Category Archives: Religious morality

Pope Leo Reminds Us: Synodality is not Subversive

Catholic doctrine, Religious morality, Sexual morality

I was not alone when I cringed upon hearing of synodality and going to the peripheries. The secular media along with some Catholic sources mislead us to fear that synodality and going to the peripheries are primarily processes for subverting Catholic sexual morality. The peripheries to which we should go are the so-called LGBQT communities. While at these peripheries, synodality is accompanying representitives of LGBQT communities so that we can better understand and accept them as they are. Ultimately, such acceptance requires explicit admission that traditional Catholic prohibitions of certain sexual activities, begining with the intrinsically disordered masturbation, were in error. Such an admission would put the Catholic Church in conformity with the sexual morality of the mid-twentieth century Sexual Revolution; but a cruel betrayal of all who rely on the spiritual resources of Catholism in their struggle to be chaste.

Fortunately, in his August 15, 2025 address sent to the participants of the Peruvian Social week Pope Leo XIV has subtly calmed fears of subversion. He used “synodality” and “going to the peripheries” as normal terms for describing how the Church has been built up since Apostolic times. With special references to the missionaries and saints who built the Church in Peru he sketched out how, of course, they were at the peripheries in the New World. Of course, practiced synodality by learning the ways of those they encountered at the peripheries so they could convert them.

Might Jesus Have Masturbated?

Catholic doctrine, Sexual morality

Catholic Christology Corroborates Traditional Catholic Sexual Morality

The purpose of this essay is to make a case that a fundamental Christian doctrine requires traditional Catholic Sexual morality.. What is traditional Catholic sexual morality? Since I focus on the sexuality of a man, viz., Jesus of Nazareth, I state a principle of traditional Catholic morality for males. I call this the Paternal Principle

A man may not seek an orgasm except in consensual coitus open to conception with a woman to whom he has made a pledge of life-long fidelity with an intent to support and to protect her and any children resulting from their sexual intercourse.1

This principle is only a frgment of traditional sexual morality. The multiple facts, theories and customs which are used to justify and motivate such a rule comprise sexual morality. However, such a principle implies directly the behaviors which those who advocate revising Catholic sexual morality seem open to admiting as morally permissible2. However, such revisions cannot be made without revising, if not rejecting, doctrines about the nature of Jesus Christ3. For the Paternal Principle implies the immorality of the traditional sexual sins: masturbation, homosexual acts, fornication, adultery and forms of contraception which are physical or chemical interventions in coitus.

In this essay, I consider only masturbation. Masturbation is the foundational sexual immorality for men. Masturbation ,or the core intention of masturbation, is involved in all the other genital sexual immoralities. That core intention is seeking the estactic pleasure of an orgasm at the expense of the basic human good for whose promotion that pleasure is both a means and a constituent, viz., procreation and life-long male/female bonding.

What is the Christological doctrine requiring traditional sexual morality? It is the doctrine that Jesus was a man like us in all things except sin. (Heb 4:15, CCC467)

Why write of corroborating rather than use logical terms such as “implying” or “entailing?” I want to avoid any suggestion that traditional sexual morality came from Christian doctrine. To corroborate means to strengthen and confirm. I hope to show that elaboration of what it means for Jesus to be a man without sin provides considerations which strengthen belief that masturbation is truely immoral; not merely immoral according to a moral outlook which I call traditional morality.

My Christological corroboration of traditional sexual morality as the genuine, real, or objective morality requires a bipartite strategy. First, show that masturbation is traditionally immoral. That has been done by drawing implications from the Paternal Principle in conjunction with descriptions of the various sexual acts. Second, show that it is inconsistent to think that the perfectly sinless Jesus masturbated. An act which is physically possible but morally impossible for a sinless man to do is morally forbidden. Hence, the immorality of Jesus masturbating strengthens and confirms belief the traditional immorality of masturbation is a genuine immorality; not merely immoral by tradition.

Showing that the sexual morality of Jesus is that of traditional sexual morality would require showing for each of the sexual immoralities derivable from the Paternal Principle are acts we cannot consistenly think of a sinless man doing. Such a series of arguments would be strong confirmation for traditional sexual morality. For it would be the sexual morality of the sinless Jesus. However, the argument that masturbation is immoral in Jesus’ sexual morality provides a model argument for the others, eg., homosexual acts, are immoral in Jesus’ sexual morality.

