Culture of Vice

In The Ethics Aristotle wrote, “men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.” This is also true when revolutionary changes are cultural. What might these “private” reasons be, and why do they become public in the form of revolutionary changes? The answer to these questions lies in the intimate psychology of moral failure.

For any individual, moral failure is hard to live with because of the rebuke of conscience. Habitual moral failure, what used to be called vice, can be lived with only by obliterating conscience through rationalization. When we rationalize, we convince ourselves that heretofore forbidden desires are permissible. We advance the reality of the desires over the reality of the moral order to which the desires should be subordinated. In our minds we replace the reality of moral order with something more congenial to the activity we are excusing. In short, we assert that bad is good.

It is often difficult to detect rationalizations when one is living directly under their influence, and so historical examples are useful. One of the clearest was offered at the Nuremberg trials by Dr. Karl Brandt, who had been in charge of the Nazi regime’s Aktion T-4 euthanasia program. He said in his defense: “...when I said ‘yes’ to euthanasia I did so with the deepest conviction, just as it is my conviction today, that it was right. Death can mean deliverance. Death is life.”

Unlike Dr. Brandt, most people recover from their rationalizations when remorse and reality set back in. But when morally disordered acts become the defining centerpiece of one’s life, vice can permanently pervert reason. Entrenched moral aberrations then impel people to rationalize vice not only to themselves but to others as well. Thus rationalizations become an engine for revolutionary change that will affect society as a whole.

The power of rationalization drives the culture war, gives it its particular revolutionary character, and makes its advocates indefatigable. It may draw its energy from desperation, but it is all the more powerful for that. Since failed rationalization means self-recrimination, it must be avoided at all cost. For this reason, the differences over which the culture war is being fought are not subject to reasoned discourse. Persons protecting themselves by rationalizing are interested not in finding the truth, but in maintaining the illusion that allows them to continue their behavior. For them to succeed in this, everyone must accede to their rationalization. This is why revolutionary change is required. The necessity for self-justification requires the complicity of the whole culture. Holdouts cannot be tolerated because they are potential rebukes. The self-hatred, anger, and guilt that a person possessed of a functioning conscience would normally feel from doing wrong are redirected by the rationalization and projected upon society as a whole (if the society is healthy), or upon those in society who do not accept the rationalization.

According to Dr. Jack Kevorkian, for example, all those reluctant to participate in his rationalization for killing people (including, it turns out, some who are not even ill) are the real problem; the judicial system is “corrupt,” the medical profession is “insane,” and the press is “meretricious.” Of the coroner who found nothing medically wrong with several of his victims, Dr. Kevorkian said that he is a “liar and a fanatical religious nut.”

The homosexual movement’s rationalization is far more widely advanced in its claims. According to Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, “We (homosexuals) are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a right to protection from wrong. We have a right — as heterosexuals have already — to see government and society affirm our lives.” Since only the act of sodomy differentiates an active homosexual from a heterosexual, homosexuals want “government and society” to affirm that sodomy is morally equivalent to the marital act. “Coming out of the closet” can only mean an assent on the level of moral principle to what would otherwise be considered morally disordered.

And so it must be. If you are going to center your public life on the private act of sodomy, you had better transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy is a moral disorder, it cannot be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. On the other hand, if it is a highly moral act, it should serve as the basis for marriage, family (adoption), and community. As a moral act, sodomy should be normative. If it is normative, it should be taught in our schools as a standard. In fact, homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals have been ordained as priests. All of this is happening. It was predictable. The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest. How successful that conquest has been can be seen in the poverty of the rhetoric of its opponents. In supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, the best one congressman could do was to say, “America is not yet ready for homosexual marriage,” as if we simply need a decent interval to adjust ourselves to its inevitable arrival.

The homosexual rationalization is so successful that even the campaign against AIDS is part of it, with its message that “everyone is at risk.” If everyone is at risk, the disease cannot be related to specific behavior. Yet homosexual acts are the single greatest risk factor in catching AIDS. This unpleasant fact invites unwelcome attention to the nature of homosexual acts, so it must be ignored.

The movement for abortion is equally expansive in its claims upon society. The internal logic of abortion requires the spread of death from the unborn to the nearly born, and then to the infirm and otherwise burdensome individuals. The very psychology of rationalization also pushes those involved with abortion to spread the application of its principles in order to multiply the sources of support for it.

If you are going to kill innocent persons you had better convince yourself and others that is “right,” that you do it out of compassion. Thus, Beverly Harrison, a professor of Christian ethics at Union Theological Seminary, contends that abortion is a “positive good,” and even a “loving choice.” Jungian analyst Ginette Paris thinks it is even more. In her book, The Sacrament of Abortion, she calls for “new rituals as well as laws to restore to abortion its sacred dimension.” Defending the right to partial-birth abortions during the recent U.S. Senate debate, Senator Barbara Boxer assure her colleagues that mothers who have aborted their children by this means “buried those babies with love.” If abortion is love, then, indeed, as Dr. Brandt said, “Death is life.”

Abortion is the ultimate in the larger rationalization of the sexual revolution: if sex is only a form or amusement or self-realization (as it must be when divorced from the moral order), why should the generation of a child stand in the way of it, or penalize its fulfillment? The life of the child is a physical and moral rebuke to this proposition. But the child is too weak to overcome the power of the rationalization. The virtual reality of the rationalization is stronger than the actual reality of the child. The child succumbs to the rationalization and is killed in a new “sacrament.”

With over 45 million abortions performed since 1973, the investment in the denial of the evil of abortion has become tremendous. Anyone who has witnessed the eruption of grief and horror (often coming many years after the event) in a woman confronting for the first time the nature of what she has done in an abortion knows the lengths to which people must go to prevent its occurrence.

