Theology and Sexuality

[brianwalden]

There’s always a lot of discussion on here concerning whether or not sexual acts the Church deems sinful are actually sinful. In the Catholic mind, if fornication, masturbation, contraception, homosexuality, etc. are natural expressions of human sexuality then we need to go back to the drawing board concerning the basic nature of what God created man to be.

Catholics believe that man and woman were made to complete each other in marriage. We believe that through the marital act we imitate and participate in the unity and fruitfulness of the Holy Trinity. From this theology it follows that sexual sins go against the very nature according to which God created man. To accept one of these actions as a natural part of God’s plan makes the whole house unstable, if not collapsing it to the ground.

So for the people who believe that one of these sins are actually good, what is your theology concerning humankind in general and human sexuality in specific?

 

[brianwalden]

Are there any responses? Maybe point out where Catholic Theology of the Body goes wrong even if you don’t have comprehensive replacement for it on your own. I’m just wondering how people who disagree with one aspect of Catholic sexual teaching reconcile it with the big picture.

 

[fix]

There’s always a lot of discussion on here concerning whether or not sexual acts the Church deems sinful are actually sinful. In the Catholic mind, if fornication, masturbation, contraception, homosexuality, etc. are natural expressions of human sexuality then we need to go back to the drawing board concerning the basic nature of what God created man to be.

Catholics believe that man and woman were made to complete each other in marriage. We believe that through the marital act we imitate and participate in the unity and fruitfulness of the Holy Trinity. From this theology it follows that sexual sins go against the very nature according to which God created man. To accept one of these actions as a natural part of God’s plan makes the whole house unstable, if not collapsing it to the ground.

So for the people who believe that one of these sins are actually good, what is your theology concerning humankind in general and human sexuality in specific?

I do not think there is always a specific and sophisticated theology used to defend sexual sin. Often it stems from the idea sexual acts do not cause immediate harm so they are seen as no big deal.

 

[manualman]

You don’t really think that such thinking arises out of pure theological speculation, do you? Seems to me that there is a similar pattern:

1. Person stops believing that an inclination towards sin exists in all of us as a result of original sin.
2. Person gets in a situation where they REALLY want to do something the Church declares to be sinful.
3. Because of Issue #1 above, Person can’t believe that something so seemingly desireable could be wrong.
4. Person chucks Church teaching and relies instead on what he mistakenly believes to be his conscience.
5. Person contructs rationalizing theological explanation as to why what he wants isnt’ sinful.

 

[brotherjoe]

I have struggled to be obedient to the Church in these matters all my life, but I have personal doubts and discomfort. The Church says that sexuality is for a holy purpose and that any variance from that purpose is gravely immoral.

Well, lets look at our hands. They can be used to pray and to ordain (if you are properly authorized to ordain) - very holy purposes. They can also be used to perform surgery, to build a house, to play chess or to pick one’s nose. They can also be used to commit murder. Now, the fact that hands can be used for holy purposes does not make mundane purposes SINFUL, it only makes them lesser, more mundane purposes. but the Church says that ANY lesser use of sexual stimulation/activity is automatically gravely sinful because in this case, with no apparent explanation, the sexual aspect of the body must only be used for the holy purpose. Why? Because the Church says so. No better explanation for those who struggle deeply in this area. It makes it hard to be sincerely convinced.

Joe

P.S. Yes, I know about urination - I wasn’t referring to that.

P.P.S. I still maintain that the Church is better equipped than I to judge these matters!

 

[davidv]

… but the Church says that ANY lesser use of sexual stimulation/activity is automatically gravely sinful because in this case, with no apparent explanation, the sexual aspect of the body must only be used for the holy purpose. Why? Because the Church says so. No better explanation for those who struggle deeply in this area. It makes it hard to be sincerely convinced.

There is plenty of explanation for the Church’s position for anyone truely interested in finding it.

 

[brianwalden]

I have struggled to be obedient to the Church in these matters all my life, but I have personal doubts and discomfort. The Church says that sexuality is for a holy purpose and that any variance from that purpose is gravely immoral.