Thinking about Jesus engaging in any sexual activity is offensive. Nevertheless, Christians who fly rainbow flags from their houses, schools and churches should think about it. Unfortunately, the offensiveness of the thought can lead to question-begging. With religious images in mind, we may immediately decide “Jesus would never do anything like that!” We would thereby “beg off” from answering the question “Why would Jesus never do anthing like that?” I recomend adopting a philosophic attitude of trying to ignore any sense of offence. To avoid being offended try not to imagine anything about the historical man consideration under descriptions such as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus as portrayed in Luke’s Gospel.” We can imagine Jesus under those descriptions sinning in all sorts of ways. My argument is that we cannot think or conceive of Jesus masturbating under the description of “a man like us in all things except sin” regardless of how our imaginations can embelish what we know of a historical figure.

However, we must take as our starting point the son of Mary and Joseph the carpenter around the time of the Finding in the Temple. The Christological doctrine refers to him. This specificity saves us from philosophical digressions such as analyzing the supposed sinlessness of man of an IQ around 50. Luke tells us “Jesus advanced in wisdom and age in favor before God and man.” We, then, are considering primarily what this intelligent and well behaved Jewish youth might have done during the hidden years in Nazareth. But how should we consider this historical figure’s moral thinking and acting?

We should not attempt a historical reconstruction of the consciousness of the young Jesus. For instance, how did Jewish culture guide his moral thinking? That would be historical speculation without any evidence. We can use some bland factual assumptions such as he became aware of “the facts of life. But we cannot even assume that before his first temptation to masturbate he knew the role of ejaculation and accompanying sensations in reproduction.

I make a significant assumption. The assumption that he was like us in all things except sin allows another assumption that he was a moral genius throughout his life. Jesus would, then, have been a child prodigy of morality. There are different ways to characterize a moral genius. A moral genius is someone who always wills what is for the good because it is for what is good.4 Such is the will of God. So, a moral genius always wills what God wills because God wills it. God wills what is good for whatever God wills. That is loving. So, a moral genius loves what God loves because God loves it. However, since we can better articulate the object of God’s willing and loving, it is better to talk of what is good. The italicized qualifications beginning with because are important. In a positive way they bring out the negative point that a moral genius wills what is good, etc., regardless of any inclination to choose otherwise. It is also important to note that genius is exhibited primarily in knowing how rather than in having theoretical knowledge. A mathematical genius may know how to get a result without being able to articulate a proof of how he reached the result. Little Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart knew how to compose without musical theory. So, a moral genius knows how to put together the elements of morality: representations of goods as both ends and means, inclinations, plans of action, forming and acting on intentions to act and to be in accordance with what ought to be done and how we ought to be. The mind of a moral genius is not filled with all of the factual knowledge about how the consequences of acts actually effect human happiness. A moral genius does not think as a consequentialist or utilitarian. It must be emphasized that the works of genius are not expressions of the genius’ individuality. The genius, working as a genius, expresses what is right, what is correct and what is beautiful for everyone. The works of genius present what is universal: what anyone who tries to get it right hopes to discover and become,

So, our question is runs: Would a boy who always knows how to will what is for the good because it is for the good will to masturbate?

For completeness, start with consideration of the temptation of a boy who does not yet know “the facts of life.” Such a boy can have a temptation to masturbate. To be tempted he has to know to what he is being tempted. So, he has experience an orgasm. Perhaps, he touched his genitalia enough scatching a rash in a way sufficient for an orgasm. Perhaps, he experienced it while riding in a cart on a bumpy road. It could have been in a dream.

The temptation comes as a strong inclination to repeat that experience of an orgasm. Our moral prodigy has the knack of always willing what is good regardless of any inclination to do otherwise. Without being able to articulate his knowledge, he has the practical knowledge that acting on strong inclinations whose satisfaction is not necessary for survival is morally risky. The strength of the inclination for mere pleasure would be a “red flag” to a genius at navigating through the moral life.

