Catholic Sexual Ethics, and Why?

[quite_dense]

(I tried to find this answer using the Catholic Answers Google search function but couldn’t seem to find what I was looking for. I didn’t inspect absolutely every thread available as my connectivity is limited, so if this is a “repost” delete away. If this isn’t the appropriate forum delete away, though I’d appreciate a redirect to the right place.)

To preface my perspective, I am a 25 year old life long Catholic. While I’m afraid my brain and my eyes have not maintained the Catholic ideal in regards to sexuality, I have managed to physically. However I have become increasingly discouraged with trying to understand the logic/reasoning behind doing so. Usually when I ask this question to other Catholics eventually it ends with “I don’t know, ask an expert”. This includes asking priests. So here I am. On a related note, I think some clarity on this issue might help bring a bit more enthusiasm from young people in regards to the USCCB’s recent activity. So here goes:

As I understand it, one part of Catholic sexual ethics is very simple and seems crystal clear to me. To boil it down as much as possible (doubtless grossly oversimplifying), we make two faith based assumptions: God exists, and he gave us souls which are sacred. After that if we conclude that the soul is always present, then it would follow that life is always sacred, the gift of the soul is given at the moment of conception, therefore that moment must be treated with the utmost respect, and it would be gravely sinful to engage in procreative sex if one was not prepared to love the life that could result with all of his or her heart.

I love this line of reasoning, because even in the craziest doomsday scenario (deserted island, last of the species, no priests, etc…) this would still be pretty rock solid, provided God and the soul exist.

Now to the real point (and the TLDR):

What I don’t quite understand, is how non-procreative sexual activity (with or without a marital context) is necessarily disordered. Most of the explanations I encounter are sort of pathetic, they either just refer to experience, or some successful author’s experience. Or the explanation may have nothing to do with why the Church teaches this. Perhaps the most annoying is to illustrate very specific situations and draw conclusions, then act like that is remotely philosophically satisfying. It always ends up sounding like someone trying to argue that driving is immoral because you could hit someone.

Examples: “the church teaches that the male must complete the sexual act in a procreative manner in a marital context so deal with it”. “Lust is a sin.” “Babies are good therefore…” Or the most profoundly egregious “this is God’s plan, I know because I read it somewhere”. These are among the most excruciatingly painfully inadequate explanations for anything ever offered in the history of explanations. I cross referenced everything that was ever said, it totally checks out (relax, joking).

Hopefully someone here can help me (and my friends and fellow dense people out). This particular Church teaching seems to cause a disproportionate amount of pain for many current and former members. Intuitively I think if someone could sort this out one way or the other it would free up a lot of mental and emotional resources. The amount of restraint it takes to be a practicing single Catholic is pretty breathtaking, and a lot of energy gets diverted to the task. It pains me to think it may be unnecessary.

P.S. - (and yes this is a bit snarky) I’m not really looking for links to the Theology of the Body, anything by Christopher West, or the Catechism. They’re pretty abundant here already.

 

[newprestonpete]

It is really quite simple. God gave the commandments to Moses, which includes the sixth commandment; Thou shall not commit adultery.
This is not strictly a Catholic teaching as it applies to all Christians and Jews.

 

[gardenswithkids]

(I… The amount of restraint it takes to be a practicing single Catholic is pretty breathtaking, and a lot of energy gets diverted to the task. It pains me to think it may be unnecessary.

P.S. - (and yes this is a bit snarky) …

If you think it takes a lot of energy to be a single Catholic following the Church guidelines, just imagine how much energy it takes to be a married Catholic following the Church teachings on sexual ethics and who is blessed with with a large family as a result. That’s my own snarky response? Basically, yes, the Church teachings are hard. Life is hard sometimes.

If you think you’re alone in this, you’re not. We’re in this world together. Married Cathoics play their part–and so do single Catholics.

 

[Usige]

First off welcome to CAF.

The classic reason that non-procreative sex is disordered is that it puts the will of man before the will of God. Essentially God made sexual congress first and foremost to conceive children. Children are the natural outcome of sexual intercourse. Sexual pleasure is merely a secondary benefit.

