What I want to do here is lay out some thoughts, informally, about male and female, the body, and human sexuality. I'm not attempting to give a thorough treatise of everything that must be said about these complex issues, just jotting down some important ideas. My thinking draws from the teaching of the Catholic Church (such as can be found here and here, and which was famously expounded upon in Pope St. John Paul II's well-known lectures on the Theology of the Body), combined with some ideas and observations of my own.
Male-Female Complementarity, Sexuality, and Marriage
God designed the human race to exist in two complementary forms--male and female. He did this because relationality is a central part of reality. God himself is a unity, but not simply a unity. His Being also involves relationality, as he is a Trinity--one God in three Persons. The very center and pinnacle of reality is the life and love of the Triune God, and creation is simply a spilling over of that love as God manifests his glorious life in the created world and we are brought to share in it. The complementary nature of males and females in the human race highlights relationality. Relationships involve the giving and receiving of selves, and the male-female complementarity of humanity allows for an abundance of this sharing of selves. Of course, this sharing doesn't happen only between males and females, but it happens (at least within the human race) in one of its deepest ways in male-female relationships.
This sharing of selves in male-female relationships is seen most profoundly in marriage--and especially in sacramental marriage. Marriage (in the Catholic view) is supposed to be a stable, permanent, committed relationship between a man and a woman in which one of the greatest examples of the sharing of selves can happen in the human race. When we talk about "sharing of selves," we're talking about giving and receiving. Husbands and wives give themselves in a deeply profound way to each other in the marriage relationship.
The human self involves both body and soul. These cannot be separated from each other, for we humans are not simply bodies, or souls in bodies, but we are a unit of body-and-soul. In the marriage relationship, husbands and wives give themselves body and soul to each other. They give their whole selves to each other in a uniquely profound way.
The body plays an essential role in this. When husbands and wives give their bodies to each other, this is both a part of and also symbolizes the complete gift to each other of their entire selves. An essential component of maleness and femaleness is the unique bodily characteristics of males and females. The bodies of males and females are designed for each other. There is a physical, biological, sexual attraction that exists between males and females. Men (generally) delight in the female body, and women delight in the male body. In the marriage relationship, husbands give their bodies to their wives and wives give their bodies to their husbands, and both husband and wife are fulfilled as they delight in each other's bodies and also delight in the enjoyment their spouse finds in their own body. This delight and enjoyment are manifested in many ways--enjoying the beauty of each other's bodies, acts of physical affection and intimacy, etc.--culminating in the sexual act itself. (That's not to say that the sexual act must be the immediate end of every expression of affection, etc. It's just to say that the sexual act is the pinnacle of all the various ways in which spouses enjoy each other's bodies. Spouses should find the fulfillment of their sexual attraction to each other in the sexual act, since God designed the sexual act--with its functions of bonding and procreation, which we'll talk about further below--to be the place where sexual enjoyment reaches its fulfillment and climax.)
How does nakedness fit in? The showing of the whole body is part of and symbolic of the revealing and giving of the whole self. Being naked in front of someone implies being vulnerable, letting one's inner/deeper self be seen and accessed. (When the whole body is seen, our private bodily parts are seen, and this is part of and symbolic of our inner selves being seen. That's why physical nakedness is so often used as a metaphor for other kinds of general exposure of self. "He could read my thoughts. I felt naked.") This is why we wear clothes in general public life. Trust is required when we bare ourselves, but trust cannot be taken for granted in a fallen, corrupt, sinful world. If we bare ourselves, we subject ourselves to possible objectification, scorn, contempt, ridicule, abuses, etc., which can damage our inner selves which we want to protect from such things. People can disrespect our bodies and their private parts, and they can disrespect our inner selves. This is why Adam and Eve were naked--there was unfallenness, so there was no lack of trust, no possibility of abuse. And that's why clothes were introduced after the Fall. So when husbands and wives get naked in front of each other, they are being vulnerable, exercising trust, baring themselves--their private body parts and their inner selves--to each other, giving themselves to each other as a gift, and they want to enjoy and be enjoyed--but as persons, not as disrespected objects.