So, the sexually naive moral genius would not masturbate regardless of an inclination to do so. However, he may not find resisting the tempatation easy.

What about Jesus after he learned that the inclination for an orgasm plays an important role in starting and maintaining a man bonding to a woman to develop a family? He would recognize that monagamous marriage and family is a basic human good. Taking monogamous marriage and family as a basic human good is not a wild assumption. (See note 4.) It could be called a default view on sexuality. It is honored with an apology: ” If everyone could or would behave properly, that is how human sexuality would operate. But you know how human nature is, so. . . ” With this awareness of the basic human good of which an orgasm is both a means and constituent, one who is a genius at thinking morally would use the, perhaps implicit, knowledge that a fundamental way of not being in accordance with what ought to be done and ought to be is to choose a means to a basic good as a basic good. It puts disorder in the order of what is good. If we use “love” broadly to label that for which we have inclinations and that which we recognize as basic human goods, we can say a moral genius properly orders his loves. Hence, a perfect composer of intentions in accordance with what is good would not form or act on an intention to masturbate. He, however, may need to make an effort to resist temptations.

We, who are not moral geniuses, can validate the refusal of the moral genius to form or act on an intention to masturbate. Human sexuality functions well enough to cary on the human species. We cannot label human sexuality as dysfunctional. However, we humans make it troublesome, to say the least. The intention or maxim of a masturbator expresses the basic source of human sexuality’s problematic character. The maxim runs: I may enjoy the satisfaction of an inclination of a means for sexuality’s purpose regardless of attaining the purpose of sexuality. The maxim highlights the intrinsic disorder of masturbation. This is not to say that men who masturbate are intrinsically disordered; their masturbation is intrinsically disordered. With such a maxim, a masturbator joins that vast, almost universal, crowd of men who have disordered sexuality. Jesus, as a man like us in all things except sin would not join the crowd.

NOTES

1. From purely secular assumptions, I argue for this principle in my book: Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an antidote to nihilism, Oklahoma City, OK. 2014.

2. Cardinal Claude-Hollerich of Luxembourg advocates significant revisions to accommodate homosexuality Hollerich on homosexuality: the Cardinal’s many errors – Daily Compass. American Cardinal McElroy advocates revisions Cardinal McElroy’s Attack on Church Teachings on Sexuality Is a Pastoral Disaster| National Catholic Register Fr. James Martin SJ welcomes people with same sex attraction so enthusiastically, it seems to me that he condons homosexual acts Fr. James Martin on Marriage, Sexual Morality, and the Church’s Teachings: A Solution to the Puzzle – Public Discourse. Even some papal views suggest indefference towards traditional sexual morality. See Pope Francis’s Candid Views on Sexual Morality – CatholicCitizens.org

3. Previously, I thought revision of moral doctrines would not conflict directly with non-moral doctrines Sexual Revolution Undercuts Christianity

4. My notion of moral genius is an adaptation of Kant’s notion of a good will. Kant begins the first Section of his 1785 Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals with: “There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.” But I anchor the good will to willing basic human goods. Here I adapt the moral theory of the New Natural Law theory. Sexual Ethics, Human Nature, and New Natural Law Theory – Public Discourse. However, I am not providing any interpretations of Kant. Nor do I claim to present New Natural Law theory as its proponents would. This is not a scholarly essay. Note, though, that John Finnis’ excellent characterization of marriage and family as a basic human good can be found in the link to the New Natural Law theory. I suspect that any moral theory which condemns masturbation, Traditional (Thomistic) Natural Law theory or theology of the Body Relections, would conclude that a “natural born whizz” in apply those theories would refrain from masturbation as immoral. The crucial concept in this essay is “moral genius.”

Continue reading

Might Jesus Have Masturbated?

 →

Divine Command Morality and Religious Morality

Moral philosophy, Religious morality

Understanding moral laws as divine commands is not by itself to have a religious morality. To be sure, understanding moral laws as divine commands involves a natural piety towards morality. But someone need not belong to any religion to understand moral laws as divine commands. This is compatible with holding that understanding moral laws as divine commands is more than Moral Deism .

Divine command moral theory makes indicative claims about human nature that are in a way falsified by natural science. It claims that there are ends in nature which ought never be frustrated. This claim is falsified by science in the sense that it is an inadmissible scientific statement. It cannot be true if scientism is true.