Removing the possibility of procreation is a bit like being bulimic. Just like a bulimic might eat chocolate cake for an endorphin release, they then purge their system because they don’t want the calories. Contraceptive sex is the same thing; striving for the secondary pleasure aspect, while avoiding the primary purpose.

Now before raising NFP and saying it’s the same thing as non-procreative intercourse (someone will). If we use the idea of the bulimic above then periodic continence/sexual abstinence is more like dieting. Someone who wants to avoid calories might chose to abstain from eating cake. In this way they are not trying to “cheat the system” by getting the pleasure without the natural outcome.

I’m not sure I understand why you don’t want reference to the Catechism since it is part of the official teachings of the Church and therefore would be one of your authoritative sources. There are cross references to point you to other writings that explore the teachings in more depth. Even Theology of the Body is based on audiences of blessed John Paul II.

Given the above I don’t know how much you will be swayed by papal encyclicals but in Casti Connubii (On Chaste Wedlock), Pope Pius XI speaks to many of these things. He states very clearly

… any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

Much of this goes to tradition, but also to Genesis 38:9-10 where Onan refuses to impregnate Tamar and instead “spilled his seed upon the ground.” God then kills him for doing “a detestable thing.”

 

[TheRealJuliane]

(I tried to find this answer using the Catholic Answers Google search function but couldn’t seem to find what I was looking for. I didn’t inspect absolutely every thread available as my connectivity is limited, so if this is a “repost” delete away. If this isn’t the appropriate forum delete away, though I’d appreciate a redirect to the right place.)

To preface my perspective, I am a 25 year old life long Catholic. While I’m afraid my brain and my eyes have not maintained the Catholic ideal in regards to sexuality, I have managed to physically. However I have become increasingly discouraged with trying to understand the logic/reasoning behind doing so. Usually when I ask this question to other Catholics eventually it ends with “I don’t know, ask an expert”. This includes asking priests. So here I am. On a related note, I think some clarity on this issue might help bring a bit more enthusiasm from young people in regards to the USCCB’s recent activity. So here goes:

As I understand it, one part of Catholic sexual ethics is very simple and seems crystal clear to me. To boil it down as much as possible (doubtless grossly oversimplifying), we make two faith based assumptions: God exists, and he gave us souls which are sacred. After that if we conclude that the soul is always present, then it would follow that life is always sacred, the gift of the soul is given at the moment of conception, therefore that moment must be treated with the utmost respect, and it would be gravely sinful to engage in procreative sex if one was not prepared to love the life that could result with all of his or her heart.

I love this line of reasoning, because even in the craziest doomsday scenario (deserted island, last of the species, no priests, etc…) this would still be pretty rock solid, provided God and the soul exist.

Now to the real point (and the TLDR):

What I don’t quite understand, is how non-procreative sexual activity (with or without a marital context) is necessarily disordered. Most of the explanations I encounter are sort of pathetic, they either just refer to experience, or some successful author’s experience. Or the explanation may have nothing to do with why the Church teaches this. Perhaps the most annoying is to illustrate very specific situations and draw conclusions, then act like that is remotely philosophically satisfying. It always ends up sounding like someone trying to argue that driving is immoral because you could hit someone.

Examples: “the church teaches that the male must complete the sexual act in a procreative manner in a marital context so deal with it”. “Lust is a sin.” “Babies are good therefore…” Or the most profoundly egregious “this is God’s plan, I know because I read it somewhere”. These are among the most excruciatingly painfully inadequate explanations for anything ever offered in the history of explanations. I cross referenced everything that was ever said, it totally checks out (relax, joking).

Hopefully someone here can help me (and my friends and fellow dense people out). This particular Church teaching seems to cause a disproportionate amount of pain for many current and former members. Intuitively I think if someone could sort this out one way or the other it would free up a lot of mental and emotional resources. The amount of restraint it takes to be a practicing single Catholic is pretty breathtaking, and a lot of energy gets diverted to the task. It pains me to think it may be unnecessary.

P.S. - (and yes this is a bit snarky) I’m not really looking for links to the Theology of the Body, anything by Christopher West, or the Catechism. They’re pretty abundant here already.

