What can Natural Law tell us about abstinence?

[Binary]

I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine about sexual morality. Since he is an atheist, I couched my position in a strictly secular explanation of natural law. However, he brought up an interesting point that revealed a gap in my own understanding of Catholic teaching about sex.

According to natural law, we can say that a seeing eye is objectively better than a color-blind eye, which is better than a blind eye. The color-blind eye does not fulfill the complete function the eye is intended to perform, but it is better than blindness. In the same way, my friend argued, sexual activity that is only unitive, or only procreative, is better than no sexual activity at all. This caught me somewhat flat-footed, and I found myself unable to mount any defense of abstinence. His argument made me realize that I really don’t understand the value of abstinence. I perceive it only as an absence, rather than a thing with its own identity. Is my perception wrong? According to natural law, is my friend correct?

Thanks in advance,
Binary

 

[stuart12]

I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine about sexual morality. Since he is an atheist, I couched my position in a strictly secular explanation of natural law. However, he brought up an interesting point that revealed a gap in my own understanding of Catholic teaching about sex.

According to natural law, we can say that a seeing eye is objectively better than a color-blind eye, which is better than a blind eye. The color-blind eye does not fulfill the complete function the eye is intended to perform, but it is better than blindness. In the same way, my friend argued, sexual activity that is only unitive, or only procreative, is better than no sexual activity at all. This caught me somewhat flat-footed, and I found myself unable to mount any defense of abstinence. His argument made me realize that I really don’t understand the value of abstinence. I perceive it only as an absence, rather than a thing with its own identity. Is my perception wrong? According to natural law, is my friend correct?

Thanks in advance,
Binary

Chastity (in what ever form) is a respect and reverence for God’s creative work. All expressions of sexually that are physically intimate, must comply with His laws and decrees. All men should see, but not all men are entitled to experience marital intimacy. The act of sexual intercourse should not be regarded as a good that must be ‘gained’ whatever the cost. The human person engaged in this is taken up in the creative function of God who allows us to contribute freely.

All gifts should be used according to right reason and with gratitude. If someone were to buy me a coat, it would be inappropriate for me to use it to wrap up old plates, even though it would ‘do the job’.

 

[1ke]

Perhaps you have the wrong idea regarding what Natural Law comprises.

In the Catholic understanding of Natural Law it is not equivalent to the “laws of nature.” as in the “law of gravity,” etc.

Natural Law is the law inscribed in our nature by the Creator. It’s our participation in the moral law. It has its origin in God. So, I’m not sure how far you will get with Natural Law and an atheist.

I don’t believe your eye analogy properly frames the concept Natural Law.

Charles E Rice has a book entitled 50 Questions on the Natural Law: What it is and why we need it.

 

[vera_dicere]

The color-blind eye does not fulfill the complete function the eye is intended to perform, but it is better than blindness. In the same way, my friend argued, sexual activity that is only unitive, or only procreative, is better than no sexual activity at all

It doesn’t sort of line up.

Colour blindness puts limit on a person’s life, you can’t be a pilot (in most countries), some places you’re not allowed to drive and there are other problems.

So, in essence, just as colour blindness is better than complete blindness, it still comes with a heavy burden that prevents full participation in some fields of life. But if a person with colour blindness were to fly a plane they’d likely crash, in the same way someone who engages in sex outside of marriage is likely to crash.

What I’m trying to say is that people who have sex out of wedlock or refuse to use sex as created to be procreative and unitive they are likely to harm themselves and others, just as a colour blind person is likely to harm themselves and others if they fly a plane.

 

[JohnPaul24]

I don’t like the analogy your friend used because it portrays mere physicality. It has no moral concept to it. If you and your friend were discussing sexual morality, he should have added a moral concept to the eye for a better parallel.

Sure, a seeing eye is objectively better than a color eye. But a seeing eye that only sees unpleasant things may not be considered better than the color blind eye that sees only pleasant things. It all depends on what aspect of sight/sex you are speaking of.

Similarly, sex that is unitive but not pro creative, say through the use of contraceptives, is simultaneously more and less than the sex that is not had by an abstainer. More in the sense that it is something that the abstainer is not doing, less in the sense that its being done wrong.