The title is Divine Command Morality and Religious Morality.  But the more accurate title would be Divine Command Morality and Catholic Christian Morality.  I do not know enough about the code of the vast variety of religious to compare religious morality in general with plain morality. My paradigm of religious morality are prescriptions of Jesus in Matthew’s, Ch. 5-7, account of the “sermon on the mount” in which Jesus says: ” You have heard it said but I say to you .. .” For instance:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

The code of Catholic morality contains all of morality plus other norms of two types. There are ritual prescriptions and religious moral commands. I do not want to digress into trying to define ritual prescriptions. Suffice it to say that they are not regarded as for anyone outside the religion. The religious moral commands are regarded as applicable for all human beings. How do religious commands differ from plain moral commands? .  They lack the necessity of moral commands.  We can think of them not being given.  For instance, we cannot think of adultery being morally permissible.  However, we can think of remarriage after one partner has abandoned his spouse being permissible.  Jesus is quite explicit that he is adding to what has been morally taught with “you have heard it said, but I say to you.”

Morality, Confessional Faith and the Maxims of Jesus

Divine Command Morality, Moral philosophy, Philosophical Theology, Religious morality

Belief in Christian Salvation History requires  belief in some crucial miracles . Similarly, belief in Christian Salvation History requires  belief in the sometimes puzzling action guiding maxims of Jesus.   In this case, faithful members of an orthodox Christian religion have an obligation to believe . Belief in the Salvation History requires belief in its entailments.  This is a logical requirement. The requirement presents challenges.  What, though, is  required belief? How can one feel convinced if he is not convinced?

One may, be convinced, believe in his heart,  that the Salvation History, or the fragment with which he is acquainted, tells the truth about the meaning of life.  Here, the use of “religion” rather than “Salvation History” makes my points more familiar.  A conversion experience or simply being raised in a religion may be the cause of this heartfelt belief in the whole outlook. However, reflection on what the whole implies seems to challenge  faith in the whole.  Did Jesus really walk on water? Did he really rise from his tomb?  Can one live a sane life “by turning the other cheek.?”   The devil lurks in the details.

However, the temptation to diminish belief in the whole because of doubts about its details can be overcome. Belief in the whole requires going down to belief in the details.  But doubts about the details do not require going up to doubts about the whole.  St. Paul, in Rm 10: 9-10, reminds us of two dimensions of  belief.  “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, then you shall be saved.” The dimensions are confessional faith and faith in the heart. Confessional faith follows the laws of logic.  Confession of faith in the whole requires confession of faith in the details.  However, faith in the heart, firm conviction of truth of the whole, does not follow down to conviction about the details. But it guides what we say about the details.

Confessional faith concerns what you say (confess) to both yourself and others.  Confessional faith is not hypocritical. Despite doubts and skeptical thoughts running through the mind, you will not say even to yourself that Jesus most likely did not rise from the dead or “All things considered it is stupid to pluck out your eye   if you have an irresistible urge to view pornography.” The firm conviction about the whole does not logically descend to the details.  However, firm conviction, belief in the heart, provides  the tenacity that makes confessing into confessional faith rather than mere saying.  It is genuinely faith because one trusts what one affirms and will never deny is correctness.

Confessional faith is the faith which seeks understanding,

Because these posts are on foundations of divine command morality, it is interesting to note that Christians, at least one anyway, can belief that moral laws are divine commands, Jesus was God, but yet the maxims of Jesus are, for the most part, not divine commands of morality.

Choosing Not to Live vs Choosing to be Killed

Moral philosophy, Religious morality

Added comment: This post brings out that opposition to assisted suicide presupposes a soul seperable from the body, a God who sets a destiny for humans and holds the soul in existence for that destiny to be attained. With these presuppositions, opposition to assisted suicide is religious. Because of the immense amount of suffering in illnesses and aging, utilitarian considerations would justify assisted suicides.

