A Few Questions On Sexual Ethics

[Ruthie]

I’ll put my two cents in.

I reiterate, properly ordered sex is meant to be unitive and procreative. (I’ll leave the unitive part aside for now.)

That means that it must be designed for the possibility of sperm meeting egg.

Even if conception is impossible, heterosexual sex is still following God’s design.

Homosexual sex is not designed for sperm to meet egg. That is what makes it disordered.

Hope this helps,

Ruthie

 

[JimmyJazz]

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.

But again, unless it is that sexual complementarity is largely a matter of fitting the genitals together, the unitive purpose is not affected. More importantly, why is it that the genitalia are the only organs exempted from the multipurpose function to which you refer? Why is it so grievous to isolate the unitive purpose in a few acts, when it is no ethical matter at all to isolate any one purpose of any other part of the body for a multitude of acts?

True sexual union requires complementarity of genitals. This seems so basic that it hardly needs discussion.

The fact that male and female genitalia are naturally complementary in some sense is an obvious and undeniable fact of anatomy, and indeed does not merit any discussion. However, what does merit discussion is whether and how this is morally relevant.

Proclivities are another matter. People have a variety of proclivities, not all of which should be acted upon.

Agreed, a desire shouldn’t be acted upon simply because it is a desire. But I brought up homosexual proclivities in response to the suggestion that a divine intention for sexuality has been imprinted in the human body; I don’t see how such a belief could be squared with the apparent biological origin of sexual orientation, homosexuality included (not definitively proven, but cf. members.aol.com/slevay/hypothalamus.pdf)). I’m sorry, though, if I misread this part of your post; could you please explain in greater detail?

 

[JimmyJazz]

I’ll put my two cents in.

I reiterate, properly ordered sex is meant to be unitive and procreative. (I’ll leave the unitive part aside for now.)

That means that it must be designed for the possibility of sperm meeting egg.

Even if conception is impossible, heterosexual sex is still following God’s design.

Homosexual sex is not designed for sperm to meet egg. That is what makes it disordered.

Hope this helps,

Ruthie

Thank you for your reply . I have two questions, though. First, why is the sperm meeting ovum of any consequence when conception can’t possibly occur (barring some sort of preternatural or supernatural intervention)? Second, perhaps it is within God’s providential design that certain people should be inclined toward nonreproductive acts with members of the same sex, rather than to procreative acts with members of the opposite sex. That’s not to say that I believe this, but why should the possibility be discounted?

 

[fix]

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?

It is not a physicalist argument that the Church makes. We are a composite of body and soul.

Maybe this will help some?:

The Church and human intelligence both insist that the human body, bodily
life, and the procreative dimension of our sexuality are “personal” goods,
goods of the human person, not goods for the human person…

"My identity is the identity of the whole organism, even if the higher
functions of personhood are seated in the brain. How else could a man love
a woman and not merely her brains? How else could we lose ourselves in the
aspect of a face? Be touched by the delicacy of a frame? It’s this person’s
and no one else’s. Therefore, the body of the comatose, so long as . . . it
still breathes, pulses, and functions otherwise, must still be considered a
. . . continuance of the subject that loved and was loved, and as such is
still entitled to . . . the sacrosanctity accorded to such a subject by the
laws of God and man."35

The Church insists on this, for the Church teaches that God’s eternal Word
took on human flesh, and the Risen Lord, bodily resurrected, is the first
fruits of the dead, and that we, made to be His brothers and sisters in
baptism, will rise from the dead and be, with Him, risen living bodies…

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/COABPA.TXT

That complemenatarity exists is not some accident and is not incidental but something God has ordained.

God has an ordaining will and a permitting will. That some folks may be born with certain inclinations that are not ordered correctly is part of God’s permitting will. We all have some type of disordered desire.

 

[JimG]

But again, unless it is that sexual complementarity is largely a matter of fitting the genitals together, the unitive purpose is not affected. More importantly, why is it that the genitalia are the only organs exempted from the multipurpose function to which you refer? Why is it so grievous to isolate the unitive purpose in a few acts, when it is no ethical matter at all to isolate any one purpose of any other part of the body for a multitude of acts?

