In this century the church has made at least a token effort to bring its views on sex at least a little more in line with the view of society in general. Almost from its beginning the Church has taken a very dim view of sex as an end in itself. It still today, fancy words to the contrary, sees human sex in a most negative light.
I need not cite here the almost universal condemnation of sex by the early church Fathers.
from Augustine through Aquinas sex as pleasure brought forth the most vitriolic censure. There are philosophical reasons for this, of course. The idea of the spiritual as superior to the material coming from some aspects of Greek philosophy and gnosticism had a dominant influence until most recently. The only real purpose of sex was procreation, even inside marriage.
This century brought to the faithful two small wholes in the the wall of "sex is bad." The so called Natural Family Planning movement said, in what seems a clear contradiction of its basic teaching, that sex without procreation might be acceptable. If sex in marriage were had only on certain days when conception was almost impossible then it was acceptable. So having sex without procreation, by avoiding sexual intercourse totally on certain days was Okay. A type of birth control, this NFP was just fine. And here we see the church endless ability in the sex area to play games. Avoiding sex on certain days to block procreation was approved, but blocking procreation by any "artificial" means was a dire sin. The overwhelming number of catholics who do use some type of "artificial" methods, shows the laity is not fooled by such sophistry.
The second small whole in the "chastity" wall, and to show a more benevolent attitude toward human sexual nature, was to bring to greater importance the "unitive" effect of sex between married couples. If the sexual act brought the married couple' closer together' then sexual intercourse could be positive, provided of course procreation was not hampered. John Paul II bought this unitive principal much to the fore. Putting procreation and unity of the principals in sex as double benefits took some of the severity out of the old sex is bad but necessary theme.
This dual approach has excited many catholics to believe their church has a more realistic attitude toward sex. Of course, questions still remain. What is the status of sexual intercourse between a couple if, as we all know does happen, the unitive principal is not present. Is sexual activity still bad if the procreation element is still present, if not the unitive. As far as I know the church does not consider such sex a mortal sin. Sex without the unitive effect is not a sin, but sex without the possibility of procreation is a sin. And, of course the paradox that sex must be "open" to procreation when the advocates of NFP insist their method of birth control is even more certain to prevent conception than the use of "artificial" means!!
Obviously sex has more manisfestations than sexual intercourse. The Church still holds masturbation to be a sin. Aquinas, that great doctor of the church, acclained in cannon law, argued that masturbation was worse than or as bad as fornication or rape, in that the latter at least had the possibility of procreation. We must assume that as a spiritual advisor Aquinas would tell a 14 year old boy: Don't masturbate; go rape!! Such is the folly of beginning with the premise that the only function of sex is procreation. Even an anti-sex church sees that absurdity so today, as far as I can understand, the 'correct position is masturbation is a sin or, let's be nice and call it a grave disorder---unless, unless it has become a habit. I'm not clear on this. Is the Church saying if it is a habit it's alright?
What should an unmarried person do about sex? Well the Church is clear. They must refrain from all sexual activity or anything that would arouse sexual passions!!! Sexual thought are themselves sinful!!
Celebacy is clearly superior to marriage. Why? Because the church assures us the celebate has a greater opportunity to know God. Marriage is a blessing, but the gift of celibacy is even a greater blessing.
But, of course, the most obvious give away as to the church's attitude toward sex is that only those pledged to celibacy can have any position of authority in the church. Why is that so? The answer is very clear: Not having sex or sexual thought is a higher value than marriage. Realizing the weirdness of this position the Church hides behind a celibate clergy is a "discipline" not a dogma.
Those of us who love the Church need to speak out. The church's view on human sexuality, in the past and today, is in total opposition to human nature, yes, even to natural law. Such negative stance toward sex is simply a perversion of what being human is all about. Jack
No comments:
Post a Comment