I have argued that choosing assisted suicide presupposes the nihilistic outlook that human life has no purpose. At biological death the individual vanishes. Moral nihilism is part of this nihilistic stance. Since morality has no point, it really does not matter what we do. The good and the bad meet the same fate of simply vanishing into atoms in the void. I intended the argument to be strong in the sense that this nihilism was a logical consequence of choosing suicide or to be killed. Necessarily someone choosing suicide,who thought clearly and in depth, would think nihilism is correct.

Added October 3, 2022: See Philosophical Arguments as Guides to Reality for an important correction to what I intend to accomplish with philosophical arguments.

In fact, though, people might choose assisted suicide without thinking through the issues. Such people might very likely neither think nor feel nihilistic despite choosing to be killed.

I have also argued that a choice of assisted suicide is immoral. Can I consistently make a living will specifying that no extra ordinary means be used to keep me alive? Can I consistently choose not to live without presupposing nihilism?

In preparation for this post, I worked through an on-line living will form. I specified that I wanted no ventilators, feeding tubes or dialysis. I allowed transfusions and medication because I thought they were ordinary means for keeping some alive. My thought was to avoid any restriction on medical treatment which seemed too close to directly stopping my life.

Reflection on my thinking reveals that I distinguish my biological life from my being a moral agent. A moral agent has obligations; and most importantly, a way he or she ought to be. From the moment of conception, a human has a way he or she ought to be. The crucial premise in my argument against suicide, referenced above, holds: Under no conditions am I permitted to choose not to be a morally correct human being.

Admittedly, I did not aim at keeping my biological life at all costs. So, I did not aim at the good of biological life. Neither, did I aim at stopping the good of biological life. I refused to stop the good of biological life, because I aimed at maintaining my moral being a morally correct human being.

I have given a Kantian argument for imperishability of the soul.This soul is our moral being – the way we ought to be.

The purpose of these posts on choosing death is to uncover presuppositions on letting oneself die without immorality or nihilism. The way sketched above brings out that in this instance the divinity dimension of divine command morality is used. I assume a soul distinct from the body which is the way one ought to be. To let oneself die without aiming at destroying ones soul, which is nihilism, one needs to assume that God keeps the soul in existence to become what it ought to be.

Using Divinity in Divine Command Morality

Divine Command Morality, Moral philosophy, Religious morality

In a post arguing that male masturbation is a grave matter , I explicitly referred to an argument for God’s existence and justification for interpreting moral commands as coming from God. There I talked about God because I was explicitly trying to interpret a teaching of Catholicism was a grave matter. I had made the point earlier that moral gravity was a religious dimension of morality; not purely a moral question.

My treatment of this issue illustrates how, in general, I use the divinity in divine command morality. For purely moral matters, there is no use of the belief that moral laws and the human goods which are the goals of the moral laws are from God. The moral reasoning of someone who holds divine command morality is accessible to an atheist. Not surprisingly, the divine source of morality is invoked only when one is interested in religious matters, viz., that which is connected with divinity.

It may be surprising, though, that one can hold both that masturbation is a grave matter and, though immoral, a trivial matter. It is a grave matter with respect to how one relates to God. For social and legal control, masturbation is a trivial matter in the sense that it is something about which nothing much needs to be done to protect the public from it. I make a similar judgment about male homosexual acts. They are immoral. But if kept “in the closet,” I think they are socially harmless immoralities.

My judgment about the triviality of the immoralities of masturbation and sodomy are factual judgments; not moral judgments. I could very well be in error about their triviality. I am convinced of their immorality and gravity, viz., they are mortally sinful. I have not started a careful sociological investigation of the connection between male masturbation and the vast destructive pornography industry. Pursuit of stimulation for masturbation satisfications might be on of the most destructive social forces.

Why Is Masturbation Gravely Wrong?

Catholic Sacraments and Sexual Morality, Religious morality, Sexual morality

Why Sexual Wrongs as Gravely Wrong

In this post, I try to make a case that all sexual wrongs are gravely wrong, by making a case that masturbation is intrinsically gravely wrong. I make this attempt under the assumption that that some sexual acts are intrinsically wrong. Masturbation and homosexual acts are included in this assumption.

