A Few Questions On Sexual Ethics

[JimmyJazz]

Is it really true that interpreting sex as a procreative and unitive act is sufficient reason to condemn contraception and homosexual acts as mortally sinful? I’ve heard the (admittedly heterodox) idea tossed around that sex is procreative on a broader scale; while not every particular act of intercourse is directed toward the conception of children, marriage and sex, in the long run, are so ordered toward this end that it would be wrong- indeed, mortally sinful- to avoid it entirely. Assuming that this is true, artificial birth control is morally neutral; if it’s used with an anti-child mentality, it’s immoral, but if used to moderate births and plan a family within the limits of reason, it isn’t.

As for homosexuality, perhaps those who are incontrovertibly, irreversibly, and deeply homosexual are in the same situation as sterile heterosexuals: the malice of severing sex from procreation is absent from their sex acts, because they have an innate condition that stops them conceiving.

I’m not saying I believe these things; all I’m saying is that they’ve occurred to me. Any thoughts? BTW- in before Christopher West recommendations (sorry…)

 

[Dredgemate]

JJ,

first off, you need to frame the situations in the proper context. sex, in any situation, is only permissible within a marriage.

I think it’s easier to distill the whole subject to one of intent on the people engaging in the act. Are they participating in a certain act in an effort to purposefully prevent a pregnancy? If so, you’ve eliminated the Procreative element. Further, is someone participating in intercourse (which leaves open the possibility of life) but is only doing it to fulfill their needs with no thought of the other? If so, you’ve reduced the other person to an object and as such eliminate the Unitive element.

 

[1ke]

Is it really true that interpreting sex as a procreative and unitive act is sufficient reason to condemn contraception and homosexual acts as mortally sinful?

It is not a matter of “interpreting” a sex act as unitive and procreative. It is unitive and procreative when properly ordered. One cannot change or ‘interpret’ the Truth in a different way.

I’ve heard the (admittedly heterodox) idea tossed around that sex is procreative on a broader scale; while not every particular act of intercourse is directed toward the conception of children, marriage and sex, in the long run, are so ordered toward this end that it would be wrong- indeed, mortally sinful- to avoid it entirely. Assuming that this is true, artificial birth control is morally neutral; if it’s used with an anti-child mentality, it’s immoral, but if used to moderate births and plan a family within the limits of reason, it isn’t.

This is called proportionality and has been condemned by the Church as an error. Janet Smith treats this topic extensively in one of her books. One cannot hold this position.

As for homosexuality, perhaps those who are incontrovertibly, irreversibly, and deeply homosexual are in the same situation as sterile heterosexuals: the malice of severing sex from procreation is absent from their sex acts, because they have an innate condition that stops them conceiving.

Nope. This is in error and cannot be held either. A person who is infertile still completes a unitive and procreative act of completed vaginal intercourse between a married couple. Any other use of the sexual faculties is disordered.

I’m not saying I believe these things;

That’s good to know.

all I’m saying is that they’ve occurred to me. Any thoughts?

They’ve “occurred” to other people too-- mostly to people who want to commit sexual sins-- and they are errors and cannot be held by a Catholic.

 

[Dredgemate]

This is called proportionality and has been condemned by the Church as an error. Janet Smith treats this topic extensively in one of her books. One cannot hold this position.

It’s also called out specifically in Humae Vitae:

"14…Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse." which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

 

[JimmyJazz]

This is called proportionality and has been condemned by the Church as an error. Janet Smith treats this topic extensively in one of her books. One cannot hold this position.

I’m not contesting the authority of the Church, but may I ask what specifically is wrong with the idea?

Nope. This is in error and cannot be held either. A person who is infertile still completes a unitive and procreative act of completed vaginal intercourse between a married couple. Any other use of the sexual faculties is disordered.

I’m sorry; I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. How is it that an infertile married couple can have procreative sex, barring some sort of fertility treatment? What stops a homosexual pairing (in theory) from being unitive? Why is vaginal intercourse the only moral sexual act?

Pax tecum,
JimmyJazz

(sorry about the italics; I still haven’t quite gotten the grip of quoting another’s post)

 

[JimmyJazz]

JJ,

first off, you need to frame the situations in the proper context. sex, in any situation, is only permissible within a marriage.

Thank you for mentioning this; I should have clarified it in the OP. Assume that the contracepting couple is validly married, and the homosexual couple is in an exclusive, monogamous relationship. I realize that this isn’t a marriage by any means, but a follow-up question: should such a relationship be counted fornication (of sorts)?