God gave us our bodies, right? Our bodies include the ability to procreate. In fact, that is what sexual intercourse is ultimately FOR, what its purpose is. God made it to feel so amazing so that we would bond with each other IN MARRIAGE and create new souls. Not just for our own amusement. There is a purpose to our sexual aspects.

To have “non-procreational” or “recreational” sex, means that we have taken at least one of God’s purposes for sex and turned it inside out. We can’t have recreational sex without some form of artificial birth control, can we? And that leads us to all sorts of horrible sins such as promiscuity, abortion, adultery, perversions, sexually transmitted disease, etc.

When our lives line up with what God desires for us, things just work a lot better.

As for pain, I dare you to match yours with mine. I lived a life of recreational sex and a large part of my ability to actually be fully intimate with my husband was destroyed long before I ever met him. I carry the shame of my past forever. I’d trade the supposed pain of chastity for the real pain of never knowing “holy sex” in a heartbeat.

 

[JRKH]

First off welcome to CAF.

The classic reason that non-procreative sex is disordered is that it puts the will of man before the will of God. Essentially God made sexual congress first and foremost to conceive children. Children are the natural outcome of sexual intercourse. Sexual pleasure is merely a secondary benefit.

Removing the possibility of procreation is a bit like being bulimic. Just like a bulimic might eat chocolate cake for an endorphin release, they then purge their system because they don’t want the calories. Contraceptive sex is the same thing; striving for the secondary pleasure aspect, while avoiding the primary purpose.

Now before raising NFP and saying it’s the same thing as non-procreative intercourse (someone will). If we use the idea of the bulimic above then periodic continence/sexual abstinence is more like dieting. Someone who wants to avoid calories might chose to abstain from eating cake. In this way they are not trying to “cheat the system” by getting the pleasure without the natural outcome.

I’m not sure I understand why you don’t want reference to the Catechism since it is part of the official teachings of the Church and therefore would be one of your authoritative sources. There are cross references to point you to other writings that explore the teachings in more depth. Even Theology of the Body is based on audiences of blessed John Paul II.

Given the above I don’t know how much you will be swayed by papal encyclicals but in Casti Connubii (On Chaste Wedlock), Pope Pius XI speaks to many of these things. He states very clearly

Much of this goes to tradition, but also to Genesis 38:9-10 where Onan refuses to impregnate Tamar and instead “spilled his seed upon the ground.” God then kills him for doing “a detestable thing.”

Great answer…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Now to the real point (and the TLDR):

What I don’t quite understand, is how non-procreative sexual activity (with or without a marital context) is necessarily disordered.

Frankly - I don’t know that the Church teaches this. A woman is only fertile a certain few days a month and sex any other time is, by definition, not “procreative” - yet the Church has no objection to married couples having sex during these infertile periods.

The Church DOES teach that certain types of sexual activities that purposely and artificially preclude pro-creation are disordered.
So - what makes something disordered?
The simplest answer to that is when something is not properly ordered to the intended purpose of the thing.
What is the proper order of sex? - Why do the organs and the urges exist?
Essentially for pro-creation. Therefore to remove the possibility of pro-creation from the equation is disordered.

I’m sure there are other aspects to this matter that need to be addressed, but I’ll let you take the lead on this…

Peace
James

 

[ExCatholicGuy]

To the OP: I share your questions, and your frustrations at the essentially declarative nature of many Church “teachings”. It’s one of the reasons I ended up leaving.

For thinking people, a reliance on catch-all buzzwords like “disordered”, “God’s will” (as decided by whom?) and, inevitably, “Natural Law” cannot replace reason.

 

[Tietjen]

When everything is said and done (the CCC quotes are presented, papal encyclicals are referenced and Scriptural evidence is shown to support the position of the Church) we are left with but one easy to understand question that when answered gives us all the explanation needed… Do we as Catholics respect and adhere to the authority of the Church? If the answer is yes, then we obey. If the answer is no, then we are like so many “cafeteria” Catholics which pick and choose for ourselves which laws of God we are going to obey. It’s not necessary to always understand all the “whys;” though in this case we have resources which explain it, although you have asked that we not resort to using them. I don’t always understand the reasons behind every civil law either, yet I accept that to violate one I am in fact breaking the law.

