Sex a sin?

[TylerM]

Hi all, thanks in advance for your responses. I am a former Anglican resolving concerns about the Catholic Church. I was exposed to the Theology of the Body through Christopher West, and while I was concerned about the contraception issue, I saw it as a positive and sacramental view of sexuality. However, as I began do some more digging, I found many important Church figures who endorsing a dimmer view of human sexuality. From St. Justin Martyr to Pope Saint Gregory, I discovered a sexual ethic that considers the sole end of intercourse procreation. Sex for “lesser” reasons(pleasure) is at least venially sinful. Here are some example of things I have found:

For we are children not of desire but of will. A man who marries for the sake of begetting children must practise continence so that it is not desire he feels for his wife, whom he ought to love, and that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will. For we have learnt not to “have thought for the flesh to fulfil its desire” -St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata Book III

In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife’s breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife’s virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings (City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26).

I find this problematic for two reasons.
—First, it seems to contradict the experience of marital love. The dichotomy between pleasure and procreation is a false one, and the unitive aspects of sexuality are underemphasized. This view simply fails to realize the passion of sexuality as an expression of marital love.
—Second, considering the pleasure of sex sinful and downplaying the unitive aspect of sex is contrary to Sacred Scripture. Proverbs 5:15-19, Genesis 2:18-25
—Third, this seems to contradict current Church teaching. However, this negative view seems prevalent in the Early Church. If a change has truly occurred what does this mean for the rest of the Tradition?

I am really trying to resolve these apparent problems while holding on to a strong sense of Tradition, so any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I think what the Fathers are getting at there is that sex merely for the fulfillment of lust falls short of its true meaning.

Sex should be an expression of love, not of lust. It should be a choice, not an impulse. Does this make sense?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I didn’t really answer the question there, did I?

—First, it seems to contradict the experience of marital love. The dichotomy between pleasure and procreation is a false one, and the unitive aspects of sexuality are underemphasized. This view simply fails to realize the passion of sexuality as an expression of marital love.
—Second, considering the pleasure of sex sinful and downplaying the unitive aspect of sex is contrary to Sacred Scripture. Proverbs 5:15-19, Genesis 2:18-25
—Third, this seems to contradict current Church teaching. However, this negative view seems prevalent in the Early Church. If a change has truly occurred what does this mean for the rest of the Tradition?

I think that sex done purely for procreation reduces us to animals just as much as lustful sex does. Marital love can be expressed without sex, and sex should not happen without a certain possibility for children. However, sex is a viable expression of marital love, which should be an expression of more than just lust. It should encompass the self-giving love as well as their attraction for each other. The pleasure of sex is a gift to us. However, it is a “side effect”, and not the main objective. Perhaps the ECFs didn’t think much of sex, but that is a matter of personal opinion, to a certain extent.

 

[Cari]

And remember that not all writings are official Church teachings. We would do well to listen to the holy men and women Holy Mother Church has produced, but on matters such as this, it is best to seek out official statements first, fully digest them, THEN see what past saints and Popes have added to the discussion.

 

[TylerM]

Thanks so much for the reply, Tim. I really am in agreement with you on the nature of sexuality. I am primarily concerned that the teaching has changed. To me the current “open to life” condition is substantially different that the ECF’s “for the purpose of procreation.”
Furthermore, the ECF’s view that sexual pleasure is sinful or the result of sin seems substantially different than the CC current understanding of sexual passion as an expression of marital love.
I am trying to find a way to reconcile these view or reject one or the other. Thanks again.

 

[TylerM]

Thanks Cari, I just feel there may be too many of these views to be able to dismiss them. Also, I am looking for opposing texts so I can come to a more moderate position. Also, the quality of the sources of these statement is impressive. For example, Pope St. Gregory conveys this view St. Augustine of Canterbury as a matter of policy for the Early British Church.

 

[blessedtoo]

Thanks so much for the reply, Tim. I really am in agreement with you on the nature of sexuality. I am primarily concerned that the teaching has changed. To me the current “open to life” condition is substantially different that the ECF’s “for the purpose of procreation.”
Furthermore, the ECF’s view that sexual pleasure is sinful or the result of sin seems substantially different than the CC current understanding of sexual passion as an expression of marital love.
I am trying to find a way to reconcile these view or reject one or the other. Thanks again.

My reading of your quotes is different from what you have interpreted. The ECF’s do not state, in these quotes, that marital sex is ONLY for the purpose of procreation. Nor do they say, in these quotes, that there is any sin.

A man who marries for the sake of begetting children must practise continence so that it is not desire he feels for his wife, whom he ought to love, and that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will.

As Catholics, we are expected to bear children when we marry. The terminology here states that but in a different way. He does not say “a man who marries ONLY for the sake…” In language of the day, “desire for his wife” could have meant or indicated lust, which we know, even today, to be incompatible with Christian marriage. And his mention of the “controlled will” and chastity also fits in quite well with out current understanding of the marital relationship. We are all called to be chaste, no matter our marital status. Indeed, Clement makes a point of stating that the husband “ought to love” the wife in the manner that Catholics are called to love.

Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife’s breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife’s virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings

Augustine presents slightly more controversy which I believe the Church has addressed in the centuries since City of God was written. In any event, his description here of the marital act is quite tender and deferring to the wife, in that he imagines a marital act that would generate progeny without stripping the virginity of the wife. Remember that virginity was considered a high calling and vocation - one that made many a Saint! And once again, toward the end of his statement, he makes clear that the true culprit in the sexual act is lust. In our current Catechism, this teaching is most certainly upheld.