered habits of
thought and feeling where sex is concerned.
This is all bad enough, though so far the damage I have been describ-
ing directly affects individual users and their immediate relationships to
other human beings. But insofar as the use of pornography undermines
the stability of the relationships between men and women, and thus the
stability of the family, it naturally has a ripple effect on society at large.
Moreover, the use of pornography is known to affect users’ opinions
about matters of sex at a more philosophical level, and where they touch
on public policy. For example, social scientists have noted a correlation
between a tendency to use pornography and a tendency to support same-
sex marriage.®
Now, as Aquinas notes, disordered sexual pleasures “above all debauch
a man's mind” and “more than anything else work the greatest havoc in a
man’s mind.”? With pornography use, they do so in an especially insidious
way, because the costs are not as immediate or dramatic as they are with
fornication (where an unintended pregnancy can result), adultery (where
a jealous spouse can cause one harm), or promiscuity (where venereal
disease and jilted lovers can cause harm). Moreover, unlike other sexual
sins, pornography use is now extremely easy to indulge in and in a way that
can be kept secret indefinitely. One need not convince another person to
participate in a sexual act or even to sell one the materials, thereby risking
embarrassment and exposure. All one needs is a cell phone, and portrayals
of the most debauched acts imaginable are seconds away.
Now, as Aquinas teaches, it is not possible to suppress all immorality
through human law, and governments ought not to try to do so. He writes:

Human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority

of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not
forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more

8 See Mark Regnerus, “Porn Use and Supporting Same-Sex Marriage,” Public
Discourse, December 20, 2012.
9 Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 153, a. 1.
1266 Edward Feser

grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain;

and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibi-
tion of which human society could not be maintained: thus human
law prohibits murder, theft and such like.’

If the state were to try to extirpate all sexual immorality, it would in the
nature of the case have to extend its reach as far as possible into the private
sphere, and would not succeed even then, given the very strong tempta-
tions associated with sex. Hence, it would be a very bad idea literally to
send police into bedrooms to hunt down those engaging in adultery, forni-
cation, homosexual acts, and so on. Such draconian policies would do far
more harm than good.
However, the immediate harm of such immoral behavior is localized,
and things are very different where what is in view are policies and actions
that have a tendency to undermine the stability of the family as an insti-
tution—and thus “without the prohibition of which human society could
not be maintained,” to borrow Aquinas’s words. Examples would include
practices, like those mentioned above, that were once illegal but are now
supported by the state—abortion, same-sex marriage, easy divorce, and so
on. These things can and ought once again to be forbidden by law.
The same goes for pornography, which does to the moral character of
individuals and societies what heroin does to bodies, and I would argue
that its distribution should be punished with a severity comparable to the
severity with which drug kingpins are punished. The legality of pornogra-
phy is often defended, even by those who disapprove of it, in the name of
free speech. But such a defense is fallacious. From a natural law perspec-
tive, the right to free speech is grounded in our nature as fallible rational
animals. Because we are rational creatures, we ought as far as possible to
try to persuade each other through rational argumentation rather than
force, and because we are fallible we need to be open to rational criticism.
Freedom of speech is thus a safeguard on the proper exercise of our intel-
lectual powers. But pornography does not appeal to the intellect. Rather,
it appeals to our passions, and has an inherent tendency to disorder them.
Moreover, as Aquinas’s analysis of the “daughters of lust” implies, it does
so precisely in a manner that positively impairs rather than facilitates our
intellectual powers. Properly understood, then, the rationale for freedom
of speech points if anything away from rather than toward a right to the
use of pornography.

10 Aquinas, ST LII, q. 96, a. 2.

 The Politics of Chastity 1267

Integralism and Sexual Morality

So far my discussion has appealed to considerations drawn from natural
law rather than divine revelation. But two key insights from Hiitter’s article
point to the relevance of the latter as well to what I am calling the politics
of chastity. In particular, Hiitter argues persuasively that in the modern
world, pornography and other sins against chastity are primarily a byprod-
uct of the vice of acedia. He also argues, no less persuasively, that ultimately
“chastity is restored, preserved, and perfected from above,’ by way of grace
and the theological virtue of hope.”
Now, acedia—apathy with respect to spiritual goods, and in particular
with respect to what Aquinas calls “the Divine good”!*—is especially
fostered by the two main political ideologies that have dominated the
modern world, namely liberal individualism and socialism. Both put exces-
sive emphasis on material goods, liberalism by way of fostering consum-
erism and socialism by way of a primarily economic conception of social
justice. Both have frequently (though not always) been associated with
hostility to religion. Liberalism has evinced such hostility in the name of
freeing individuals from the fetters on their desires imposed by religious
dogma and the political influence of the clergy. Socialism has done so in
the name of breaking the power of an institution that reconciles believers
to economic injustice and stands in the way of the state’s efforts to rectify
it. By focusing human efforts on bettering material conditions in this life
and often fostering suspicion of religion, these ideologies have opened the
door to the acedia of which Hiitter speaks, to the spiritual emptiness that
is its inevitable sequel, and to indulgence in sexual vice in the vain attempt
to fill the void.
As it happens, though, these ideologies have also both tended to attack
the family in a more direct way, and this was arguably inevitable given
the individualism of the one and the collectivism of the other. Liberalism
has dificulty countenancing the reality of positive obligations to others
to which we never consented. Accordingly, it is difficult for liberalism to
accept the idea that marriage is indissoluble, that we are duty bound to
protect and provide even for “unplanned” offspring, and so on. Mean-
while, socialism has difficulty countenancing the reality of allegiances that
trump any duties we have to society as a whole, especially when these alle-
giances pose barriers to the designs of central planners and upset favored
patterns of distribution. Hence the rights of parents over the education
of their children, natural sex roles that entail dependence of a mother on

uu Hitter, Bound for Beatitude, 333, 361-62.

