A sincere, no-agenda question for liberals regarding Catholic sexual ethics

[Mort_Alz]

This is primarily a question for American and European “social liberals,” though I welcome answers from anyone. Initially, I wanted to take a poll, but I think I’m looking for answers too specific for a poll.

Personally, I think there are many liberal ideals which Catholics can (and certainly do) support. I’m thinking of ideals like actively helping the poor and brainstorming for solutions to help alleviate the severity of poverty in one’s community. Also, I think of generous no-strings attached charities as well. All great things.

But, there is one area where Catholics necessarily differ from western liberals: sexual ethics and other social issues.

When it comes to sexual ethics, the modern liberal opinion is sort of an “anything goes as long as there is consent” kind of rule. A kinder way to put it is that liberal sexual ethics have their root entirely in the concept of consent. A good example of this is that two unmarried persons can be perfectly fine having sex because two unmarried persons can consent to sex with one another. On a much farther end of the spectrum, pedophilia can never be OK because children are incapable of giving consent. Same with beastiality. Animals can’t give consent. Rape, of course, also doesn’t have consent, so it is not allowed. Other than that, though, it seems there are few additional rules.

Immediately, I already have a question: If consent is the primary/exclusive deciding factor of a sex act’s ethicality, then are consensual incestuous sexual relationships ethical? Obviously this would exclude two child siblings or a parent and a child because there is no possible consent there, but what about grown adult siblings? What about a father or mother and their grown adult son or daughter? Can those be ethical since consent is theoretically possible?

Quick disclaimer: my Catholic sexual ethics, of course, forbids incestuous relationships even with consent and I have no trouble understanding why. I’m asking these uncomfortable questions to try and understand the moral reasoning behind liberal sexual ethics.

Catholic sexual ethics have their root in something different than consent, although consent is a necessary part of a Catholic-ethical sexual relationship. Catholic sexual ethics are rooted in the belief that our bodies are designed by a higher power than us and are thus subject to standards of conduct other than whatever we fancy and whatever we consent to. Thus, it is possible for consensual sexual acts to also be unethical. Unmarried persons cannot have ethical sex with each other because there is no prerequisite commitment between the two and sex, because of its life-creating nature damages individuals if there is no established commitment first. Since procreation is ideally inseparable from sex, it is unnatural and psychologically damaging to have sex outside of the security of a committed relationship even when no conception is possible from the sex. It forges a connection with another person that is not supposed to be broken. So, when these connections are habitually made and broken, it is damaging for everyone involved even if it is not easily perceived. This is not to mention the fact that an established and committed relationship before sex will protect the well-being of any children that result from the sex. That is not so with commitment-free sex. If a child results, then that child is more often than not deprived of his or her father; a figure which Catholic ethics says every child is entitled to according to justice.

Anyway, I’m digressing. My last question regards some anger which I have perceived in some of my liberal friends regarding Christian sex ethics. Some of them suggest that Christian sexual ethics inescapably promotes misogyny, patriarchy, and oppressive relationships and also undermines the importance of consent. I am having a hard time understanding how this is. Perhaps someone can spell it out for me more lucidly?

 

[meltzerboy]

This is primarily a question for American and European “social liberals,” though I welcome answers from anyone. Initially, I wanted to take a poll, but I think I’m looking for answers too specific for a poll.

Personally, I think there are many liberal ideals which Catholics can (and certainly do) support. I’m thinking of ideals like actively helping the poor and brainstorming for solutions to help alleviate the severity of poverty in one’s community. Also, I think of generous no-strings attached charities as well. All great things.

But, there is one area where Catholics necessarily differ from western liberals: sexual ethics and other social issues.