Also, sexuality is a deeply intimate part of a person's self and life. In sex, we bare ourselves body and soul in a uniquely profound way. Our passions are intense and play a more central role in our experience than they do in much of ordinary life, where a more objective reason (hopefully!) tends to have greater influence, and this makes us vulnerable. (How many times do people do things in the heat of sexual passion they would find absurdly irrational at any other time?) Sex inclines us body and soul to each other. Physically, we bond. Spiritually and personally and in every way, we bond. Love of that sort creates vulnerability, because when we love, when we bond, we can be hurt. When we share and unify, we can be hurt. In many ways, in sex, some of our deepest desires, longings, and concerns are expressed, as we enter into an intimate relationship which bonds us to another human being--what we want, what we love, but which makes us vulnerable. We keep people at greater distance generally, because it is such a commitment of self to break down those barriers and engage in the intimacy of sex. (That's one reason why promiscuity is often so painful emotionally, and why casual dating often leads to much heartache. We are treating as casual something that is wired to be something deep, profound, and permanent. We are giving our very selves in a way that lacks the protection required for such giving.) Therefore, the sharing of sex is part of and symbolic of the deep, intimate sharing of selves in general. It makes sense, then, that the parts of our body that we consider our "private parts" are those parts that have associations with sex to varying degrees. To be naked, then, is to share our private body parts and our private inner selves, especially those parts connected to sex which is itself an intimate sharing of selves.
Of course, sex is also connected to procreation. That is its most obvious and immediate function, as is evident biologically. But procreation is not its only function. It is also an expression of affection and love, bonding, etc. But these all fit together, for the love and bonding is indeed designed for the good of the husband and the wife, but also for the making of a family structure in which new life will be brought into the world and raised and nurtured. Love and commitment lived out in life is the framework needed for the production and nurturing of new human life. God designed the most intimate and dramatic expression of love between two persons, a male and a female--the sexual act--to be the mechanism by which new life is brought into the world, showing that life and love are intimately bound up together. Love leads to life, and life is love. In the Trinity, there is one God in Three Persons. The relationship of the Father and Son produces the Holy Spirit. The love of the Trinity is the basis of creation, our very existence, as well as our final destiny as human beings and our salvation. We are destined to enjoy the Beatific Vision, which is sharing in the Trinitarian life and love. So human love in general, and especially love between males and females, and especially married love, and the sexual act in particular as a dramatic expression of this love, is made a metaphor and revelation of what reality is all about at the deepest level, what our human destiny is all about, and what salvation in Christ is all about. Hence, marriage is a created reality, but Christ raised it to a sacrament--a sign and means of grace.
We can see from God's having made marriage a central creation ordinance and a sacrament that he has put a very high value and sacredness on romantic and sexual love and the sexual act. "Sacramentality" carries the idea of a kind of special communication of the divine. Of course, this manifests itself in many ways in the marriage relationship in general, but one of the ways it manifests itself is in the very nature of romantic and sexual love and the sexual act. There is a mystical quality to sexual relationality and the sexual act. Like many other things--music, art, nature--but in some ways even more profoundly, sexuality is a doorway to experience of the transcendent. That's one reason it has been so central in human experience and culture. Much of our poetry, music, stories, etc., are associated with it. In many cultures, it has even played a role in religious and mystical rituals and experiences. It has mind-altering effects in some ways similar to that which can be produced by certain drugs or medicinal substances (which have also often been used in religious experiences in various cultures) or by deep meditation and other forms of spiritual or religious experience. The connection between two persons experiencing sexual attraction or relationships or involved in sexual acts in some ways transcends any other relational connection possible to us in this life. In this way, it functions as a kind of special appetizer for the Beatific Vision. It is an immensely powerful experience. I would not say that sexual relationality is the closest overall we get to the Beatific Vision in this life. The Eucharist, for example, certainly takes a higher place. But purely in terms of the mystical experience of relationality, it is no doubt among the highest and most profound that we can have in this life.
(Although my primary focus here is on the body and sexuality, it needs to be said that, of course, the total giving of selves in marriage that sex symbolizes goes far beyond sex itself. It involves the hard work of loving throughout life, sacrificing one's self for the good of the other, dealing with the ongoing, daily, and sometimes "mundane" aspect of living together--maintaining a household, raising children, comforting in affliction, easing burdens, practicing patience and forgiveness, learning the art of compromise and unselfishness, being faithful through adversity, etc. The joy of marriage is not just physical, but also spiritual and personal, and marriage involves not only joy in an ecstatic sort of sense but also commitment, sacrifice, penance, hard work, etc., and the fruits and satisfactions these bring. In all of these things together the love of married couples is fully lived out.)