The unitive purpose is not affected?

As far as sexual union is concerned, sexual complementarity is precisely a function of anatomy. It is precisely the genital difference that makes the unitive purpose possible. Unitive means joining together. The genital differences between male and female are what make sexual union possible.

Human beings are composites of body and soul, but we are not dualistic. The two cannot be separated. One cannot separate the body from the soul, at least not without dying. When we try to separate the emotional and spiritual component of sexual activity from the bodily component, we become de facto dualists. Appealing to the psychological as against the physical splits the human being in two.

Whether or not a psychological tendency to homosexuality or to any other sexual tendency is genetic is a matter of dispute. There is no doubt, however, that anatomy is innate and genetic. Two persons of the same sex are not capable of sexual union. They may be capable of love, friendship, brotherhood, sisterhood, and social activities. They are not capable of sexual union. One might have a hard time proving that “orientation” is genetic; there is no doubt that anatomy is genetic. What does that have to do with sexual complementarity? I would say that it’s basic.

As to multipurpose organs, probably most of our bodily organs are not multipurpose. Liver, pancreas, gut, heart, arteries, veins, capillaries, the CNS and brain, sense organs, and well, yes, ovaries and testes, these all have pretty specific functions.

 

[Sure]

Jimmy,

It is impossible to have a truly unitive act that is not procreative (potentially life-giving) as the procreative aspect if primary. A homosexual act cannot be unitive in the least because the procreative aspect is missing, and because it goes directly against the design by God the Father. Also, an act outside of marriage cannot be unitive, as there is no union of persons to unite. An intrinsically evil act cannot be unitive since it separates us from God’s grace.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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.

Jesus says, “I came that they may have life”. (John 10:10)

God’s love is always procreative (ordered toward life), therefore our love must be procreative if we are to image Him.

Problems can arise when we assume that “procreative” means “reproductive” or “fertile”, beacuse it doesn’t necessarily mean either.

As others have explained, sexual love is procreative when it is “the act that creates life”, whether or not conception occurs. Do you see the difference between an act that is naturally infertile and one that has been rendered sterile by its participants?

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.

A couple who finds themselves unable to conceive are capable of a procreative union because they are able to engage in the act that creates life. Two members of the same sex can never engage in the act that creates life. Sexually speaking, their love cannot be procreative, therefore, they cannot (sexually) love as God loves.

What is the difference between a sterile heterosexual and an infertile heterosexual?

 

[Good_Daughter]

But again, unless it is that sexual complementarity is largely a matter of fitting the genitals together, the unitive purpose is not affected.

Just a thought on this:

I think the compliment actually goes much deeper, to the level of masculine and feminine. The Church as bride has no physical body (and no genetalia) but is no less the perfect compliment to Christ as bridegroom. Male and female and their respective genetalia are not accidents, but visible signs of a greater reality.

It’s a fascinating subject but there are other posters who understand and articulate it much better than I do!

 

[Good_Daughter]

First, why is the sperm meeting ovum of any consequence when conception can’t possibly occur (barring some sort of preternatural or supernatural intervention)?

Every conception involves supernatural intervention!

 

[Ruthie]

*…why is the sperm meeting ovum of any consequence when conception can’t possibly occur (barring some sort of preternatural or supernatural intervention)? *

What Good Daughter said. Plus, we have two examples in the Bible of supernatural intervention. Neither of them could have happened if the couples were contracepting.

Second, perhaps it is within God’s providential design that certain people should be inclined toward nonreproductive acts with members of the same sex, why should the possibility be discounted?

It’s not discounted, either by me or by the church. Homosexuals are called to celibacy, just like unmarried heterosexuals. Not all heteros are called to either married life or the priesthood; they, too, are called to permanent celibacy.

We have to go by what is right, not what feels right.

Ruthie

 

[distracted]

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.

sorry but it is bs to think that homosexuality is inborn…

i believe the propensity for homosexuality is inborn… but not its “manifestation” in the real sense…

 

[JimmyJazz]

Thank you, fix, for the response that you offered, but why can’t homosexual couplings include a mutual value for the person of the other? Because vaginal intercourse between two members of the same sex is an impossibility?

