A Few Questions On Sexual Ethics

[JimmyJazz]

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

But what makes homosexual acts intrinsically disordered? The absence of procreation- unless the sterility analogy doesn’t hold, and it may very well not- can be dealt with, and your only reason that they are not unitive is their being intrinsically disordered.

Yes. It must.

Why must it, though?

 

[distracted]

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.

ABC is immoral because it changes the act of sex… introduces something artificial and man-made into the picture… (etc…) It is always wrong… no matter what the reasons. There are natural ways to plan a family…

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.

what is the point?? are you saying that makes homosexuality not so bad?? I am confused/

 

[Dredgemate]

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?

By eliminating the procreative nature you only are focusing on the unitive, and the two cannot be mutually exclusive. By focusing on the unitive element, or the pleasure, gained through the Marital Act, you reveal the weekest point of ultiliatrian thinking. I’ll paraphrase JPII in his book “Love and Responsibility”; If the only main aim of man is pleasure, the human person must figure in this role: as a means to an end, an object to obtain the maximum pleasure. This goes against the nature of a loving relationship

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?

I think you end up comparing apples to oranges. Man was given domain over the earth and creatures. I don’t think that’s a proper analogy.

 

[Dredgemate]

Incidentally, I would strongly recommend “Love and Responsibility”. It was written when JPII was a Cardinal.

The philisophical nature of the exploration between Man and Woman within marriage is extremely fascinating (albeit a bit advanced for the casual reader).

 

[JimmyJazz]

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.

 

[Dredgemate]

distracted;4057647:

What I meant to say is that it has crossed my mind that innate homosexuality might be roughly analogous to medical sterility inasmuch as it is an inborn, unchosen condition that makes conception naturally impossible. Therefore- so this line of argument goes- at least some

homosexual acts are just as permissible as the sexual acts of the infertile, because they are only involuntarily incapable of producing children. This may very well be specious; I’m trying to determine what might be incorrect about such an argument.

good for you for asking why (not enough people do, IMO)!

 

[fix]

But what makes homosexual acts intrinsically disordered? The absence of procreation- unless the sterility analogy doesn’t hold, and it may very well not- can be dealt with, and your only reason that they are not unitive is their being intrinsically disordered.

Why must it, though?

The acts are disordered because they are not ordered toward the good. God ordained complimentarity, male and female.

To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent…

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

 

[JimmyJazz]

By eliminating the procreative nature you only are focusing on the unitive, and the two cannot be mutually exclusive. By focusing on the unitive element, or the pleasure, gained through the Marital Act, you reveal the weekest point of ultiliatrian thinking. I’ll paraphrase JPII in his book “Love and Responsibility”; If the only main aim of man is pleasure, the human person must figure in this role: as a means to an end, an object to obtain the maximum pleasure. This goes against the nature of a loving relationship

Isn’t pleasure just one small part of the unitive aspect, though? Obviously, if a couple- even validly married- has sex for no other reason than to gratify themselves (as they would be if they used contraception for a selfish reason) then they are sinning against chastity, but it’s less obvious to me that a couple making love in the short term and making babies in the long term (if you will) are committing a comparable sin.

I think you end up comparing apples to oranges. Man was given domain over the earth and creatures. I don’t think that’s a proper analogy.

If we have dominion over nature (Genesis 1:26), then *a fortiori * we have some degree of dominion over our own bodies- and in marriage, over that of our spouse (as per 1 Corinthians 7:4). Of course, we have absolute rights over nothing; we can neither plunder the planet nor maltreat the temple of the Holy Ghost with adultery, self-mutilation, or the like. But, just as we can control the natural world and use it to our ends within the limits of reason, we can, say, get ear piercings and haircuts- we can even donate our organs or entire bodies after death- without offending God. What I can’t see is why using contraception is more in the class of gluttonous eating and less in the class of modest tattoos.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Incidentally, I would strongly recommend “Love and Responsibility”. It was written when JPII was a Cardinal.

I’ll look into that. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[JimmyJazz]

The acts are disordered because they are not ordered toward the good. God ordained complimentarity, male and female.

Could you please be more specific as to the nature of this complementarity? I realize that it must be psychological (only a crude, mechanistic view would hold that it had to be physical), but how is it that only a man and a woman can form two halves of a proverbial whole?