All of this is why God designed sex to happen only in committed, protected relationships. It requires the protection and trust of commitment. To avoid harm, it requires stability--for the sake of the two persons themselves and also for the sake of the family structure that is the context of the procreation and raising of children. It requires a stable, protected place for love and life to be kept safe and nourished. And the relationship God designed for this purpose is marriage--which involves the coming together of a male and a female. Sex in any other context is forbidden, for any other context robs sex of some of its essential elements. Masturbation, for example, robs it of its association with relationships and the giving of selves. It becomes simply an activity for personal self-gratification. Homosexual acts remove it from its divinely-designed context of male-female relationships. As we've mentioned, God designed sex for the bonding and support of husband and wife and also for procreation. It should not be intentionally removed from this context, or it is misused, even if some elements of good sexual relationships--a great degree of affectionate bonding, for example--are present. Sex between males and females but outside of a marriage relationship lacks the necessary support and commitment both for the safe bonding of the partners and also for the procreation and raising of children--a task which requires a great degree of commitment and permanency. Adultery breaks the commitment of marriage and harms the bonding between spouses and the stable family structure for the raising of children. And so on.
Sometimes people these days criticize the Christian doctrine of sexuality--particularly the idea that sex is to happen only in heterosexual marriage relationships--as condemning other expressions of sexuality arbitrarily and for no purpose. "What's the big deal about sex between unmarried people, or homosexual sex, or masturbation, etc.?" But this objection ignores all the reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, and it also ignores the deep sacredness of the sexual act. Contrary to the way it seems often to be treated in our culture, sex is not simply a hobby or a fun extra-curricular activity or a nice way to pass the time. It is profoundly sacred. And, like all things, it belongs ultimately to God and not to us. God designed it for particular purposes and to be used in particular ways, and he puts very high value on it, so when we take it and twist it away from the divine intentions for it and use it however we see fit, we commit a serious act of sacrilege. We take something holy that belongs to God and treat it as if it is ours to do with as we will, according to our desires and regardless of God's. Imagine someone coming into your bedroom and, upon seeing some memento of great value to you up on a shelf, after being told by you how important it is to you and how you want it to be treated, declares that all your concerns are "silly" and "arbitrary," takes it down from the shelf, and decides to use it for his own purposes--perhaps as a doorstop, or even in a more serious way but a way contrary to your deep desires for how it should be treated. Perhaps that can give a bit of a hint of God's point of view when we misuse sexuality.
Male-Female Complementarity Outside of Marriage
But what about male-female relationships outside of marriage? Does the male-female complementarity of humanity have any function or role in other human relationships or in human society more broadly? Yes, it does. There are many ways in which this complementarity plays and can play a role. It plays a role in the broader society, as men and women contribute their unique points of view, interests, and abilities to the general goal of furthering the good of society. Men and women can be friends, and, while such friendships partake of the same general nature as friendships between members of the same sex, there are often elements of the male-female complementarity involved. For example, men often tend to be more empathetic towards women than towards other men, or they feel a greater desire to protect and support them. Men and women, even outside of marriage, find each other attractive and are drawn to each other's beauty. (This includes both visible, physical beauty, and also things we might not think of, such as the enjoyment of the sound of the other sex's voice in speaking or singing.) This can manifest itself in art, such as in the enjoyment of paintings that express the beauty of human beings, both male and female. Men and women also find the male-female relationship itself beautiful, and they often naturally enjoy illustrations of it, whether drawn from real-life (just think of the excitement of bridesmaids as they help the bride get ready to be married) or from imaginative portrayals (think, for example, romantic comedies).
But what about nudity? Can it ever be licit for men or women to enjoy any portrayal of the nude body of the opposite sex outside of marriage? Pope St. John Paul II, in his Theology of the Body, answered yes to this question (though with great caution). Nudity is not inherently an evil. The Book of Genesis seems to make this pretty clear, as it portrays the idyllic state of unfallen humanity in the Garden of Eden as a state of nudity. The danger of nudity in our world comes not from any inherent problem with nudity per se but with the fact that nakedness, in a fallen world, inherently invites corruption--disrespect of the body and the person, and objectification, where a person's naked body is used by someone to gratify their own desires outside of the proper relational context. General nudity requires a kind of general assumption of righteousness and trust, and a general self-control, which can't be had in this world. However, in limited and very carefully-controlled contexts, Pope John Paul II said that the beauty of nudity can be enjoyed even outside of the marriage relationship--such as in certain forms of art. (Think of the nudes in the paintings of the Sistine Chapel.)