122 Aquinas, ST IL-II, g. 35, aa. 3-4.
1268 Edward Feser

a father’s income, the right of children to inherit the wealth amassed by

their parents, and other aspects of traditional family arrangements do not
sit well with socialism. Liberalism’s threat to the family derives from its
insensitivity to the natural law principle of solidarity, and socialism’s threat
to the family derives from its insensitivity to the natural law principle of
subsidiarity. If liberalism tends to dissolve the family down into its individ-
ual parts, socialism tends to absorb it up into the collectivist blob.
The political dimension of chastity thus seems clearly to require oppo-
sition to these ideologies most definitive of political modernity. But more
than that, it indicates that at least ideally, a distinctively Christian under-
standing of our spiritual end ought to inform the political order. For the
highest spiritual end that acedia distracts us from is the supernatural end of
the beatific vision. And the grace that is necessary to restore us to chastity
is supernatural assistance, mediated through prayer and the sacraments.
While some knowledge of God and of the nature and gravity of sexual vice
is available to natural reason, knowledge of the supernatural end and the
assistance of grace are not. And in light of original sin, even the natural
knowledge that is available in principle is in practice rarely to be found,
and is admixed with grave error. Hence Christian revelation is needed for a
complete understanding of the ends we must pursue in order to overcome
acedia and sins of the flesh, and of the means to achieving those ends.
Hence the project of restoring respect for chastity at the level of West-
ern society as a whole is not realistic unless it is concomitant with a general
re-evangelization of Western society—and with the political implications
of such a re-evangelization. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church
teaches:

The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both indi-
vidually and socially. This is “the traditional Catholic teaching on
the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion
and the one Church of Christ.” By constantly evangelizing men, the
Church works toward enabling them “to infuse the Christian spirit
into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities
in which [they] live.” The social duty of Christians is to respect and
awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires
them to make known the worship of the one true religion which
subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church. Christians are called
to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the
kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human
societies. (§2105; emphasis added)
 The Politics of Chastity 1269

And against the idea that a state can somehow instead be neutral about the
Catholic Faith—hostile to it, but not affirming it either—the Catechism
says:

Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man

and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its
judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societ-
ies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain
preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed reli-
gion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the
Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to
measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth
about God and man:
Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name
of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria
and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since
they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good
and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totali-
tarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows. (§2244;
emphasis added)

It is worth emphasizing that these are post—Vatican II magisterial texts,

and that they sit alongside texts in the same Catechism expressing Vatican
II’s teaching on the right to religious liberty. Clearly the Catechism does
not regard that right as incompatible with the Church’s having an influ-
ence on the state. Of course, this raises the question of integralism, a view
which has been extremely controversial since the council, though in recent
years seeing something of a revival.'® Now, critics of integralism are correct
to point out that it is not a politically feasible program in the short term,
and that historically the influence of churchmen on politics has not always
been benign. But as all Thomists know, virtue is to be found in a mean
between extremes. If the history of Christendom shows that abuses can
arise when the Church has too great an influence on the state, the history
of the West post-Christendom shows that great evil also arises when it has
too little influence. What we have seen is exactly what St. Paul, in Romans
1:16-32, warns is bound to happen when grace no longer assists fallen
nature—a collapse in knowledge even of the natural law, with widespread

13 See, e.g., Thomas Pink, “In Defense of Catholic Integralism,.” Public Discourse,
August 12, 2018, and Thomas Crean and Alan Fimister, Integralism: A Manual of
Political Philosophy (Neunkirchen-Seelscheid: Editiones Scholasticae, 2020).
1270 Edward Feser

sexual immorality being Paul’s “Exhibit A” of the phenomenon. The fact

that modern Westerners typically regard this sexual depravity as “no big
deal” only shows how thoroughgoing their depravity is. They no longer
see it for what it is—an acid that eats away at the very institution most
fundamentally necessary for our fulfillment as rational social animals, the
family.
This is precisely what we should have expected on a priori theological
grounds from the dissolution of Christendom. To believe that knowledge
and practice of the natural law could survive without what the Catechism
calls the “[infusion of] the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores,
laws and structures of ... communities” amounts to a kind of “social Pela-
gianism.” Since human beings are by nature social animals, it stands to
reason that grace, and its vehicle the Church, must work through the social
order, and not merely directly on us as individuals. If in the short run we
must muddle through as best we can in a hostile social order, in the long
run chastity cannot be restored without the restoration of the social reign
of Christ. NV