 

[JimG]

Could you please be more specific as to the nature of this complementarity? I realize that it must be psychological (only a crude, mechanistic view would hold that it had to be physical), but how is it that only a man and a woman can form two halves of a proverbial whole?

Sorry to intrude on such a great discussion. I just happened to be reading Christopher West’s “Good News About Sex and Marriage.” It would seem that the complementarity between men and women is both psychological and physical. It must at least be physical in order for sexual union to take place. He says this, for example, about homosexual activity:

Another way of saying this is that it’s simply impossible for two people of the same sex to have sex. Whatever homosexual behavior may consist of, it is not and cannot be sexual union. Sexual union is brought about by the inseminating union of genitals. A man’s genitals cannot unite with another man’s genitals, nor a woman’s with another woman’s. It is simply impossible.
From this it seems apparent that at least the physical complementarity must be present, along with the psychological complementarity which subsists in men and women.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Sorry to intrude on such a great discussion. I just happened to be reading Christopher West’s “Good News About Sex and Marriage.” It would seem that the complementarity between men and women is both psychological and physical. It must at least be physical in order for sexual union to take place. He says this, for example, about homosexual activity:

Another way of saying this is that it’s simply impossible for two people of the same sex to have sex. Whatever homosexual behavior may consist of, it is not and cannot be sexual union. Sexual union is brought about by the inseminating union of genitals. A man’s genitals cannot unite with another man’s genitals, nor a woman’s with another woman’s. It is simply impossible.
From this it seems apparent that at least the physical complementarity must be present, along with the psychological complementarity which subsists in men and women.

With all due respect, my visceral reaction is to see such a statement as highly dubious. I don’t think that sexual union can be reduced to the contact or penetration of certain body parts (sorry if that sounds awkward or clumsy; I’m trying to be as delicate as I can ), but then again I could very well be wrong. What’s the rationale behind this opinion, namely, that the importance of sexual complementarity is in some way physical?

 

[JimG]

With all due respect, my visceral reaction is to see such a statement as highly dubious. I don’t think that sexual union can be reduced to the contact or penetration of certain body parts (sorry if that sounds awkward or clumsy; I’m trying to be as delicate as I can ), but then again I could very well be wrong. What’s the rationale behind this opinion, namely, that the importance of sexual complementarity is in some way physical?

Well, I think it would be useful to read the West book. Essentially, sexual complementarity means the parts are complementary. They fit together, and are designed as a part of the divine plan to fit together, with a result that is called sexual union, which is of its nature both unitive and procreative. It may sound crudely physical, but that’s the way that human beings are designed.

 

[JimmyJazz]

I can’t seem to quote the CDF bit from fix’s post, but I can copy and paste it:

To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design.

We are assuming, at least for the sake of the discussion, that the selection of a same-sex partner is not an arbitrary choice, but the result of a deep-seated sexual orientation. If I ever get married, it won’t be because I drew lots and they indicated that I should seek female company; it will ultimately be because I am, irreversibly and involuntarily, a heterosexual male. I am attracted to muliebrity, not virility. Similarly, if a woman seeks a woman, it’s most likely because she is, irreversibly and involuntarily, a homosexual female, and just as much attracted to femininity rather than masculinity.
*
Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living.
*

This appears to imply that complementarity is a matter of being able to procreate, but this could be easily handled if the sterility analogy holds up (again, that’s a big “if”).

This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent…

Of course there are plenty of lustful homosexuals with no interest in monogamy, commitment, or anything else that isn’t immediately gratifying. But there are plenty who are interested in something less selfish. I can’t see how the latter are being self-indulgent.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Well, I think it would be useful to read the West book. Essentially, sexual complementarity means the parts are complementary. They fit together, and are designed as a part of the divine plan to fit together, with a result that is called sexual union, which is of its nature both unitive and procreative. It may sound crudely physical, but that’s the way that human beings are designed.

Some humans appear to be designed such that their proclivities lean toward members of the same sex, rather than the opposite. I’m not saying that they are in fact so designed, but in a minority of the general population this appears to be the case. And how is it that the (seemingly) more important component of complementarity- namely, the psychological- is trumped by a teleological view of the genitalia? A follow-up question: why doesn’t this strict teleology extend to other members of the body? I’ve never heard an acrobat accused of mortal sin for walking on his hands.