That complemenatariy exists is not some accident and is not incidental but something God has ordained.

Granted, the complementarity- and I mean that in the physical sense- of male and female genitals is no accident; our species couldn’t reproduce without it, and the propagation of human life is an indispensable good. But to reiterate: I don’t see the moral relevance of this biological necessity (the shape of the genitals, not reproduction).

God has an ordaining will and a permitting will. That some folks may be born with certain inclinations that are not ordered correctly is part of God’s permitting will. We all have some type of disordered desire.

Please forgive me if I misinterpret anything you’ve said, because I’m unclear on this bit of your post. You seem to be implying that heterosexuals have a sexual orientation positively blessed and ordained by Almighty God, but that He seems to “pass over” those that ultimately turn out homosexual (similar to the notion of passive reprobation, I suppose). Moreover, you appear to think of homosexuality as a sort of bundle of temptations to unchastity, a particularly strong species of concupiscence- as indicated by the line about disordered desires- whereas many homosexuals indicate that it is more than a simple inclination to behave lustfully with members of the same sex; it includes a strong affectional and emotional element, just as heterosexuality does. Could you please explain?

 

[JimmyJazz]

As far as sexual union is concerned, sexual complementarity is precisely a function of anatomy. It is precisely the genital difference that makes the unitive purpose possible. Unitive means joining together. The genital differences between male and female are what make sexual union possible.

Human beings are composites of body and soul, but we are not dualistic. The two cannot be separated. One cannot separate the body from the soul, at least not without dying. When we try to separate the emotional and spiritual component of sexual activity from the bodily component, we become de facto dualists. Appealing to the psychological as against the physical splits the human being in two… What does that have to do with sexual complementarity? I would say that it’s basic.

I’m sorry, but I fear that we’re going to have to agree to disagree on the physical nature of sexual complementarity. I can find no reason to believe that this particular aspect of the body’s structure has any bearing on moral questions. This is not Manichaen; this is just my inability to see any connection between this particular “is” and any kind of sexual “ought.”

As to multipurpose organs, probably most of our bodily organs are not multipurpose. Liver, pancreas, gut, heart, arteries, veins, capillaries, the CNS and brain, sense organs, and well, yes, ovaries and testes, these all have pretty specific functions.

The brain has a multitude of purposes and functions: controlling involuntary movements (breathing, heartbeat, etc.), facilitating a good deal of our sensory experience, and assisting in cognition, among others. Even if it didn’t, this doesn’t address the question; the manipulators and extremities of the body can be used in ways that aren’t immediately apparent from their basic biological purpose. Why is this morally permissible with them but not with the genitalia?

I’m sorry if this post (or any of my previous ones) sounds frustrated or dismissive; I’m just trying to understand this sort of thing and not having much success.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Jimmy,

It is impossible to have a truly unitive act that is not procreative (potentially life-giving) as the procreative aspect if primary.

Why can there be no unity without procreation? This is an idea that occurs in the works John Paul II et al., but one that I can’t seem to find much justification for. Of course, I’m very willing to be corrected.

Also, an act outside of marriage cannot be unitive, as there is no union of persons to unite.

I have no doubt that marriage is an institution ordered toward procreation, and thus one that requires a male and a female party. However, earlier in the thread I asked whether an exception could be made for monogamous homosexual couples given the uniqueness of their situation; can there not? If not, why not?

 

[JimmyJazz]

Jesus says, “I came that they may have life”. (John 10:10)

God’s love is always procreative (ordered toward life), therefore our love must be procreative if we are to image Him.

I think that this is an excellent way of reflecting on the nature of marital sexuality. The analogy isn’t perfect, though: for example, in order for God to grant life in the physical sense He requires no assistance (unlike we do), and He does not act as agent of spiritual life without the cooperation of the patient. For that reason, I don’t think this can be used as an argument (with all due respect).

Do you see the difference between an act that is naturally infertile and one that has been rendered sterile by its participants?

