Welcome to EWTN GB - Global Catholic Television Network - Copyright © 2020
HomeArticleMore Proof That ‘Heresy Begins Below the Belt’

More Proof That ‘Heresy Begins Below the Belt’

More Proof That ‘Heresy Begins Below the Belt’

“There is a connection between purity of heart, of body, and of faith.” [CCC 2518]

By Dave Armstrong

The above famous saying expresses the notion that sexual urges and drives and acts (i.e., outside of heterosexual marriage and procreation) run contrary to a theology that defines many of them as intrinsically immoral. Therefore, the person who enjoys these thoughts and acts tends to want to reject the theology rather than their own chosen sexuality. And so they wander off into heresy because of this.

Perhaps the classic expression of this mentality is the statement of the English writer and philosopherAldous Huxley(1894-1963): author of almost fifty books; most notably,Brave New World(1932). Coincidentally, he died, along with President Kennedy, on the same day that Lewis did.In his 1937 collection of essays,Ends and Means, Huxleywrote:

I hadmotivesfor not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics.He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially aninstrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because itinterfered with our sexual freedom. [my added italics]

In reading the highly regarded biography of Lewis by his friend George Sayer, entitledJack: C. S. Lewis and His Times(Harper & Row, 1988), I was surprised to learn of his opinion that young Lewis (around the ages of 13-15) lost his initial Christian faith because of sexual immorality.

This supports my contention as an apologist, that loss of faith and apostasy far too often (if notusually) occur as a result ofnon-rational processes and urges, rather than Christianity failing the test ofserious intellectual examination. Sayer writes on page 31 of his book:

He began to masturbate…

He resolved fiercely never to do it again, and then suffered over and over the humiliation of failing to keep his resolution. His state, he tells us, was that described by Saint Paul in Romans 7:19-24: ‘…the good that I would do, I do not: but the evil that I would not, that I do…’

He prayed, too, and, because his prayers were not answered, he soon lost his faith…

To attain psychological balance, he had to suppress his strong feelings of guilt, a feat he accomplished by rejecting Christianity and its morality.

I can imagine an atheist or one otherwise skeptical of Christianity (or particularly of Catholic Christianity) saying, “well, how can youblameyoung Lewis? After all, he sincerely resolved to end his practice, which he [wrongly] felt to be wrong, and sincerely prayed to God for aid in that resolve, and God [assuming for the sake of argument that he does exist]failedhim. Is that not, then,God‘s fault, rather than hisown?”

There are a number of seriously addictive or obsessive behaviors that human beings willingly begin and fall into, only to find later on that they are enslaved, would like to cease, and alas, cannot. Usually at first, it’s not understood that the behaviors will become so controlling and addictive. But once one is caught by the behavior, it’s very difficult to escape.

But whosefaultis that? Is it God’s or thepersonwho began the journey into the behavior? I would contend that it’s the latter, and that recourse to blaming God is simply blame-shifting. One can imagine many addictions, whether it is, for example, smoking cigarettes, or various drug habits, or wife-beating, or gluttony, or rampant sexual promiscuity. Even intrinsically good things can become addictive and destructive; say, for example, that a man wants to read books or do gardening all day long, and as a result, neglects his duty to make a living.

We start these things and then in foolish pride, we want to blame someoneelsewhen it’s clear that we are engaged in unhealthy, destructive behavior. God is one such misguided target, because we can always convince ourselves that “God ought to enable me to stop if I ask him.” Therefore, if He doesn’t do so, we can say that He is either weak or nonexistent.

Indeed, there is such a thing as divine grace or power to overcome sin and evil (see, for example, Romans 8:37 and Philippians 4:13). I and virtually any serious Christian have experienced this help many times, and indeed, highly successful groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous presuppose that it exists in order to help alcoholics stop drinking.

What I’m saying is that it is unreasonable todemandthat God (an omniscient Being infinitely higher than we are, and therefore, obviously often inexplicable to us as a result, as we would be to an ant) do what I wantright now; under the pain of being rejected or disbelieved if He does not.

God is under no obligation to perform any given miracle or to answer any and every prayer. He does what he does in his own time, for his own inscrutable reasons and providential purposes. God is not a magic wand or our own personal sock puppet, to maneuver as we will.

Saying, “either God doesXor I’mthroughwith him!” is kindergarten spirituality and rationalization of self-excess or an exaggerated sense of pseudo-“freedom.” It’s the initial sin of Adam and Eve and the devil: choosing their self-will over God’s. Aldous Huxley (admirably) admitted that this was what he was doing. And I think that young C. S. Lewis (assuming Sayer’s opinion is correct) was doing the same thing, and that it’s irrational and unreasonable, for the reasons stated. Lewis later explained how and why sexual morality is so important.

Share With: