I read these results differently. First, don't confuse a magazine with the religion in general; they're different, obviously, and one can't serve as a surrogate for the other. Second, it's likely that the writers of the magazine are simply trying to address an audience that is far less influenced by religious tenets and fears then audiences were 50 years ago and more influenced by popular critiques on THIS ONE ISSUE, pornography. Finally, I doubt anti-pornography was ever much of a theme in popular Catholicism from the beginning. Don't confuse old-time-religion with what was happening centuries ago.

There are many problems with the western religions that cannot be fixed. They will die off eventually, after they take a last gasp at relevance. But they will hold on to their core, supernatural beliefs until the end.

Could another reading of this be that it reflects larger shifts in the phenomenology of porn production and consumption within society? The way that porn impinges upon religious and social consciousness is likely to change with the movement from adult theatres to VHS to the Internet.

I'm a little bit skeptical about the idea that all arguments against pornography that don't boil down to "it's a sin and against the bible," full stop, must be totally secular. It seems to me that many religions, including Christianity, have historically mixed arguments about social and personal good with arguments about religious authority to get their point across. For instance, while I can't comment on the specific arguments in Christianity Today, since they aren't quoted directly here, it seems probable that a Christian theory of pornography as self-harm would stem from the idea that the body is a temple, created by God, etc, and it's an individual's responsibility to keep it pure. And that's a very religious idea, even if some of its offshoots (don't look at porn because it will depress you/make you a worse person/negatively affect your marriage) seem less obviously tied to religion.

I would not call this "secularization". I would call this a move away from authoritarianism and towards logical arguments. It seems to me to be a natural consequence of the increasing education and literacy of the general population. That doesn't make it a secular argument, just one that doesn't rely on arguments like "the bible says so". Particularly since the bible does not mention pornography.

A major religion seeking to advance an argument that opposition to pornography is mandated by scriptures runs into a critical problem: no major religious scripture has anything specific to say about pornography. Sure, they could draw from doctrinal approaches to masturbation, lust, or extramarital sex, but if pressed to defend a religious position against pornography in and of itself, it stumbles into a grey zone.

I don't see what's happening now as evidence that religions (let's say specifically Christianity, since no other religion is represented here) are becoming more secular within their own ranks. Rather, religious ideology has to interact more and more frequently with a secular stream of consciousness, and assert the supposed relevance of their moral positions with something meatier than "God said so."

A genuinely secular discussion of pornography would at least clear a place at the table for the compelling body of evidence that "porn addiction" is more of a mythical bugaboo than a real psychological condition. It would suppress the jerking of its knee to examine the notion that it is harmful to marriages and families and consider if that harm is originating elsewhere in the matrix of interactions between relationships and sexuality. It would at least allow for the possibility that the use of pornography might not need to be opposed.

If anything, this blog post is a great example of how religious dogma can be mistaken for secularity when viewed through the lens of ideological dogma.

The assumption that this is a shift from deontological ethics to consequentialist ethics is not necessarily justified: it could mark a shift to virtue ethics.

This seems to reflect the increasing trend towards "plug-in thinking", as opposed to hand-crafted (or should we say head-crafted?) thinking, that we see in other areas of life - politics being the prominent example.

Harm to self is increasingly dominating discussion in this Christian magazine because certain Christian people want to find ways to judge other people. They don't really care about whether someone harms themselves or not. If they don't
like something about you they'll feel justified in being mean to you by saying
you're harming yourself.

St Paul: "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." - King James version

so, is it outsourcing to focus on harm to self? or radical resourcement?

i wonder what happened in the early 70's that, apparently, gave start to the idea that watching pornography would be bad for the viewer.

zero tolerance for porn, protect the delicate vaginas and anuses.

This movement may not be from deontological ethics to consequentialist ethics as is commonly assumed; rather, it may be a shift to virtue ethics. flappy bird