When it comes to sexual ethics, the modern liberal opinion is sort of an “anything goes as long as there is consent” kind of rule. A kinder way to put it is that liberal sexual ethics have their root entirely in the concept of consent. A good example of this is that two unmarried persons can be perfectly fine having sex because two unmarried persons can consent to sex with one another. On a much farther end of the spectrum, pedophilia can never be OK because children are incapable of giving consent. Same with beastiality. Animals can’t give consent. Rape, of course, also doesn’t have consent, so it is not allowed. Other than that, though, it seems there are few additional rules.

Immediately, I already have a question: If consent is the primary/exclusive deciding factor of a sex act’s ethicality, then are consensual incestuous sexual relationships ethical? Obviously this would exclude two child siblings or a parent and a child because there is no possible consent there, but what about grown adult siblings? What about a father or mother and their grown adult son or daughter? Can those be ethical since consent is theoretically possible?

Quick disclaimer: my Catholic sexual ethics, of course, forbids incestuous relationships even with consent and I have no trouble understanding why. I’m asking these uncomfortable questions to try and understand the moral reasoning behind liberal sexual ethics.

Catholic sexual ethics have their root in something different than consent, although consent is a necessary part of a Catholic-ethical sexual relationship. Catholic sexual ethics are rooted in the belief that our bodies are designed by a higher power than us and are thus subject to standards of conduct other than whatever we fancy and whatever we consent to. Thus, it is possible for consensual sexual acts to also be unethical. Unmarried persons cannot have ethical sex with each other because there is no prerequisite commitment between the two and sex, because of its life-creating nature damages individuals if there is no established commitment first. Since procreation is ideally inseparable from sex, it is unnatural and psychologically damaging to have sex outside of the security of a committed relationship even when no conception is possible from the sex. It forges a connection with another person that is not supposed to be broken. So, when these connections are habitually made and broken, it is damaging for everyone involved even if it is not easily perceived. This is not to mention the fact that an established and committed relationship before sex will protect the well-being of any children that result from the sex. That is not so with commitment-free sex. If a child results, then that child is more often than not deprived of his or her father; a figure which Catholic ethics says every child is entitled to according to justice.

Anyway, I’m digressing. My last question regards some anger which I have perceived in some of my liberal friends regarding Christian sex ethics. Some of them suggest that Christian sexual ethics inescapably promotes misogyny, patriarchy, and oppressive relationships and also undermines the importance of consent. I am having a hard time understanding how this is. Perhaps someone can spell it out for me more lucidly?

Your question presumes, perhaps inadvertently, that only Christianity has sexual ethical values. This is, of course, not true. Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Quakerism, Hinduism, and, I venture to say, virtually every Western and Eastern religion has a form of sexual ethical values and behaviors which it deems to be moral and correct. The liberal perspective–not only in relation to sex but other issues as well–is that, since we live in a heterogeneous society and world comprising many different cultures and sets of values (including non-religious, secular values as well), it is not really our place to dictate our own views to the larger society with regard to what is moral and what is not moral. While there may be some common ground on sexual ethics, there are also diverse viewpoints from one religion to another, and therein lies the liberal attempt to keep our own views but not impose them, directly or indirectly, on others, while instead be in favor of allowing others to practice theirs, provided there is no explicit harm done to the individuals involved or society at large. The latter may be difficult to ascertain in some instances, but the general principle of “mind your own business” remains a core value of liberals.

 

[Latias]

I suppose the individuals want freedom, control, and autonomy. You could talk about the inimical effects of casual sex without commitment such as having unwanted children, but modern contraception could manage that. I think increased access to contraception has actually reduced the abortion rate. If the child is the negative consequence, then contraception could prevent that.

I remember reading this since it discusses how patriarchy can attract the insecure and inherently weak men and drive them towards abusive behavior.