All male-female relationships outside of marriage, however, are potentially dangerous, because male-female complementarity naturally tends towards the full gift of soul and body that ought to take place only in a marriage relationship. Men and women can be friends, but they must always be on their guard against their friendship evolving into a deeper kind of relationship of the sort that only belongs in marriage. Men and women can enjoy the beauty of the opposite sex, but they must constantly be on their guard against that enjoyment evolving into an attempt to find sexual fulfillment and gratification outside of marriage. We want to avoid two extremes here. We want to avoid simply condemning wholesale any male-female relationality of any sort outside of marriage, but we also want to avoid a laziness that does not take proper guard towards protecting such relations from corruption. We want to avoid a kind of paranoid fear on the one hand, and a kind of moral carelessness on the other. And relationships within marriage are not void of danger either. Objectification, abuse, neglect, and many other evils are just as possible within marriage as they are without--some forms even more possible.
Considering these dangers and the extremes we must avoid, how do we draw the lines properly and maintain the proper balance? As in many areas of life, this requires the virtue of prudence. There are some clear rules given to us in the moral law, but the application of these rules requires the development of prudence. Prudence is a gift of God, but it is also a skill that must be learned, and we get better with practice and experience. In prudential matters, there is often not a one-size-fits-all, easy answer to all questions. The application of moral principles requires discernment. We must be aware of the complexities, details, and nuances of particular situations. We must be aware of ourselves--our personalities, our tendencies, our inclinations, our strengths, our weaknesses, our level of wisdom, etc. We must recognize relevant cultural issues. Think of drinking alcohol. There is nothing inherently wrong with drinking alcohol in moderation. But should everyone drink alcohol? No. Should children drink alcohol? No. Should everyone have exactly the same amount of alcohol, or drink it in all the same circumstances? No. (Does everyone even like alcohol? No. I myself can testify to that!) With regard to male-female relations, as with many, many other areas of life, we must learn the art of discernment as we prudentially apply moral principles to our lives. Such diversity of application can exist not only between individuals, but also between cultures, peoples, and ages. Different cultures often draw the lines somewhat differently. And different ages have their own emphases and concerns. (We can think of how a pope allowed Michaelangelo to paint nudes in the Sistine Chapel, later popes had them covered up, and then a later pope had the coverings removed.) We need to strike the proper balance between thinking for ourselves as we form our own consciences and following the spiritual advice and direction of those who are skilled in moral discernment. We must, of course, form our consciences by reason and by the revealed Word of God, and we must be guided by the application of God's revelation in the teaching of the Church. If we are young, we must listen to the counsel of our parents and obey them, and not seek to strike out on our own without them. We must avoid, on the one hand, an obsessive scrupulosity that is overly afraid of danger and which draws lines too narrowly, and on the other hand an overly lax attitude that does not sufficiently guard against corruption.
Not all people are called to marriage. Some people are called to be single. There are those called to various forms of religious life, for example. There are those who are unable to get married for some reason or another. There are those who are elderly and who, if they were once married, will not marry again. Etc. Does male-female complementarity play any role for people in these callings and situations? Yes. I mentioned above that society in general benefits from the unique insights, points of view, sensitivities, and abilities of men and women. This certainly plays a role in something like religious life. Religious orders of women, and individual women in religious life, contribute something unique in addition to what is contributed by religious societies of men and men in religious life. Also, the relationship of single persons to God can tie in to the sacramental meaning of marriage. Marriage symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the Church, and points back in general to the relationship between God and his people and the relationships within the Blessed Trinity. Being called to singleness often involves a calling to be specially devoted to God in a more direct and focused way than is often possible in the married life (because the married life involves many worldly cares). Sometimes those called to the religious life will refer to this as being "married" to Christ. Priests are sometimes said to have forgone a family so that the whole congregation of God's people can be their family. We even call them "father." Those called to the religious life are called to be a witness to all people that there is something more important than the relationships that are a part of this world. Ultimately, it is our relationship with God that counts. So the religious life works hand in hand with the Sacrament of Matrimony to point the world to a relationship with God. (See here for more on religious life and the "evangelical counsels" in general.) And those who are single for other reasons can also complement those who are married as they live their lives with special devotion to God and in forms of service which are not as accessible to those in married life. Male-female complementarity, as we said at the beginning of this post, is one expression of the life of love and self-giving we are to practice in community in this world, and this life of love, of giving and receiving, is something that all people, whatever their state and calling, are called to participate in.