Yes.

What is the difference between a sterile heterosexual and an infertile heterosexual?

Nothing, really; the terms are interchangeable. I"m sorry that my meaning wasn’t clear before.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Just a thought on this:

I think the compliment actually goes much deeper, to the level of masculine and feminine. The Church as bride has no physical body (and no genetalia) but is no less the perfect compliment to Christ as bridegroom. Male and female and their respective genetalia are not accidents, but visible signs of a greater reality.

It’s a fascinating subject but there are other posters who understand and articulate it much better than I do!

I strongly agree that sexual complementarity should be understood beyond the genitalia, but could you elaborate on the bit about masculine and feminine personalities?

 

[JimmyJazz]

Every conception involves supernatural intervention!

What do you mean by this?

 

[JimmyJazz]

…we have two examples in the Bible of supernatural intervention. Neither of them could have happened if the couples were contracepting.

The Omnipotent God should have little difficulty overcoming the infinitely inferior power of any method of contraception- be it a primitive one available in the days of Abraham and Sarah or one of the myriad varieties in vogue today- if He wants a child to be conceived. Then again, perhaps I’ve misunderstood you; what did you mean?

It’s not discounted, either by me or by the church. Homosexuals are called to celibacy, just like unmarried heterosexuals. Not all heteros are called to either married life or the priesthood; they, too, are called to permanent celibacy.

I apologize for writing ambiguously; what I meant to ask was why it should be denied that homosexuality was incorporated into God’s design of man- not as a reason for celibacy, but as a variation of human sexuality for which monogamous, life-long outlets are afforded.

We have to go by what is right, not what feels right.

I absolutely agree. Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I’m not at all interested in having homosexual or contraceptive relations; I am an unmarried heterosexual with no plans for marriage (but in the event that I do marry, I have no intent whatsoever to use contraception).

 

[JimmyJazz]

sorry but it is bs to think that homosexuality is inborn…

i believe the propensity for homosexuality is inborn… but not its “manifestation” in the real sense…

Please explain: by “manifestation,” do you mean the experience of homosexual desires or the acting on them (or both? or neither?) To resolve an error in clarity I made in the OP, by “inborn” I mean that sexual orientation is either definitely fixed by genetic factors or very strongly influenced by them.

 

[mkim630]

Originally Posted by Good Daughter
Jesus says, “I came that they may have life”. (John 10:10)

God’s love is always procreative (ordered toward life), therefore our love must be procreative if we are to image Him.

I think that this is an excellent way of reflecting on the nature of marital sexuality. The analogy isn’t perfect, though: for example, in order for God to grant life in the physical sense He requires no assistance (unlike we do), and He does not act as agent of spiritual life without the cooperation of the patient. For that reason, I don’t think this can be used as an argument (with all due respect).

Christ came so that we may have life. He wasn’t talking in the physical sense, he was talking about eternal life. Technically, he probably didn’t have to do anything to give us life, but you cannot forget that he died so that we may have life. He gave his all, so that we may have life. He didn’t hold anything back, so that we may have life. He loved us, so that we may have life with Him in heaven! Our love MUST image His love, because His love is authentic love.

Why can there be no unity without procreation? This is an idea that occurs in the works John Paul II et al., but one that I can’t seem to find much justification for. Of course, I’m very willing to be corrected.

Authentic love ends in a union. God loves us so much, He wants to be in complete union with us. Did Christ hold anything back on the cross? If he did, would we be able to be in union with him? I don’t see how there can be an authentic love and union without the potential for procreation. What kind of union is there if the act itself tells me “I give you everything! But my fatherhood/motherhood!” There is no holding back in love, and this kind of holding back really goes against fundamentally who we are. We were made to be fathers and mothers. It’s stamped right into our bodies. Even if we cannot have physical children, we are all called to have spiritual children.

If you really want a better understanding of these things, you really should read Christopher Wests books and John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (I’m assuming you haven’t, sorry if you already have though). Really, they do the best job at explaining this stuff. And John Paul II is just awesome!

Hope this finds you well. Cheers!