Personally, I found Usige’s explanation (bilimia & dieting) a very good one while adhering to your request that Church sources not be used to explain Church teaching.

In conclusion, because I realize that my response too many be viewed as “a bit snarky;” when I was young, I too questioned authority. However, the older I get, the more I realize that I don’t need to always question those things that God has put in my path to aid me in this life. All I have to do is accept that God knows best and obey.

 

[JRKH]

To the OP: I share your questions, and your frustrations at the essentially declarative nature of many Church “teachings”. It’s one of the reasons I ended up leaving.

For thinking people, a reliance on catch-all buzzwords like “disordered”, “God’s will” (as decided by whom?) and, inevitably, “Natural Law” cannot replace reason.

True - but reason can lead to the use of such “buzzwords” - except of course that they aren’t buzzwords if used in a reasoned discussion…
After all, there have been, and still are, many “Thinking people”, reasonable people in the Church who study upon these matters and use much deductive reasoning to reach certain “reasonable” conclusions.
Naturally not everyone will accept the reasoning…Some might even say that the reasoning is unreasonable……but one thing is certain. If one examines the amount of time energy and writing devoted to these matters, it’s pretty hard to reasonably suggest that the Church “relies on buzzwords”.

Peace
James

 

[Tietjen]

To the OP: I share your questions, and your frustrations at the essentially declarative nature of many Church “teachings”. It’s one of the reasons I ended up leaving.

For thinking people, a reliance on catch-all buzzwords like “disordered”, “God’s will” (as decided by whom?) and, inevitably, “Natural Law” cannot replace reason.

And yet, apparently, you are still left lacking in some regard; as you are coming here seeking what exactly? One can therefore conclude that the “thinking people” aren’t completely satisfied with the answers that they’re finding or they’d be content to live life in their self-absorbed world of knowledge and leave the “sheepeople” to their ill-reasoned conclusions. The fact that you say, “I share your questions” demonstrates that despite the fact that you are a “thinking” person, you have not come up with satisfactory answers. All you “know” is that 2000 years of scholars and Church doctors, clergy, and otherwise, pale in the knowledge that you would need in order to be convinced. Instead, you have “frustrations” and leave the Church because in your experience (how old are you?) you have concluded that those who have come before you cannot possibly know better than you.

 

[Gods_Peace]

It’s self explanatory, but, you won’t listen, and you will choose the answer that serves your own appetites, so why even bother anymore?

 

[fpt]

" Essentially God made sexual congress first and foremost to conceive children. Children are the natural outcome of sexual intercourse. Sexual pleasure is merely a secondary benefit ": this sentence seems to be too much affirmative, written like that.

The union of body is only for married persons. Sexual intercourses are only for the wife with her husband, or the husband with his wife.

The marital act is a prayer, a liturgy, a sign of unity between the duality of humanity (male and female at the Image of God, a symbol of link between the couple and the Holy Trinity, the image of Holy Trinity). Between wife and husband, it is also a right and a duty, and an obligation and a debt.

The ends of marital act are the love (from love to love and for improving love).

The marital act is unitive and procreative:
For unity between wife and husband, I mean " the physical pleasures, the male orgasm / the female orgasms thus the marital orgasm, the holy conjugal erotism the love bonding ";
and
For the potential procreativity, I mean " making a baby , to be a possible father and to be a possible mother.
These conditions are necessarely cumulative (both of them in the same time).

The theology of conjugal sex

 

[epan]

God gave us our bodies, right? Our bodies include the ability to procreate. In fact, that is what sexual intercourse is ultimately FOR, what its purpose is. God made it to feel so amazing so that we would bond with each other IN MARRIAGE and create new souls. Not just for our own amusement. There is a purpose to our sexual aspects.

To have “non-procreational” or “recreational” sex, means that we have taken at least one of God’s purposes for sex and turned it inside out. We can’t have recreational sex without some form of artificial birth control, can we? And that leads us to all sorts of horrible sins such as promiscuity, abortion, adultery, perversions, sexually transmitted disease, etc.