Some Practical Tips for Living a Chaste and Virtuous Life
Living a virtuous life is not easy. As fallen creatures, the path to holiness involves a lifelong struggle to fight against our disordered fallen nature and its natural inclinations to sin and stupidity. But sometimes we make the journey harder than it needs to be by allowing our thoughts to get confused. So let me provide here just a few practical tips for a smoother journey towards holiness with regard to male-female relationality and sexuality. (In Catholic language, "chastity" is basically a condition of virtue with regard particularly to sexuality.)
As Aristotle famously pointed out, a lot of times error and vice are found in the extremes, and virtue is found in the mean between the extremes. One set of extremes that is often a pitfall for those seeking to live a holy life involves, one the one hand, laziness and carelessness with regard to sin and bad habits, and, on the other hand, an excessive fear, obsession, or even paranoia about these things. Those inclined towards the former extreme need to be reminded that sin is a serious matter. The fundamental nature of sin is opposition to God and the moral law, and this attitude is the essence of all wickedness and the fount of all misery (because God is the Supreme Good). We need to take God with the utmost seriousness, and therefore sin needs to be our mortal enemy. This is why the Bible is always telling us to "fear" God--that is, to have a proper recognition of the gravity of who God is and to fear being against him as the greatest of all calamities. To be righteous is to love God above all things, so our ultimate goal in life should be to please him and enjoy him perfectly and eliminate all sin and all tendencies to wickedness in our life. The more virtuous a person becomes, the less such a person will come to tolerate even venial sin, for the clearer our vision is of the greatness and beauty of God, the more repulsive all sin will seem to us. This should be the chief aim of our entire life.
But the other extreme--obsessive fear and obsession about sin--can also be a serious problem, especially for those particularly inclined towards it. Such people need to be reminded that what really matters is the fundamental choice of our life--are we choosing God as our chief good, or are we ejecting him out of that place in order to put something else there? Is God the one we choose above all else? This is not a matter of feelings or the strength of feelings, but of the will. What do we choose to put supreme value on? If we choose to follow God as our chief goal, and we orient our lives towards seeking him as our greatest value and ultimate end, then we can be sure that we are in a right relationship with him, a state of grace, and everything will come out fundamentally right in the end. The only thing that can put us out of the reach of God's salvation is mortal sin--and mortal sin doesn't mean all sin; it doesn't even mean all serious sin (objectively speaking). Mortal sin involves a deliberate, fully-informed, fully-aware, intentional choice to adopt an attitude or pursue a course of action which involves rejecting God as our supreme value and end in life, choosing instead to break from him fundamentally and go our own way. Mortal sin is defined by being incompatible with "charity"--that is, with supreme love to God as the choice of our will. Mortal sin is not the ways in which we regularly slip up and act inconsistently with our chief goal, the bad habits we have that tend to draw us into foolish and sinful actions, the difficulties we face in developing virtuous habits, how many times we tend to slide back into sinful tendencies, etc. These are all natural and ordinary parts of life in a state of grace as we pursue holiness in this fallen world. When we understand this, it will help us to relax a bit, to let go of obsessive fear. We will remember that "there is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear: because fear has torment. He that fears is not made perfect in love" (1 John 4:18). To "fear" God in the biblical sense is not to be obsessively afraid of him, but to recognize his supreme value and importance and therefore to take holiness with the utmost seriousness. If we love God, and trust God, we need not live in obsessive fear, but can rest confidently in the help of his grace as we grow in holiness. If we fall into sin from time to time, well, that is to be expected of fallen creatures struggling to be holy. The Council of Trent actually condemns as false doctrine the idea that people can avoid all sins throughout their entire life. "If any one saith . . . that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema" (Sixth Session, Canon 23). When we sin, we don't need to dwell on it. We can learn what we need to learn from it, get back up, repent, go to confession if appropriate, and then move on--like a gymnast who doesn't fall into despair every time she falls onto the mat, but just keeps getting back up and resuming her practice. (In fact, overly obsessing about sin often has the effect of making it worse rather than better. There's hardly a better way to ensure that something will have a strong presence in one's mind than to continually be worrying about how strong a presence it has.)