 

[JimG]

Yes, while I’m going by the Christopher West book, but it’s too late to look this stuff up. He does cover this whole issue in great detail. But without regard to the qualities of commitment which two men or two women may have for each other, the fact is that sexual union remains impossible for them. Sexual complementarity begins, and must begin, with the physical, but it doesn’t end there.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Yes, while I’m going by the Christopher West book, but it’s too late to look this stuff up. He does cover this whole issue in great detail. But without regard to the qualities of commitment which two men or two women may have for each other, the fact is that sexual union remains impossible for them. Sexual complementarity begins, and must begin, with the physical, but it doesn’t end there.

I respectfully disagree with West’s analysis of the issue. I still just can’t see it any way other than mechanistic, even if he acknowledges that complementarity goes beyond the strictly physical.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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?

Catholicism teaches sex that is both procreative and unitive between a validly married couple images the love of God in a unique way. When we deviate from this divine plan for human sexuality, we hurt ourselves, possibly even falling into mortal sin.

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.

If our sexual unions are to image God’s life-giving love they must always be, at least objectively, procreative. This means that properly ordered sex is “the act that creates life”. Even when a couple’s level of fertility is not high enough for conception to occur, the act itself remains unchanged.

God’s love is clearly the model for our own. Jesus teaches us, “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12). Can you imagine if His love was only life-giving “on a broader scale”? Suppose His sacrifice was for humankind in general, rather than each particular soul. What a disaster that would be!

Catholicism teaches that marriage is ordered toward the good of the spouses. This usually involves the conception of children but, with serious reason, couples may be right to “avoid it [conception] entirely”.

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.

What do you mean by “sterile” heterosexuals and are they different from “infertile” heterosexuals?

 

[JimG]

Some humans appear to be designed such that their proclivities lean toward members of the same sex, rather than the opposite. I’m not saying that they are in fact so designed, but in a minority of the general population this appears to be the case. And how is it that the (seemingly) more important component of complementarity- namely, the psychological- is trumped by a teleological view of the genitalia? A follow-up question: why doesn’t this strict teleology extend to other members of the body? I’ve never heard an acrobat accused of mortal sin for walking on his hands.

Hands are designed and function as multipurpose organs. An acrobat walking on his hands does no violence to the purpose for which they were designed. Genitals do have a teleology; they are designed for union and reproduction, and the sexes are complementary in this regard. True sexual union requires complementarity of genitals. This seems so basic that it hardly needs discussion. Proclivities are another matter. People have a variety of proclivities, not all of which should be acted upon.

That doesn’t mean that we must view ourselves as only bodies. We are a union of body and soul, a unity. Sexual union is a union of persons, not merely of bodies, but without a genital union of bodies it is no marital union at all. Sexual expression of any sort outside the marital union simply becomes a lie told with our bodies.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Catholicism teaches sex that is both procreative and unitive between a validly married couple images the love of God in a unique way. When we deviate from this divine plan for human sexuality, we hurt ourselves, possibly even falling into mortal sin.

You’re right; I should have specified that the actions in question are considered grave matter, and are not necessarily mortal sins. Thanks.

If our sexual unions are to image God’s life-giving love they must always be, at least objectively, procreative. This means that properly ordered sex is “the act that creates life”. Even when a couple’s level of fertility is not high enough for conception to occur, the act itself remains unchanged. God’s love is clearly the model for our own. Jesus teaches us, “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12). Can you imagine if His love was only life-giving “on a broader scale”? Suppose His sacrifice was for humankind in general, rather than each particular soul. What a disaster that would be!

I admit that this is a beautiful devotionary notion- a good way of meditating on sex- and I couldn’t possibly call myself a Catholic if I didn’t value Christlike altruism. But I am still incapable of seeing how it is inherently more unloving to use contraception (if there are grave reasons for it) than it is to periodically abstain with NFP.

What do you mean by “sterile” heterosexuals and are they different from “infertile” heterosexuals?

I mean heterosexuals that are for one reason or another unable to conceive children, e.g., some people with thyroid disorders. Such a condition is not considered an impediment to a valid marriage in the Catholic Church, so I was trying to see what difference there was between their involuntarily nonprocreative union and that of two members of the same sex.