Well, lets look at our hands. They can be used to pray and to ordain (if you are properly authorized to ordain) - very holy purposes. They can also be used to perform surgery, to build a house, to play chess or to pick one’s nose. They can also be used to commit murder. Now, the fact that hands can be used for holy purposes does not make mundane purposes SINFUL, it only makes them lesser, more mundane purposes. but the Church says that ANY lesser use of sexual stimulation/activity is automatically gravely sinful because in this case, with no apparent explanation, the sexual aspect of the body must only be used for the holy purpose. Why? Because the Church says so. No better explanation for those who struggle deeply in this area. It makes it hard to be sincerely convinced.

Joe

P.S. Yes, I know about urination - I wasn’t referring to that.

P.P.S. I still maintain that the Church is better equipped than I to judge these matters!

Thanks for your honest thoughts. I think you’ve touched on an important idea. I would think that most people do believe that our sexuality was made for marriage and children. Like you said they just don’t see that as the exclusive purpose.

I also think you’re right in pointing out that many people feel like the reason Catholic sexual ethics are what they are is “…because the Church said so.” I think most Catholics have been poorly catechized in this area - for most people the only way to understand it is to read about it themselves.

I think your analogy might be a little flawed, though. It’s not using our sexual organs for non-sexual purposes that’s sinful. As ridiculous as it sounds a person could use them for surgery, to build a house, to play chess or to pick his nose just as he could with his hands. Sexual organs would probably be terribly ineffective at accomplishing those tasks, but there’s nothing sinful in doing it.

The sinful act you described, murder, isn’t sinful because its an inappropriate use of one’s hands but rather because it violates another person’s dignity as human being created by God. I think sexual sins are the same way; we should examine Church teachings more closely to try to see why the Church says they violate human dignity.

 

[Chancellare]

I have struggled to be obedient to the Church in these matters all my life, but I have personal doubts and discomfort. The Church says that sexuality is for a holy purpose and that any variance from that purpose is gravely immoral.

Well, lets look at our hands. They can be used to pray and to ordain (if you are properly authorized to ordain) - very holy purposes. They can also be used to perform surgery, to build a house, to play chess or to pick one’s nose. They can also be used to commit murder. Now, the fact that hands can be used for holy purposes does not make mundane purposes SINFUL, it only makes them lesser, more mundane purposes. but the Church says that ANY lesser use of sexual stimulation/activity is automatically gravely sinful because in this case, with no apparent explanation, the sexual aspect of the body must only be used for the holy purpose. Why? Because the Church says so. No better explanation for those who struggle deeply in this area. It makes it hard to be sincerely convinced.

Joe

P.S. Yes, I know about urination - I wasn’t referring to that.

P.P.S. I still maintain that the Church is better equipped than I to judge these matters!

I must admit your view is very insightful. But what struck me was your phrase:
" but the Church says that ANY lesser use of sexual stimulation/activity is automatically gravely sinful because in this case, with no apparent explanation, the sexual aspect of the body must only be used for the holy purpose. Why?"

Consider a delivery truck with tanks and hoses for carrying milk or cooking oil. It would be logically unacceptable to use the same delivery system for urine or toilet sludge. As such, we don’t need an explanation as to “Why”, IMHO.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The sinful act you described, murder, isn’t sinful because its an inappropriate use of one’s hands but rather because it violates another person’s dignity as human being created by God. I think sexual sins are the same way; we should examine Church teachings more closely to try to see why the Church says they violate human dignity.

Brian, I think this is whence some disagreements over Roman sexual ethics arise.

I whole-heartedly agree that a sexual sin is one that violates another person’s dignity as a human being created by God. That’s a very concise way of putting it, and, I think, quite right. Where I personally disagree with Rome is the means by which one safeguards against violating that dignity. Rome seems to suggest that marriage is the answer, but the sacrament will not prevent a husband from sexually abusing his wife, or a wife from sexually abusing her husband. The sacrament cannot be an official and unconditional imprimatur on what constitutes good sexual relations because sexual relations within the sacrament can still be abused. It does not prevent a disordered expression of sexuality.

So I disagree that the sacrament makes having sex okay simply by virtue of the fact that the sacrament is present, or that simply by the presence of the sacrament a couple’s sexual expression will be de facto properly ordered. My understanding of marriage is that it represents a possibility for the couple–a supernatural reality that can be lived into. It opens a door, it provides necessary conditions for further growth. To my thinking, it is quite possible for a husband and wife to follow all of Rome’s rules regarding the mechanics of having procreative sex, but still sin if they reduce each other to mere means–either a means for pleasure, a means for reproduction, or (perhaps even most sinisterly) a means to some spiritual end. Reducing one’s partner to their particular use-value is the sin. And while the sacrament invites a couple to move into a greater metaphysical intimacy through sex (as well as through any number of means available through the day to day living out of the sacramental relationship) by opening the door to a significant mystery of union, I don’t think it automatically makes ethically bad sex into ethically good sex.