The assumption of the intrinsic immorality of male masturbation and male homosexual acts is well justified. The purpose of male orgasm is procreation and the unitive bond of male and female. These basic human goods are never to be directly inhibited. Male masturbation and homosexual acts directly inhibit the procreative and unitive goods of sexuality. So, they are always on the wrong side of being right. That takes care of intrinsic wrongness.

See Intrinsic Wrong vs. Formal Wrong for a defense of using “intrinsically wrong instead of formally wrong.

But how wrong? How grave? Compared with all the horrible evil humans inflicted upon one another, a couple of guys messing with each other’s penises seems naughty rather than evil.

In common sense and the law, the graveness of an immoral act is extrinsic to a wrong act. Gravity depends upon inflicting serious physical or mental harm or being done with the intent to inflict such harm. It is obvious that masturbation is not extrinsically grave as we ordinarily talk about gravity of offenses.

I could specify other extrinsic feature of masturbation as what makes it grave.

The Catholic church – my church- has simply specified that it is grave where “gravity” means that it must be forgiven in a sacrament of confession as a condition for avoiding the even more grave evil of receiving the Eucharist without such sacramental forgiveness. Of course, organizational specification of a type of act as gravely wrong is a feature external to the act.

Other external feature of sexual acts felt to be immoral, are cultural judgments about the gravity of these acts. Personally, I think that a horrible feature of humanity is the horror felt against sexual wrongs. These harsh attitudes and action upon them vary from place to place and time to time. But harsh societal reaction to harmless sexual acts is real. There may be social evolutionary explanations for these harsh judgments about sexual misconduct.

But the goal is to try to articulate the insight of the Church in her imposition of such sacramental requirements.
So, if masturbation is a grave wrong, its gravity must be intrinsic.

I suggest the following. The masturbator recklessly treats making the act for continuing humankind incapable of continuing humankind. That reckless attitude towards what is necessary for humanity to exist is a grave matter.

More generally, why might all sexual wrongs be gravely wrong? Other wrongs inhibit goods such as knowledge, friendship and beauty. But sexual wrongs inhibit human life. The fundamental nature of life for other goods makes inhibition of life a grave matter.

Contraception as Intrinsically Wrong but Not Gravely Wrong

Critique of Birth Control, Moral philosophy, Religious morality

Contraception as Intrinsically Wrong but Not Gravely Wrong

This post develops my previous post in which I distinguished being instrinsically wrong from being gravely, or seriously, wrong. I speculate judging contraceptive coitus of a married couple as intrinsically wrong but not, in general, gravely wrong. I am a Catholic. But what I write here is definitely not Catholic teaching. The thesis of marital contaception as only a venial sin is only presented for consideration.

An intrinsically wrong act is morally wrong regardless of the intention of the actor, circumstances in which it is performed and consequences of its performance. The gravity of an act can be mitigated by the intention of the actor, circumstances in which it is performed and the consequences of the performance of the act. The mitigating factors are not excuses for the wrong act although they may be considerations for mitigating punishment. I have not yet discovered a precise way of distinguishing gravely wrong from not being gravely wrong.

A paradigm distinguishing an intrinsically wrong act from a gravely wrong act is shoplifting a candy bar from a UDF convenience store and confusing a clerk at an AT&T store to walk away with a $500 cell phone. For theft the gravity mitigating factor is frequently the monetary value of the stolen item. I recall reading, once, that $25 marked the difference between a morally sinful theft and a venially sinful theft. That distinctiion seemed arbitrary to me.

Intrinsic wrongness is determined theoretically. If the theoretical determination is clearly developed, it is a deductive argument from theoretical premisses. Consider, for instance, a moral judgment against contraception.

A basic good of coitus is conception.
Coitus is a morally significant act.
It is always wrong to inhibit a basic good of a morally significant act.
Contraception inhibits the basic good of coitus.
Therefore, contraception is always wrong.

The circumstance of the contraception being an act of a married couple with children and planing to have more children in a year or so does not alter the theoretically determined judgment that the act is immoral. Theoretically, it is on the “wrong side” of being right.

A judgment that the act is gravely wrong – a mortal sin requires more than the moral theory presupposed in the above deductive argument. I do not think that secular reasoning alone can support a theoretical principle that all sexual wrongs are gravely wrong. The notion of moral gravity is not clear enough and there seems to be sexually wrong acts which are not gravely wrong, viz., contraception of marital coitus.