I think it’s easier to distill the whole subject to one of intent on the people engaging in the act. Are they participating in a certain act in an effort to purposefully prevent a pregnancy? If so, you’ve eliminated the Procreative element. Further, is someone participating in intercourse (which leaves open the possibility of life) but is only doing it to fulfill their needs with no thought of the other? If so, you’ve reduced the other person to an object and as such eliminate the Unitive element.

I could see how it would run counter to the procreative purpose of sex to act against conception in any given act if this purpose were predicated of the acts individually. Humanae Vitae indeed so predicates, and I don’t disagree. However, I’m still a bit hard-pressed to see what is wrong with the notion that sex is procreative in the grand scheme of a marriage, and thus that a few nonprocreative acts would be morally neutral. And I don’t see how a homosexual act is intended to avoid procreation; it simply, by its very nature, can’t result in procreation. But thank you for your response; it was helpful.

 

[1ke]

This is called proportionality and has been condemned by the Church as an error. Janet Smith treats this topic extensively in one of her books. One cannot hold this position.

I’m not contesting the authority of the Church, but may I ask what specifically is wrong with the idea?

See above for the quote from Humanae Vitae.

Each time we use our sexual faculties we must use them as God designed them– objectively each act must be unitive and procreative or it is disordered. It is not the totality of the marriage that must be unitive and procreative, but each act.

I’m sorry; I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. How is it that an infertile married couple can have procreative sex, barring some sort of fertility treatment?

Each act of intercourse that is unaltered by the couple is objectively procreative. Whether or not it is subjectively fertile is not relevant. Those past the age of childbearing have objectively procreative intercourse too. Each act must be ordered in the way God designed it and unaltered.

What stops a homosexual pairing (in theory) from being unitive?

Unitive has a specific meaning here. It means joining together in the renewal of the marriage covenant between two spouses… not any ol’ happy feeling between two people. The sex act is unitive when completed between two spouses as a renewal of their marriage covenant. It is the “two become one” part of God’s design for marriage.

Why is vaginal intercourse the only moral sexual act?

Because its purpose is procreation and that is how God designed it to be accomplished. Other acts are not ordered to procreation and the unity of spouses.

 

[Dredgemate]

This is called proportionality and has been condemned by the Church as an error. Janet Smith treats this topic extensively in one of her books. One cannot hold this position.

I’m not contesting the authority of the Church, but may I ask what specifically is wrong with the idea?

Nope. This is in error and cannot be held either. A person who is infertile still completes a unitive and procreative act of completed vaginal intercourse between a married couple. Any other use of the sexual faculties is disordered.

I’m sorry; I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. How is it that an infertile married couple can have procreative sex, barring some sort of fertility treatment? What stops a homosexual pairing (in theory) from being unitive? Why is vaginal intercourse the only moral sexual act?

(sorry about the italics; I still haven’t quite gotten the grip of quoting another’s post)

That’s not an uncommon confusion. In regards to the inferitlity issue, Intercourse implies the possibility of procreation. Infirtility in and of itself is not incompatible with the couple’s inner willingness to accept conception. It makes no difference that conception may not occur because it is precluded by nature. As I said before, it’s all about the mindset of the couple.

As for proportionality, it tends to be a more grey area (IMO). It was somehting I was trying to discuss yesterday in another thread that was deleted for being “highly sensitive”-no matter. Looking at Humanae Vitae, "…Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity…" You can’t cancel out a contraceptive mentality with an open to life mentality at a later date.

Now, on to the touchy subject, vaginal intercourse being the only moral sexual act. I have found no supporting evidence in the Church teaching that supports this. I’m going to leave it at that, because I want to make sure I don’t get “spanked” (no pun intended) again.

 

[Sure]

This is called proportionality and has been condemned by the Church as an error. Janet Smith treats this topic extensively in one of her books. One cannot hold this position.

I’m not contesting the authority of the Church, but may I ask what specifically is wrong with the idea?

Nope. This is in error and cannot be held either. A person who is infertile still completes a unitive and procreative act of completed vaginal intercourse between a married couple. Any other use of the sexual faculties is disordered.

I’m sorry; I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. How is it that an infertile married couple can have procreative sex, barring some sort of fertility treatment? What stops a homosexual pairing (in theory) from being unitive? Why is vaginal intercourse the only moral sexual act?

