bottom line, the only language in which He can speak to us isrnpunishment and ruin. If all we care about is good sex, long life,rnand lots of money, then those are precisely the things He willrndeprive us of—in His mercy.rnBut why is God so especially outraged at those two specialrnclasses of sin—idolatry and impurity? At first glance, these mayrnseem less important than, say, sins against justice (like theft andrnthe exploitation of the poor) or against the sanctity of humanrnlife (like abortion or unjust warfare). These latter crimes havernobvious social effects that damage the lives of other men.rnWhat is it about the special crimes I have pointed to that meritsrntheir temporal punishment?rnWith idolatry, the answer is simple: sin is simply and purelyrna rebellion against God, a denial of His sovereign rights tornworship and obedience by the creatures whom He freely createdrnout of nothing and whose very existence would wink outrnlike a spark were He for one moment to disregard them. Idolatryrnis this sin in an especially pure form, a direct attack on therndignity of God as (to quote the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom)rnCommander of the Universe. It is an act of mutiny or treasonrn—crimes which when committed against merely human institutionsrnare punished with death. And justly. How muchrnmore justly may God dispense it to His creatures? Idolatry underminesrnone’s understanding of the entire universe, topplingrnGod from His throne and enshrining some created image orrnconcept or philosophy that better suits human fashion. Suchrngods are rarely benign in their demands: Think of Carthage,rnwhere the goddess Tanit demanded the sacrifice of first-bornrninfants, which were supplied by thousands of eager parents forrnhundreds of years. Or Mexico, where the Aztec gods requiredrnand received the hearts of thousands of men every year, rippedrnbeating from their living breasts.rnGod’s punishment fell heavy on both nations—in the formrnof Roman legions and Catholic conquistadors. Neither civilizationrnsurvived, and no living trace of these idolatries exists todayrn—except perhaps in the dark new feminist nature cults,rnwhich combine worship of the earth with a fervent embrace ofrnabortion. One Episcopalian priestess. Carter Heyward, went sornfar as to suggest that abortion be made a sacrament in a newrn”women’s religion.” This is not surprising; the old naturerngods whom the Hebrew prophets condemned, like Ishtar andrnBaal, frequently demanded the sacrifice of unborn or newbornrnchildren.rnSo much for idolatry. What about impurity? What is itrnabout sodomy, adultery, and the like which God considers sorngrave that He sends us plagues and afflictions to warn us aboutrnthem and call us to repent of them? The case is parallel to idolatry;rnit is a sacred dignity that these sins attack—the dignity ofrnman as the image of God and of baptized Christians as Hisrnadopted sons. One of the things that most sets man apart fromrnthe beasts is his ability to restrain his sexual passions withrnbonds of emotion, fidelity, social responsibility, and morality.rnThis morality (which we can deduce rationally from looking atrnman’s nature but which God offers to us complete in Revelation),rnsets us apart from the animals, many of which commitrnacts of incest, sodomy, rape, and cannibalism as a matter ofrncourse.rnWe are not horrified when dogs fornicate—it is what we expectrnof them. What baboons and chimps do with theirrnhands—well, the sight can be funny or disgusting, dependingrnon your sense of humor. Certainly no sane person is disappointedrnor appalled by the knowledge that simians masturbaterncompulsively or that the males mount each other just to provernwho is tougher. We demand no better of these beasts.rnConversely, when we look at humans the same way, andrnmake no more demands on their self-restraint than we do ofrnapes, we think less of them. By applying a bestial standard tornmen, we start to see men as beasts. This is obvious in thernrhetoric of sex and AIDS educators who want condoms handedrnout in grammar schools: “Of course, abstinence is the bestrnthing for children. But you can’t rely on them to have self-control,rnso it makes sense to be safe.” In other words, human childrenrnare really no more than animals and it is senseless to tryrnturning them into anything more. Our image of children hasrnmoved from an exaggerated Victorian innocence that deniedrnOriginal Sin to a repulsive prurience that invites sexual abuse.rnAfter all, if these kids really are barely human sex machines justrnwaiting to go into action, what is wrong with an adult having arnlittle fun with one of them? Why should he be expected torncontrol himself? This exact point is the message of WalkerrnPercy’s last novel. The Thanatos Syndrome. The sexual abusernof children may be the next taboo to go. (One gay group, thernNorth American Man-Boy Love Association—NAMBLA—rnhas adopted this as its sexual ideology, calling for “Sex beforernEight or It’s Too Late.” The more “mainstream” gay groups rejectrnthis position, requiring only that anal and oral sex berntaught to first graders, not performed on them. Thank God forrnmoderation.)rnMy point is not that homosexuals are child molesters: norndoubt, few of them are. But the ideologies that grant theirrn”lifestyles” public acceptance and advocacy also hammer atrntaboos—such as child molesting and incest—that some homosexualsrnwould consider valid. The sexual urge is so powerful,rnand in the absence of grace so overwhelming, that only arnharsh set of social mores—or a leviathan state—can keep it inrncheck. We have abandoned the former and are rapidly slippingrntoward the latter.rnMy thesis—and it is simply the thesis of Christianity andrnJudaism before it—is that sex is not safe and love is notrnfree, at least among human beings. Sex is both sacred and dangerous.rnIt is the mode God chose for transmitting human life.rnIt is the metaphor He uses (in the Canticle of Canticles and inrnEphesians 5) to represent Christ’s relationship with the Churchrnand with each human soul. His Church considers sex such anrnimportant sign that renouncing it takes on a deep meaning forrnher, signifying a direct wedding of oneself to Christ here onrnearth—hence the rise of monasticism, a celibate clergy, and thernspecial celebration of the sacred Virginity of Mary. Removingrnall controls from human sex organs debases the currency of humanrnsexuality from the sacred bond of marriage, inextricablyrnlinked to procreation, to the level of a cheap thrill, a glandularrndrug with certain ugly side-effects (like diseases or children), allrnof which can be counteracted by latex, pill, and suction machine.rnJust keep it sterile, and keep it safe.rnIt is possible to deny my thesis, to assert that human beingsrncannot and should not be held to a different standard of sexualrnbehavior from that of beasts. It is possible to construct otherrnsexual codes, less demanding than the Christian one, basedrnon pleasure, social usefulness, or eugenics. But it is not possiblernto believe and practice these systems, teach them to generationsrnof children, and still hold onto the elevated notion ofrnhuman nature that grew up in the Christian Church. One cannotrnnod at every form of sexual perversion and still hold ontorn26/CHRONICLESrnrnrn