However, living a good life is more than avoiding gross immorality. Even on a secular level, we need to consider the damage to our character by habitual performance of wrong acts, albeit venial immoral acts. On a religious level, it is folly to think God is indifferent to regular intentional disobedience.

Could anyone be genuinely seeking holiness while intentionally choosing what is immoral in any degree?

Limits and Importance of the Law of Love

Divine Command Morality, Moral philosophy, Realism vs. anti-realism, Religious morality

In Matthew 22:37-40, of the New International Version, we read the following.

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

How does the moral law “hang on” these two commandments? For instance, can we use these two commandments to decide that premarital sex is immoral? No, but they do tell us that there is an objectively correct answer to the question and God has determined the objectively correct answer.

To love is to will the good of the other. We cannot choose that things good for God happen to God for nothing bad could happen to God So, to will good for God is to will, or always try to will, the good God wills. The good God wills for people is lives in accordance with the moral laws since lives in accordance with moral laws are good lives for humans. For God always wills what is good.

Next, to love our neighbors as ourselves is to will for them the same good life we will for ourselves when we correctly will what is good for ourselves. Hence, to love our neighbors as ourselves is to will, or try always to will, that all of us live in accordance with the moral laws God has laid out for human beings.

The limits of the two laws of love are that they do not tell us any definite moral rules. And, of immense significance, they do not tell us that any feelings of love are a guide to morally correct behavior. The importance of the laws of love are that they tell us that there are objectively true moral answers and getting and following these right answers lead to good human lives.

When Should We Talk of Immorality as Sinful

Authoritarian Morality, Divine Command Morality, Moral philosophy, Religious morality, Secularization

Grant that the moral laws are commands of God. When should we think and talk of morality as based on Divine commands? When we teach morality we should let our children know that our “does and don’ts” are not our arbitrary commands but come from God. God has gifted human beings with the cognitive and emotional capabilities to develop a concept of a moral authority to whom all their actions are transparent. Perhaps, God gave us this gift through evolutionary development. Regardless of how we received this gift of what Freudians label a superego, we should lead children to identify the moral authority with God. Yes, this leads children to develop a fear of God. And that is not a bad thing. Fear of the Lord is, indeed , the beginning of wisdom. In short, we should educate our children to have a sense of sin.

There are contexts in which it is legally or socially prohibited to talk of God. For instance, in secular public schools, talking of God, let alone teaching morality as coming from God is forbidden. I am uncertain whether these are policies are always good for public order. But in the home and in civil society at large, we should not hesitate to link morality with what God commands. When we associate with fellow citizens of “The City of God” we should maintain our sense of immorality as sinful, deliberate rejection of God’s will

Also, when tempted, it helps to think of we are acting in accordance with the will of God by suppressing unruly desires. It is helpful to think of God as the author of morality when we make moral judgments about others. When we do so, we can readily distinguish between the act we morally condemn and the inner state of the actor whose act we condemn. For the inner state is transparent to the moral authority, namely God, but not to us.

Morality comes into play in our lives most of the time when we teach, learn it, struggle with it and pass judgment on ourselves and our neighbors. In all of these contexts, there should be no hesitation to think feel and talk as morality being based on God’s commands.

But there is one context in which those who hold a divine command theory of morality should not assert any moral laws as God’s commands. This philosophical context is one in which they are making a case that, say masturbation violates a moral law. For making a case that masturbation is morally forbidden is making a case that it is a Divine command. It would be question begging to use as a premise “Masturbation is forbidden by God” when the aim is to prove exactly that.

But this eschewal of mentioning God in moral arguments is not reverting to moral deism. It is only secularizing a special context. For most people, philosophical thought is irrelevant. So to quarantine philosophical argument from assertions of God as commanding is not secularizing morality.

Of even more significance, for appreciating removing God from philosophical moral arguments is not necessarily secularizing moral reasoning are background assumptions of a Divine command moral theorist. For the reasoning will cite facts of nature as premises in a moral argument. The holder of a Divine command theory will regard nature as God’s creation. And God’s creation contains facts with normative significance. In a nature created by God there are purposes – the way things ought to be.