(sorry about the italics; I still haven’t quite gotten the grip of quoting another’s post)

Jimmy,

The Church teaches that sex is (ontologically) primarily procreative and secondarily unitive. This means the act must first be procreative (actual vaginal sexual intercourse) only then can that act be unitive. You can have procreative acts that are not unitive, but you cannot have unitive acts that are not procreative. In this sense, unitive is secondary.

Proportionalism is morally problematic because it makes every situation into a “balancing” of good effects and bad effects. The Catholic teaching is that some acts are evil in themselves and can NEVER be done no matter what good effects may come from them. A proportionalist has to maintain that there are always certain circumstances where an act could be justified. This leads them to say that homosexual acts, abortion, contraception can all be justified. What they will not admit (but they must to be consistent) is that other abhorrent acts could also be morally justified (i.e. rape, slavery, etc.). Proportionalism defies the moral theology that the Church has taught for centuries: ‘one can never do evil even if great good may come of it.’

Hope that helps…

 

[Dredgemate]

See above for the quote from Humanae Vitae.

Each time we use our sexual faculties we must use them as God designed them– objectively each act must be unitive and procreative or it is disordered. It is not the totality of the marriage that must be unitive and procreative, but each act.

Because its purpose is procreation and that is how God designed it to be accomplished. Other acts are not ordered to procreation and the unity of spouses.

1ke, I’m tracking with you at about 95% (which means I agree wiht you to a point). I bump into an issue when we get into the definition of the Act. It doesn’t specify what the Marital Act is in the CC, only that it needs to be Unitive and Procreative. We’ve been down that road, of course, and I don’t see a need to revisit it.

I’m curious where you get your information that intercourse is the only moral sexual act?

 

[1ke]

1ke, I’m tracking with you at about 95% (which means I agree wiht you to a point). I bump into an issue when we get into the definition of the Act. It doesn’t specify what the Marital Act is in the CC, only that it needs to be Unitive and Procreative. We’ve been down that road, of course, and I don’t see a need to revisit it.

I’m curious where you get your information that intercourse is the only moral sexual act?

The “marital act” aka “martial embrace” is a well-known euphemism for sexual intercourse used in Church documents. Similar to “know” in the bible meaning “have intercourse”.

Show me an ACT that is BOTH unitive and procreative that is not vaginal intercourse.

 

[JimmyJazz]

See above for the quote from Humanae Vitae.

I think the OP was sort of ambiguous, and I apologize for that. The Humanae Vitae quote condemns justifying evil with a good intention, which is not what I was referring to. I was referring to a proposal that sex is only generally procreative, and not specifically so. Granted, Humanae Vitae appears to hold that any such proposal is the proportionalism you describe, but this kind of begs the question. It assumes that this idea of the generally procreative purpose (GPP, in shorthand) is incorrect and then says that it is incorrect because it justifies an evil that is only evil if the GPP is an improper way of looking at sex.

Each time we use our sexual faculties we must use them as God designed them– objectively each act must be unitive and procreative or it is disordered. It is not the totality of the marriage that must be unitive and procreative, but each act.

Again, I can’t see why the procreative intention must be present in every act; again, I don’t disbelieve in the Magisterial belief that it must, but I can’t see why that is the case.

Each act of intercourse that is unaltered by the couple is objectively procreative. Whether or not it is subjectively fertile is not relevant. Those past the age of childbearing have objectively procreative intercourse too. Each act must be ordered in the way God designed it and unaltered.

Fair enough, as to the definition of procreative. Thank you for clarifying.

Unitive has a specific meaning here. It means joining together in the renewal of the marriage covenant between two spouses… not any ol’ happy feeling between two people. The sex act is unitive when completed between two spouses as a renewal of their marriage covenant. It is the “two become one” part of God’s design for marriage.

I suppose that’s a good description of the unitive aspect, but is it entirely untenable that an exception to the general rule is made for those that procure monogamous, long-term homosexual partnerships? If it is untenable, why?

Because its purpose is procreation and that is how God designed it to be accomplished. Other acts are not ordered to procreation and the unity of spouses.

Undoubtedly, it is the only way to conceive a child, but why must the procreative aspect as you describe it above be present to serve the unitive purpose?

 

[Dredgemate]

The “marital act” aka “martial embrace” is a well-known euphemism for sexual intercourse used in Church documents. Similar to “know” in the bible meaning “have intercourse”.

Show me an ACT that is BOTH unitive and procreative that is not vaginal intercourse.

A well known euphamism? how do you explain the quite specific use of “Sexual Intercourse” within Humanae Vitae?:

"The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, “noble and worthy.It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse.” Not much euphamism there. That’s pretty specific. It seems to me that if the church wanted to be that specific, they wouldn’t use a euphamism.

