Our permissive society

by Norman St, John Stevas
THE House of Commons has just been debating the permissive society and its problems, an extremely important subject of vital importance to the future of the country. Unfortunately much of the debate was devoted to the making of party political points and Government spokesmen, in particular, seemed to be obsessed with the need to defend the Labour party against the accusation that it has facilitated permissiveness.
The truth of the matter is that both the major parties share responsibility for the permissive society but the Government party's "guilt" (if that be the. right ward) is the greater. This point was made with great effect by Mr. Simon Mahon, the Labour Member for Boetle, and a steadfast champion of Christian causes. It was after all the Government which facilitated the passage of the Abortion Act and fhe majority of its support came from the Labour party. Enough about that, as I want to tarn to more fundamental issues.
The first thing to get straight is to make clear what is mmint by the permissive society. The phrase was first used by no less a person than Pius X1t and has passed
into common currency. I would define it. as a society in
which the law in relation to morals, and especially sexual morals, plays a minimum role. I would not call it a civilised society (as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done) nor an uncivilised one as it has been branded by others. but rather a society which may turn out to be one or the-other. The weakness and the strength of _the permissive society is that it presupposes a society of adults who if left to themselves will choose the right things freely.
This society has not sprung out of the air but is the product of our own age, and our own age, poor thing though it may be, is the only one we have. It is the one age to which we are relevant, the only one which we can help to redeem, so we might as well try to understand it rather than a.naestlunatise it.
A prominent feature of our age is a decline of faith in institutions and therefore of the morality associated with them. Authority as such has lost its legitimacy. We see this decline in all institutional religion and within our own Communion in the altered position of Rome. Authority even in the Holy See is being ques• tioned and has to justify itself in terms of rationality, service and Jove.
The decline in both political and religious authority has led to an uncertainty about morality which has never been greater than today. I am agnostic on the question whether we are more or less moral than in the past but I am quite sure that we are much more uncertain about our standards. We have today an individual' rather than a Social morality and there are different moralities operating within the same society.
The evil of abortion
This situation has led to the' wide range of permissive legislation from homosexual law reform to the abolition of the theatre censorship which has pushed the moral onus away from society organised in the form of the state on to the individual as such.
The legislation reflects a state of affairs which already exists so that I believe it to be inappropriate. to give a blanket approval or condemnation of permissive legislation. Some of it is good and some of it is bad. and doubtless Cath.olies, like other citizens, will differ in the judgments they give.
Personally 1 approve of and voted for the abolition of capital punishment. To do away with the death penalty is in my view the mark of a higher regard for the value of human life. For the same reason I deplore the changes in the Abortion law.
The evil of permissiveness in this sphere is that it has made society abortion minded. A year ago I warned that the annual figure would reach 100,000 and I fear now that my error was one of underestimation not exaggeration.
Homosexual law reform on the other hand was, I believe, right. I agree with the conclusions of the Catholic committee of experts appointed by the late Cardinal Godfrey that the law is inappropriately applied to the conduct of adults in this sphere. While legal condemna tion of homosexuality may have bolstered up moral condemnation of the practice it did so at the price of persecuting a minority suffering from a disability for which they were in no way responsible. This was an unjust situation which' it was right to remedy.
At the same time I think it would be wrong to encourage homosexuality because it leads to much persocial unhappiness and can have a weakenine effect on society.
As to censorship of sexual matters one can only have an effective censorship if one 'has an agreed sexual morality and, as I have said, this no longer exists. It is right, however, for society to enforce certain minimum standards to keep pornography in cheek.
A correspondent took me to task last week for calling pornography "degrading." Yet that is literally what it is, a step down. Sexuality is a very good. and powerful force. The human body is a beautiful and wonderful thing, but it should be seen in proportion and context.
The ideal way to view sexuality is in the context first of a human relationship and then in a divine one. If one misses out the divine one "degrades" sex by one step, if one misses out the human, one goes a step lower.
Henee the evil of pornography: it turns a means into an end and the attitude of modern mass communications to sex can rightly be described in this sense as pornographic.
The response to this and other problems in our society should not be a flight to a repressive legalism which has lost credibility, but recourse to positive wit. ness and teaching setting the sexual in the setting of the human and the divine. Catholic parents and teachers have a heavy responsibility but also a magnificent opportunity in the world of today.