Which leads me to believe that marriage is not the pre-condition or sine qua non for the expression of a properly ordered sexuality, but is the fulfillment of that expression. As such, I think it’s possible to have sex before marriage which is not debasing, and hence not sinful. I’m not claiming that all sex before marriage is ethically good–I think the danger of using a partner sexually is quite present, almost overwhelmingly present. I think it would be easier to have ethically good sex in a marriage, if for no other reason than the sacrament is a means of grace and could so assist the couple. And if sex before marriage does not actually lead to marriage, I think there is something amiss. But I don’t think ethically good sex before marriage is an impossibility. Abstinence is to be recommended. But I don’t believe it is essential. (I think the argument of the beauty of giving one’s virginity to one’s partner is a bit sentimental and is a fond cultural contrivance which has more to do with atavistic notions of women as property than anything else.)

I’m trying to think of an appropriate metaphor that will illustrate my point more concisely, but the most obvious (food metaphors) I reject as being inherently based on consumption–and sex is not about consumption.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[manualman]

Mark,

You mischaracterize the catholic teaching on sex and marriage. You might recall that JPII was mocked mercilessly by the press when he warned husbands not to lust for their wives! Catholic teaching nowhere state that the sacrament of marriage makes anything go in the bedroom. Quite the contrary. Catholic teaching is that certain kinds of sexual behavior are inherently debasing to one or both of the couples and the function that God created sex for.

Unmarried couples that have sex, regardless of their sincerity, are attempting to take the unifying benefits of sexual union before they have utterly committed themselves to one another for life. This is inherently dishonest and damages the couple’s relationship.

Your discussion does NOT demonstrate that the sacrament is not a pre-condition for healthy sex. It merely demonstrates that the sacrament does not guarantee that the couple has a healthy sexual relationship. Surely you see the humungous difference?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You mischaracterize the catholic teaching on sex and marriage.

I apologize–I didn’t mean to mischaracterize, merely present my understanding of Rome’s position, and I fully admit that I may be in error in my understanding of that position.

Your discussion does NOT demonstrate that the sacrament is not a pre-condition for healthy sex. It merely demonstrates that the sacrament does not guarantee that the couple has a healthy sexual relationship. Surely you see the humungous difference?

You’re right, there is a difference. But if sexual sin is fundamentally defined as a sexual act which reduces the partners to their use-value (which is how I understand degradation), I don’t see what it is about marriage which makes it a condition for non-degrading sex, particularly if it provides no protection against it. Your position assumes that all premarital sex is de facto degrading, but that makes the lack of the sacrament out to be a condition by which a couple reduce each other to their use-value. And I don’t see the connection.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[brotherjoe]

Mark:

I think the point here is that all the elements of a holy conjugal relationship must be present, else the sexual intimacy is sinfully deficient. The sacrament is a necessary ingredient, as is openness to new life, mutual respect, gift of self, honor and dignity. As you rightly pointed out, married couples can use/abuse one another sexually and this is my understanding of the Church’s teaching.

The Sacrament is a condition for non-degrading sex inasmuch as the absence of a lifelong promise of fidelity which acknowledges God as the foundation and bond of the union renders the necessary ingredient of full self-giving and the spiritual element absent or at least highly doubtful. Email me and I’ll try to say that again in English!

 

[brianwalden]

Grace & Peace!

Brian, I think this is whence some disagreements over Roman sexual ethics arise.

I whole-heartedly agree that a sexual sin is one that violates another person’s dignity as a human being created by God. That’s a very concise way of putting it, and, I think, quite right. Where I personally disagree with Rome is the means by which one safeguards against violating that dignity. Rome seems to suggest that marriage is the answer, but the sacrament will not prevent a husband from sexually abusing his wife, or a wife from sexually abusing her husband. The sacrament cannot be an official and unconditional imprimatur on what constitutes good sexual relations because sexual relations within the sacrament can still be abused. It does not prevent a disordered expression of sexuality.

