I’ve been thinking about the fundamental disconnect at work in the overblown affrontery expressed by some contributors and emailers in response to some of the criticisms here. I start from a basic assumption that we—all of us—are sinful. It does not strike me as at all outrageous to say that many if not most of the choices we make, my own included, are motivated by love of self above all else; it strikes me simply as a good place to begin. It would not offend me in the least to hear that I do not love what I ought to love because I know my own heart and I know that this is true.

On the other hand, for many if not most, the doctrine of original sin is all but lost. We are all “basically good people.” From this starting point, I can see how many of the comments made here would be terribly offensive. There is much that needs to be said about this as it gets to the core issue which is, ultimately, a spiritual issue. At this juncture though, I just want to make one point. It is this: if we as a society lose sin as a real thing, we also lose redemption, hope, and joy as real things.

Because as Bruce wrote, far from being a “mean and nasty” doctrine that crushes the human spirit, the doctrine of sin is what gives us our dignity as spiritual creatures made in the image of God. Unless we can be sinners we can never be saints. I have written some on this subject elsewhere, especially about the need to preserve the idea of virtuous vices:

The practitioners of virtuous vice are more forgivable because their sins are human sins, pursued with human passions. They approach life with the attitude of "real vice or no vice at all." As such, their vices remain on a human scale. Retaining a high level of skill and daring, these sinners celebrate their humanity by consciously risking annihilation. The virtuous vices are virtuous because they carry within them the seed of redemption: a recognition of the truth that human beings are not merely materialistic beings, not just a collection of elements, but spiritual beings capable of a meaningful annihilation. In George Santayana's memorable phrase, those who practice virtuous vice are "moral, though fugitive." As G.K. Chesterton put it, "they accept the essential idea of man; they merely seek it wrongly."

… The success of enlightened democracy is also its greatest bane: it imposes onto every area of human life the calculus of utilitarian efficiency. Pornography—I am using the term in its most general sense—is simply the imposition of this calculus on the fact of human sin. It is sin carefully processed, packaged, marketed, shopped for, and stored away in the cupboard, ready to satisfy any late night craving we may have. The attraction of the midnight snack is that it perpetuates the illusion of free and responsible adulthood while all the while allowing us to submit completely to the slavery of desire. The culture of porn is modernity's answer to a Puritan inheritance which declares all men sinners and demands that no man should sin.

… We need virtuous vice and bold sinners. Such vice affirms our humanity and tends to either burn a person up, or burn him into a saint. Outbreaks are violent and ugly, but can usually be contained. The culture of porn, on the other hand, operates like a deadly but patient virus: it lurks in the blood and succeeds by maintaining in its host the illusion of health. It creates simpering, self-justifying, and machine-like sins; outbreaks are prettified, and devastation seeps into society like a water into a sponge, mostly unnoticed.

Far better to concede some hypocrisy as Rod does below (a sentiment I second), or even to celebrate one’s selfishness as a Randian might, than to wallow in a false goodness that in essence, denies us our souls.