Be Wary When the World Says, "There Are No Sexual Sins But Child Abuse and Rape"
|The Holy See is Under fire from the UN|
When the UN, or even the whole World, maintains that there is no sexual sin but child abuse, be sure that the World is just years away from condoning child abuse. If child abuse is the only remaining sexual sin a person can commit, then we should be certain that even widespread opposition to child abuse hangs by an incredibly loose thread.
Why do I say this? I say this simply because the terms of reference for the sexual morality of the age are grounded in nothing objective at all but natural revulsion against a minority who abuse children. Widespread revulsion at child abusers and abuse is understandable and natural, but for how long will it last? For the time being, at least, we can all agree that child abuse is a monstrous evil against the innocent child. What we cannot all agree with is the premise that this is the only sex-related evil a person can commit. Some reading this would balk at the suggestion that child abuse could become accepted in the West, but there is no real reason why it should not be. I say this for good reason.
The rejection of both natural and divine law
The vast array of sexual sins and vices that were once deemed to be 'taboo' in the West have systematically and overwhelmingly been overturned, leaving the World with such a blunted view of sexual ethics proposing that personal autonomy in sexual relationships is paramount and to be cherished. Any criticism of sexual behaviour that deviates from what was once the accepted norm - a monogamous sexual relationship within the confines of marriage - is now quickly dismissed as evidence of 'bigotry' - or a form of imposition of an alien, repressive morality to the majority. This is based in a wholesale, widespread rejection of both natural and divine law supported by the mass media and now even accepted in most schools.
As Western countries, we are deceived if we believe that the rejection of both natural and divine law by adults has no consequences for children. Notwithstanding that a culture that defines the limits of sexual morality to the subjective is in danger of becoming so permissive that children can more easily be brought into the realm of sexual excitement for adults, the single premise upon which rests the West's opposition to child abuse would appear to be the issue of 'consent'. Rape is deemed, rightly, to be an offense to the compliance of a party to a sexual encounter. Likewise, it is universally held in the West that child abuse is an evil because a child can never give 'consent' to an abusive sexual relationship in which the victim is weaker. The child, obviously, is in a position of vulnerabillity compared to the aggressor.
The Age of Consent
Yet, 'consent' is a particularly tenuous and precarious foundation upon which to build any society's sexual morality. Do we really wish to see, for the future generations, among whom are billions of children, a society so sexually liberal and so highly sexualised that any sexual relationship is perceived to be normal except any sexual relationship that does not involve consensual sex?
Consent has become the primary issue in recent times in the UK, with some adult 'campaigners', among whose number is the 'gay-rights campaigner' Peter Tatchell, calling for a lowering of the age of consent in Britain to 14. The State has become so all-pervasive in society that those who seek to change transform society through law cite evidence of underage sexual activity taking place among a highly sexualised youth as propaganda material for new laws recognising the 'sexual rights' of children. We live in an age - a new age - in which sexual relationships are framed in the language of personal and autonomous rights and 'freedoms'.
For full article click here.