Another practical tip to make our path to holiness smoother is to recognize the difference between concupiscence and sin. Concupiscence is the Catholic theological term for our fallen, disordered desires that have a tendency to lead us into sin. But concupiscence, while it tends towards sin, is not itself personal sin. Acts of sin involve the consent of the will. Insofar as our desires happen to us without such consent, they are not sin. So stop feeling guilty for having such desires. You can't just banish them away with some strong act of the will. We will all struggle against concupiscence throughout our entire lives, for that struggle is the pathway to holiness. Holiness isn't only about avoiding sinful acts of will; it is also about developing virtuous habits and unlearning vicious (that is, un-virtuous) ones. We are trying to learn not only to avoid individual sinful acts of will in particular cases, but also to develop habits such that we will become more and more naturally inclined towards virtuous attitudes and actions in general and away from vicious or sinful ones. So even when you are avoiding particular acts of sin, you will still have plenty to work on in terms of building habits of virtue. Don't be paranoid about that, but just go forward, like the gymnast I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Keep practicing. Don't worry if you mess up, or you haven't got a particular skill down yet very well. Just keep going forward. You'll keep getting better (but don't get paranoid about your rate of progress!). You won't get fully where you want to be until after this life, though, so don't be impatient. Be diligent, but also be tolerant of yourself and where you are.
Another, really important practical tip, one which I think a lot of people struggle with: Don't make things to be sins that aren't. There are enough actions in the world that are actually sinful that we don't need to be adding to them. Reason, Scripture, and Church teaching, understood in light of each other, applied with prudence and wisdom by an informed conscience, will help us know what is sinful and what is not. What we don't want to do is go beyond these or ignore these and let an overactive imagination add non-sinful things to the category of sin. With regard to male-female relationality and sexuality, here are some things that are sins (I'm sure I'm not going to think of everything, but here are some things that come to mind):
1. Engaging in sexual acts outside the proper context of such acts--an established, legitimate marriage between a man and a woman. This includes actions such as masturbation (the deliberate self-stimulation of oneself in order to achieve sexual fulfillment and gratification by oneself), homosexual sexual acts, sexual acts between unmarried men and women, etc.
2. Seeking sexual fulfillment and gratification outside of sex that takes place within a legitimate marriage relationship.
3. Within a legitimate marriage relationship, seeking complete sexual fulfillment apart from a fully complete sex act. Romantic and sexual affection can certainly be enjoyed outside of sex or the final culminating act of sex, and romantic and sexual activity can and should involve more than just that final culminating act, but there should not be a culmination of the sexual act that hinders, blocks off, or leaves out essential elements of the sexual act--such as by using artificial contraception to block any natural procreative tendencies in a particular sexual act, by engaging in forms of sexual activity that complete the sexual act outside of the body, etc.
4. Reducing the body of another person, or onself, to the level of an object to be used to achieve personal sexual gratification. While, of course, sexual pleasure and the enjoyment of that pleasure is a valid and good part of sexuality, legitimate sexuality should never be reduced to that, but should always involve love between two persons as persons. This can be a sinful attitude within or without a legitimate marriage relationship. This would also include seeking sexual relations apart from the consent of both parties.
5. Intentionally failing to practice adequate modesty. Modesty means acting, dressing, etc., in such a way as to reasonably attempt to avoid creating an occasion in which one might become objectified by others or tempt others (or oneself) to illegitimate or harmful sexual desires, attitudes, or actions. Now, don't get obsessive here. There is no list of black-and-white rules about modesty. Use prudence and wisdom, and do the best you reasonably can without getting paranoid.
6. Being wilfully careless about sin or bad habits in these areas. We should do our due diligence--again, without needing to get obsessive.
Now, here are some things that aren't sins (again, of course, this is not an exhaustive list):
1. Engaging in sex and seeking sexual gratification and fulfillment in its proper context (a legitimate, valid marriage between a man and a woman), with moderation and balance, without objectification, with love and care between the spouses, with consent of both parties, etc., with proper caution.