Thus the changing attitudes toward abortion can be directly traced to the growing number of people, including fathers, doctors, and nurses, with the need to justify it. As reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the number of people who think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances has declined from 21 per cent in 1975 to only 15 per cent in 1995. The proportion who support abortion in all circumstances has increased from 21 per cent to 33 per cent in the same period. This change has taken place not because pro-abortionists are winning arguments, but because of the enormous increase in the number of those with a personal, psychological need to deny what abortion is.

Controversies about life, generation, and death are decisive for the fate of any civilization. A society can withstand any number of persons who try to advance their own moral disorders as public policy. But it cannot survive once it adopts the justification for those moral disorders as its own. This is what is at stake in the culture war.

If I may, first a recap:

I said (#10): Scripture talked about this phenomenon long before psychiatrists and psychologists came along. Christ referred to it as "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit;" i.e., one gets so deeply into one's immorality that he can no longer hear the call to normalcy.

You responded (#24): I would like to respectfully disagree with your contention that this is "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." That blasphemy was the attribution of the works of God to Satan...contending that Satan had performed certain works of power when in reality it had been the work of Jesus Christ.

I believe the more correct reference you are looking for is the "hardening of the heart" or the "searing of the conscience" - reaching a state where the conscience is no longer a guide to righteousness.

Then you were gracious enough to provide some links supporting your position, from which I will offer the last sub-heading from your first link:

Can a Believer Commit the Unforgivable Sin?
No. A believer cannot commit the unforgivable sin. How can someone who has been born again (John 3:7), made a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), and received eternal life (John 10:27-28) actually commit the unforgivable sin? He cannot. Jesus Himself said that we have eternal life, not conditional life: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand." Besides, it says in 2 Cor. 5:17 that the Christian is a new creation in Christ. We are different, no longer slaves to the old nature (Romans 6:14). We are regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
There is no biblical support for a believer committing this sin. It just hasn’t happened. Also, if you are worried that you may have committed the sin and can’t be forgiven, then don’t be concerned. If you are worrying about it, then you haven’t committed it. If you are worried about it, then that is a sign that you have not committed it. If you had, you wouldn’t be concerned.

That's where we were when I "went away" to do some research on my own. Here is what I found:

The entry on "blasphemy" in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, written by S. J. DeVries, discusses "slander, reproach, reviling, and cursing" God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. In the final paragraph, however, it says this:

"The 'unforgivable sin,' blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:10), must be understood as the deliberate and perverse repudiation of God's saving work, whereby one consciously hardens himself against repentance and the possibility of forgiveness (cf. I Tim. 1:20)."

From "The Gospel According to St. Matthew," The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 7. Sherman E. Johnson & George A. Buttrick:

"Perhaps Matthew deliberately linked these verses with the controversy about Beelzebub. The paragraphing in RSV implies that connection. The term 'Holy Spirit' is not here linked with the (later in date) doctrine of the Trinity. Its general meaning is perhaps the light that comes from God. Jesus says that some sins are due to ignorance or to failure under sudden temptation. Thus men can deny his claims and question his teaching, and still find pardon. But there is another kind of sin - willful blindness. ... Modern propaganda may approach this iniquity. It sometimes hints that truth is a lie, and offers a lie as the truth. ... The Spirit convinces 'the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment' (John 16:8), but what hope for a man who not only denies this axiomatic light but calls it midnight? ... At long last there is no pardon, because there is no desire for pardon - or even recognition of it."

From "The Gospel According to St. Mark," The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 7, Frederick C. Grant & Halford E. Luccock:

"The sin for which there was no forgiveness was just what the scribes were doing when Jesus spoke the words - calling good evil. ... One reason why is was unforgivable was not theological but psychological. It was evidence of a moral obtuseness and perverseness so deep-rooted that there was no hope of its ever being changed. ... When in our own time people oppose, and denounce as evil, efforts to extend justice and mercy to unprivileged and defrauded groups - that is the sin against the Holy Ghost. ... For the worst sin is not murder or arson, but a distortion of the whole spiritual being, by which we are blinded to good and call it evil, and thus cut ourselves off from God and God's cause."

From "The Gospel According to St. Luke, "The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, MacLean Gilmour & John Knox:

"A much more probable understanding is expressed in the Exeg.: He who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is he who is disloyal to the divine truth which he has received and to which he has given inner acceptance. ... But if blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the deliberate turning of one's back to God's truth as it is known to us, the deliberate closing of one's eyes upon the 'inward vision,' then we ought to be afraid of that, too - most of all afraid because through such deliberate blindness repentance may become impossible to us and even God's mercy be unable to reach us."

I could offer a few more references in like manner, but there's no need to swat the proverbial gnat with the proverbial sledgehammer. As I said earlier, I think we're both right: you, that ascribing the works of God to Satan, or calling good evil, and me, that living so deeply in sin that one can no longer see un-sin, if you will, are both examples of the "unforgivable sin," and are blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (I must admit that at first I wasn't sure we were talking about the same thing because where I said "blasphemy against" you said "blasphemy for" - and those two ways of describing the phenomenon don't necessarily mean quite the same thing.)

I would go so far as to submit that calling evil good - and good evil - is a sub-set of the blasphemy of "hardening one's heart," if only because the first could not occur without the condition of the second being already in place.

However, and this is most important, I agree with your first reference; i.e., no believer has committed this sin, nor does anyone who worries about committing this sin have anything to worry about. After all, if one is concerned about sinning, he or she is certainly paying attention to the Holy Spirit.

This was an interesting exercise. Thanks.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.