People who are inherently weak and insecure get drawn to a movement that tells them they are in fact superior, and then gives them all the tools they need to dominate those around themselves. This is exactly what happened to Biff, and he was shocked on those rare occasions when I flat refused to accept his “leadership” because he wanted to do something flatly insane or harmful and the pastor backed me up rather than him; our pastor for most of our relationship was a dear, sweet old man who’d been married many years and I suspect didn’t buy into the crazy as much as most of his flock did, because he tended to come down on the side of rationality and common sense a lot more often than you’d guess an extremist right-wing pastor should. When the rubber dogma of male superiority met the road of destroying a marriage, he tended to advise men to chill out and be cool. (This is also the pastor who advised my best friend Angela’s husband to finish his college education at the worldly, godless secular university his parents had paid for rather than outrage them by dropping out to go to the local Bible College, even though doing so would fulfill what this young man was 100% convinced was our god’s will for his life and actually would have put money into this pastor’s pocket as he sort of owned the college, so basically this pastor was all right in my book.)

Biff never liked hitting against those railings of compassion and common sense, though, and he sure wasn’t the only man in our church who was like that. And I sure wasn’t fooled by the pious, sanctimonious show he put on of being oh-so-very-put-upon at being put into the role of leader. I knew he reveled in it and loved it. I knew it was a huge part of his self-image that he, as a man, was naturally the leader between us despite his total lack of leadership skills and even personal integrity. He was like that little boy in that “Twilight Zone” episode who could wish anything into existence and who became a little monster who dominated and terrorized everybody around him. And I seriously thought, for the longest time, that my role in life was to be his wife and try to make him into a halfway decent human being–and to serve him with a smile.

Also, this culture tends to allow impunity for sexual offenders since other people will look the other way.

No, I do not buy the “culture of death” narrative that results from a culture of dissolute of sexual mores.

Bottom line, I think the price of a secularized society is worth it. You do expound of theology of the body in your post, but again that requires religious indoctrination to accept. I would rather live a secularized society that to live under Franco, Videla, and Salazar. It would be foolish to argue that the former did not preside over a “culture of death”.

 

[Wesrock]

When I had liberal sexual ethics, I would have cited a “do not harm” policy. Incestuous relationships can do harm to any offspring due to inbreeding. Also, incestuous relationships seem more prone to types of domestic abuse and abuse of authority, and so are better forbidden as a rule.

I do not consider this a fool-proof explanation. I have objections to raise, and honestly even this supposes somewhat of a natural law argument, but I’lol stop there. This is a poll of liberal explanations, not a challenge, and that’s what I would have said as a former social liberal if I were to object to such relationships.

 

[Cheiron]

Immediately, I already have a question: If consent is the primary/exclusive deciding factor of a sex act’s ethicality, then are consensual incestuous sexual relationships ethical? Obviously this would exclude two child siblings or a parent and a child because there is no possible consent there, but what about grown adult siblings? What about a father or mother and their grown adult son or daughter? Can those be ethical since consent is theoretically possible?

There is a third option, which is that it’s ethically neutral. I just don’t care if people want to have sex with their mother or father. Whether such relationships deserve legal recognition is another matter for which I have no answer (although I’m leaning to no). I hope that doesn’t sound evasive.

Quick disclaimer: my Catholic sexual ethics, of course, forbids incestuous relationships even with consent and I have no trouble understanding why. I’m asking these uncomfortable questions to try and understand the moral reasoning behind liberal sexual ethics.

Off the top of my head, I’d say there are two general rules. Do no harm and ability to consent.

Anyway, I’m digressing. My last question regards some anger which I have perceived in some of my liberal friends regarding Christian sex ethics. Some of them suggest that Christian sexual ethics inescapably promotes misogyny, patriarchy, and oppressive relationships and also undermines the importance of consent. I am having a hard time understanding how this is. Perhaps someone can spell it out for me more lucidly?

The main problem between you and your friends is the idea of what morality and ethics is. If consent and the avoidance of harm is key, then there is nothing immoral with having pre-marital sex. I can’t speak for your friends ofcourse, but Catholic sexual ethics - as far as I understand them - should be aimed towards procreation. This seems to disregard the idea that sex can be fun and enjoyable and that those are reasons enough to have sex.