So I disagree that the sacrament makes having sex okay simply by virtue of the fact that the sacrament is present, or that simply by the presence of the sacrament a couple’s sexual expression will be de facto properly ordered. My understanding of marriage is that it represents a possibility for the couple–a supernatural reality that can be lived into. It opens a door, it provides necessary conditions for further growth. To my thinking, it is quite possible for a husband and wife to follow all of Rome’s rules regarding the mechanics of having procreative sex, but still sin if they reduce each other to mere means–either a means for pleasure, a means for reproduction, or (perhaps even most sinisterly) a means to some spiritual end. Reducing one’s partner to their particular use-value is the sin. And while the sacrament invites a couple to move into a greater metaphysical intimacy through sex (as well as through any number of means available through the day to day living out of the sacramental relationship) by opening the door to a significant mystery of union, I don’t think it automatically makes ethically bad sex into ethically good sex.

I think at this point you’re 100% in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. I think a lot of people only see the rules, but the rules are like the fences that form the boundaries of the theology. They’re there to provide definite markings of where the property lines are, but the goal is to be in the house not just on the property. You might want to read some materials based on JPII’s theology of the body. One of the things he talks about is how a husband and wife can still abuse their sexuality together.

Which leads me to believe that marriage is not the pre-condition or sine qua non for the expression of a properly ordered sexuality, but is the fulfillment of that expression. As such, I think it’s possible to have sex before marriage which is not debasing, and hence not sinful. I’m not claiming that all sex before marriage is ethically good–I think the danger of using a partner sexually is quite present, almost overwhelmingly present. I think it would be easier to have ethically good sex in a marriage, if for no other reason than the sacrament is a means of grace and could so assist the couple. And if sex before marriage does not actually lead to marriage, I think there is something amiss. But I don’t think ethically good sex before marriage is an impossibility. Abstinence is to be recommended. But I don’t believe it is essential. (I think the argument of the beauty of giving one’s virginity to one’s partner is a bit sentimental and is a fond cultural contrivance which has more to do with atavistic notions of women as property than anything else.)

I’m trying to think of an appropriate metaphor that will illustrate my point more concisely, but the most obvious (food metaphors) I reject as being inherently based on consumption–and sex is not about consumption.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

I think your intent is in the right place, but I guess my answer is that marriage is a public institution. If a couple isn’t married, they haven’t made that public commitment to each other yet. Also an unmarried couple hasn’t received the graces of the sacrament which help them to live their marriage as a vocation.

I’m sure my blunt remarks aren’t nuanced enough to answer your very detailed questions, but I hope they might be helpful in some way.

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

Which leads me to believe that marriage is not the pre-condition or sine qua non for the expression of a properly ordered sexuality, but is the fulfillment of that expression.

As such, I think it’s possible to have sex before marriage which is not debasing, and hence not sinful.

To have sexual-pleasuring where there is no possibility of conception is to break the “pleasure” from the “purpose”, which break is the same as breaking “body” from “soul”.

It is not allowed, due to the obvious harm that it does.

To have sexual-pleasuring where there IS the possibility of conception without the “union” of a man and a woman as “one flesh” is to take a chance that a child will be conceived from a disordered “being”, that being being a “broken man-woman”.

This is also not allowed, because it would (not could) cause harm to the child conceived, as well as by taking the “chance” one is in effect “testing God” in hopes that “the bad thing” will not happen (conception). Which commandment is it that prohibits testing God?

…{snip}…

The ONLY time sexual pleasure is appropriate is if it is accompanied by it’s “mate”, which is when a man and a woman are joined as one flesh.

Since this “mating” of “sexual pleasure” and “man-woman being” is ALWAYS violated by the lack of the sacrament of marriage, sexual pleasure is utterly forbidden to the non-married.

Which makes one ask, Why would sexual pleasure be necessary outside of marriage?

The simple answer is that it never ever is.

Man is capable of having other pleasures in place of any “need” for “sexual pleasure” at any time, even IN marriage, and since the abuse of sexual pleasure ALWAYS causes disorders in other areas of life, sexual pleasure should ALWAYS be reserved ONLY for it’s rightful place.

To make excuses that “sexual pleasure” need not be accompanied by it’s mate “man-woman being” is to say that “body” can exist without “soul”, which is simple denial of God’s plan, and ultimately denial of God Himself.

So, yes,… to excuse unchastity is to be an atheist.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.