My whole point has been that the Marital Act is not as specifically bracketed to sexual intercourse. Foreplay, afterplay, etc… is all a part of the Marital Act. The only requirements the Church has put on it is that it’s procreative and unitive. I’m not going to belabor this point, it’s starting to get off topic and I’ve already been chastised enough for my arguments.

 

[JimmyJazz]

That’s not an uncommon confusion. In regards to the inferitlity issue, Intercourse implies the possibility of procreation. Infirtility in and of itself is not incompatible with the couple’s inner willingness to accept conception. It makes no difference that conception may not occur because it is precluded by nature. As I said before, it’s all about the mindset of the couple… You can’t cancel out a contraceptive mentality with an open to life mentality at a later date.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a couple using a condom has taken into account the possibility that their attempt to prevent conception will be unsuccessful (even with perfect use, condoms have a 2% failure rate). In that event, they are more than willing to raise the child, or at the absolute least give him up for adoption so that he can be raised by loving parents. In short, they are willing to take responsibility for the life that their sex act might produce. How is this any more of a contraceptive mentality than the one that couples using NFP might have?

 

[JimmyJazz]

Jimmy,

The Church teaches that sex is (ontologically) primarily procreative and secondarily unitive. This means the act must first be procreative (actual vaginal sexual intercourse) only then can that act be unitive. You can have procreative acts that are not unitive, but you cannot have unitive acts that are not procreative. In this sense, unitive is secondary.

Thank you, but why is the broad possibility of procreation an indispensable prerequisite for unitive congress?

 

[Dredgemate]

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a couple using a condom has taken into account the possibility that their attempt to prevent conception will be unsuccessful (even with perfect use, condoms have a 2% failure rate). In that event, they are more than willing to raise the child, or at the absolute least give him up for adoption so that he can be raised by loving parents. In short, they are willing to take responsibility for the life that their sex act might produce. How is this any more of a contraceptive mentality than the one that couples using NFP might have?

You’re giving me a Humanae Vitae workout!!!

So, to quote:

“Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife…”

Pope PVI is basically saying that being selfish in your love life is to reduce the other person to an object (utilitatian view of marriage).

"If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will."

He goes on to explain that, given the first postulate, to purposefully frustrate the natural purpose by which the Marital Act is supposed to complete is in essence selfish love, and thus utilitarian.

“But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator.”

I think that this is pretty self explanatory.

 

[1ke]

A well known euphamism? how do you explain the quite specific use of “Sexual Intercourse” within Humanae Vitae?:

Well-known and exclusive are not synonymous.

I never said they were the **only **terms used, merely that they are terms used in church documents and are euphemisms.

 

[1ke]

I suppose that’s a good description of the unitive aspect, but is it entirely untenable that an exception to the general rule is made for those that procure monogamous, long-term homosexual partnerships?

Yes.

If it is untenable, why?

Something that is *intrinsically disordered *cannot have exceptions. Intrinsic-- in its very being.

It’s not a general rule, it is the way reality exists.

Undoubtedly, it is the only way to conceive a child, but why must the procreative aspect as you describe it above be present to serve the unitive purpose?

Yes. It must.

 

[JimmyJazz]

You’re giving me a Humanae Vitae workout!!!

So, to quote:

“Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife…”

Pope PVI is basically saying that being selfish in your love life is to reduce the other person to an object (utilitatian view of marriage).

I agree with this without reservation.

"If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will."

He goes on to explain that, given the first postulate, to purposefully frustrate the natural purpose by which the Marital Act is supposed to complete is in essence selfish love, and thus utilitarian.

I can’t find the argument. He seems to say that nonprocreative sex is wrong because it isn’t unitive, but that it isn’t unitive because it’s nonprocreative. Could you please explain the argument in greater detail?

“But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator.”

I think that this is pretty self explanatory.

Why does this not apply when we are damming a river, or irrigating a field? We certainly aren’t the ones whose spirits floated over the primordial sea, but there’s obviously no ethical problem with controlling water in these ways. At least as long as we realize the proper location of our link in the Great Chain of Being there’s no ethical problem. Could not contraception- at least in theory- be used with equal humility?

 

[Dredgemate]

Well-known and exclusive are not synonymous.

I never said they were the **only **terms used, merely that they are terms used in church documents and are euphemisms.

So I’m supposed to read these with a wink and a nod? That doesn’t make sense! the Church, in the cathecism, specifically defines lust and masterbation uses a euphamism for intercourse?