There also seems to be an element of hypocrisy in celibate singles promoting marriage and procreation. I’m sure there is a perfectly valid Catholic logic behind it, but it’s not obvious to wider society. This hypocrisy has only increased after the child abuse scandal.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Your question presumes, perhaps inadvertently, that only Christianity has sexual ethical values.

I’m not presuming anything since I am not concerned with what kind of sexual ethics should be enforced at the legal level. That is an entirely separate question. I was more concerned with the moral reasoning behind a secular/atheistic liberal’s INDIVIDUAL sexual ethics which may be different from what they believe should be enforced or allowed legally.

 

[Mort_Alz]

No, I do not buy the “culture of death” narrative that results from a culture of dissolute of sexual mores.

I do not buy the culture of death narrative, either, even as a sincere Catholic. It is certainly statistically true that contraceptives do cause abortion rates to decrease. I do not propose that contraceptive use is harmful in that way.

 

[Mort_Alz]

When I had liberal sexual ethics, I would have cited a “do not harm” policy. Incestuous relationships can do harm to any offspring due to inbreeding. Also, incestuous relationships seem more prone to types of domestic abuse and abuse of authority, and so are better forbidden as a rule.

I do not consider this a fool-proof explanation. I have objections to raise, and honestly even this supposes somewhat of a natural law argument, but I’lol stop there. This is a poll of liberal explanations, not a challenge, and that’s what I would have said as a former social liberal if I were to object to such relationships.

Granting that it is admitted not to be a fool-proof explanation, I will only address the argument regarding the harm caused to offspring born of incestuous relationships. Most liberal systems do not think abortion or contraceptives are immoral, so contraceptives could be used to prevent incestuous offspring. Further, any offspring that do result accidentally could just be aborted. If that causes some moral discomfort, I’d be interested in hearing reasons why.

 

[Wesrock]

Granting that it is admitted not to be a fool-proof explanation, I will only address the argument regarding the harm caused to offspring born of incestuous relationships. Most liberal systems do not think abortion or contraceptives are immoral, so contraceptives could be used to prevent incestuous offspring. Further, any offspring that do result accidentally could just be aborted. If that causes some moral discomfort, I’d be interested in hearing reasons why.

I’ll play devil’s advocate as a liberal opposed to legalizing incestuous relationships.

You can’t force people to use contraception or to abort their babies. It would also just require too much work and government involvement to approve these relationships on a case-by-case basis to rule out abusive situations, and they are too prone to negative consequences relative to non-incestuous relationships. As a general rule to protect society and offspring, especially from long term consequences, it’s simply best practice to proscribe incestuous relationships.

 

[Mort_Alz]

The main problem between you and your friends is the idea of what morality and ethics is. If consent and the avoidance of harm is key, then there is nothing immoral with having pre-marital sex. I can’t speak for your friends ofcourse, but Catholic sexual ethics - as far as I understand them - should be aimed towards procreation. This seems to disregard the idea that sex can be fun and enjoyable and that those are reasons enough to have sex.

I disagree with the statement, “if consent and the avoidance of harm is key, then there is nothing immoral with having pre-marital sex.” But, I only disagree because it implies that in Catholic ethics, consent and avoidance of harm is not key. It is, but other considerations are key alongside it.

“Catholic sexual ethics… should be aimed toward procreation.”

Maybe under a bad explanation of Catholic sex ethics. It is not talked about as often because it is WAY less hotly contested, but even the more austere moral theologians in the Middle Ages discussed the importance of mutual enjoyment in sex and stated clearly that procreation was not strictly necessary; just that you could not render it intrinsically non-procreative.

Some will try to argue that natural law arguments against contraceptives are acceptable even under an atheistic framework. I disagree. Without some intelligence above humanity’s, the very idea of the natural law does not make sense. But, it is for this reason also that I think being morally outraged by anything is an irrational behavior if one does not believe in anything outside the material universe.