When our lives line up with what God desires for us, things just work a lot better.

As for pain, I dare you to match yours with mine. I lived a life of recreational sex and a large part of my ability to actually be fully intimate with my husband was destroyed long before I ever met him. I carry the shame of my past forever. I’d trade the supposed pain of chastity for the real pain of never knowing “holy sex” in a heartbeat.

This argument doesn’t work because God also gave us the capacity for non-procreative sex. To show that gaining pleasure from sex is wrong, then you would have to show that gaining pleasure from any number of other things is also wrong.

I see nothing wrong with married people engaging in any sexual activity which brings them closer. For those who insist on procreation, I would say that all sexual activity contributes to the procreative relationship.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

This argument doesn’t work because God also gave us the capacity for non-procreative sex. To show that gaining pleasure from sex is wrong, then you would have to show that gaining pleasure from any number of other things is also wrong.

I see nothing wrong with married people engaging in any sexual activity which brings them closer. For those who insist on procreation, I would say that all sexual activity contributes to the procreative relationship.

You have a lack of logic here. Sexual intercourse where the husband finishes inside the wife is procreative. Do you know what procreative even means. Thus, that is what the Church sanctions. The “unitive” part means that our bodies are to be given freely in intercourse and God bonds us together from that unity.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

I don’t have to “show” anything. Living coherently within the Church’s teaching and God’s commandments is its own proof.

 

[L_piperatus]

If you think it takes a lot of energy to be a single Catholic following the Church guidelines, just imagine how much energy it takes to be a married Catholic following the Church teachings on sexual ethics and who is blessed with with a large family as a result. That’s my own snarky response?

LOL, I’m a single Catholic, and I totally agree with you. My life is a lot easier and simpler than yours, married folks. It’s also easier for me to stay abstinent, since I don’t have a wife sharing the bed with me (I could never even think of sex and babies, with my current job situation). Needless to say, I’m not in a hurry to marry.

 

[JRKH]

This argument doesn’t work because God also gave us the capacity for non-procreative sex.

God gave us pleasure in sex in order to enhance our desire for it. This is true. but it does not negate the fact that the purpose of the sexual organs is procreation. Therefore, the first and proper ordering of things sexual is procreation.
Our ability and even desire to have sex during non-fertile periods is secondary to this primary purpose of the organs.

To show that gaining pleasure from sex is wrong, then you would have to show that gaining pleasure from any number of other things is also wrong.

The church does not teach that gaining pleasure from sex is wrong.

I see nothing wrong with married people engaging in any sexual activity which brings them closer. For those who insist on procreation, I would say that all sexual activity contributes to the procreative relationship.

I like this - very well stated…so long as “all (the) sexual activity” you are referring to is, in itself, open to procreation.

We can quickly become confused and sidetracked in these kinds of conversations because there are so many different aspects to the subject.

Peace
James

 

[epan]

You have a lack of logic here. Sexual intercourse where the husband finishes inside the wife is procreative. Do you know what procreative even means. Thus, that is what the Church sanctions. The “unitive” part means that our bodies are to be given freely in intercourse and God bonds us together from that unity.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

I don’t have to “show” anything. Living coherently within the Church’s teaching and God’s commandments is its own proof.

I’ve read your posts, and I discount them because of the underlying anger. Until you come to terms with that personal issue, your thinking, speech and writing will continue to be clouded by anger. Please get some help.

 

[epan]

You have a lack of logic here. Sexual intercourse where the husband finishes inside the wife is procreative. Do you know what procreative even means. Thus, that is what the Church sanctions. The “unitive” part means that our bodies are to be given freely in intercourse and God bonds us together from that unity.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

I don’t have to “show” anything. Living coherently within the Church’s teaching and God’s commandments is its own proof.

When I read your posts, I am always impressed by the underlying hostility and anger.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

When I read your posts, I am always impressed by the underlying hostility and anger.

Why, because I disagree with you and point out how illogical your points are?

It’s nothing personal.