2. Proper enjoyment of the beauty of the human body, and the beauty of human relationships, romance, sexuality, etc., both within and sometimes even outside of marriage to a degree (going along with our discussion of these subjects earlier in this article)--without engaging in sex or seeking sexual fulfillment outside of marriage, without objectification, with consent, etc. with proper caution. This is an area where people often go to unhealthy extremes in both directions, I think. Sometimes people are too careless here. Other times people are too paranoid. I talked about this quite a bit earlier in this article. It is not a sin necessarily to enjoy, to a degree, the beauty of the physical characteristics of another person, even outside of marriage. It is not necessarily a sin to enjoy the human body portrayed in art. It is not necessarily a sin to enjoy artistic portrayals of human relationships, including even romantic relationships, to a degree (think romantic comedies, etc.). It is not even necessarily a sin to gain some enjoyment vicariously from other people's relationships (think of friends enjoying watching other friends "fall in love," get married, etc.). To what degree, and in what form, such enjoyment can be legitimate, is going to be a matter of prudence and won't necessarily be the same for every person. There is a clear, objective line, however, at the point at which this kind of enjoyment turns into an attempt at sexual gratification or fulfillment (or, of course, actually engaging in sexual acts). There is a difficult balance here. On the one hand, we should recognize that all enjoyment related to male-female relationality and sexuality has a natural tendency towards evolving into sexual gratification and fulfillment and actual sexual acts. There is a real slippery slope here we must be aware of and consciously guard against. On the other hand, we should not equate all enjoyment rooted in male-female relationality, or the beauty of the human body or human relationships or sexuality, outside of marriage with an attempt to gain sexual gratification or fulfillment. For example, there is a point at which the enjoyment of the beauty of the opposite sex turns into an attempt to gain sexual gratification through such enjoyment, and yet it is also true that not all enjoyment of such beauty is, per se, such an attempt. Enjoyment of beauty in this area, though intrinsically related to the desire for sexual fulfillment, is yet broader than an attempt at such fulfillment. If this wasn't the case, we would have to equate, for example, someone seeking to gratify sexual desire by means of pornography with a person enjoying a romantic comedy--which seems absurd, and I think it is in fact absurd. So, again, caution is called for here, but not paranoia.
3. Having and enjoying friendships with members of the opposite sex, with proper balance and caution. I would also include here, particularly for those with homosexual tendencies and inclinations, the enjoyment of relationships with members of the same sex. While homosexual sexual acts are invalid, along with attempts at homosexual marriage, or seeking sexual fulfillment in a homosexual relationship, yet there can be friendships and relationships between members of the same sex which can involve elements of love, enjoyment of beauty, etc., short of sexual acts or sexual gratification (just as there can be between members of the opposite sex). For a biblical example, think of the relationship between David and Jonathan portrayed in the Book of 1 Samuel. I don't think this kind of thing is much on the radar in modern American culture, but it has been recognized at various times and places in human cultures. (This is probably one reason why people today are always trying to turn David's and Jonathan's relationship in the Bible into a homosexual relationship. They recognize elements in that relationship which seem to go beyond the sort of male-male friendship common in our culture, and they don't have any category in which to put such a thing except the category of homosexual sexual relationships. Perhaps we need a greater dose of imagination here.)
4. Desires, thoughts, images in the mind, dreams, acts in dreams, etc., which do not involve the consent of the will. Again, without the consent of the will, there might be harmful or undesirable thoughts, tendencies, acts, etc., but there is no sin (in the strict sense of a personal sinful act engaging personal culpability). In some cases, it might be sinful to consent to or willingly cultivate certain thoughts or images in the mind, certain acts, etc., and we can sometimes be guilty of wilful negligence in terms of trying to avoid sin and harm, but the mere existence of such things without the consent of the will is not sin. Dreams are an interesting example here. In some cases, a person might be so conscious in a dream that they really do have consent of the will. But this is not true for everyone. I don't know how common it is. In my own personal experience, I never find myself with that level of consciousness. My dreams go on without ever bothering to ask my will if it consents. My mind just plays out random scenarios on automatic, without my having any say in the matter. Of course, one can learn to cultivate habits which can help to some degree to control one's automatic tendencies, but I'm sure no one can ever gain complete control over such things in this life. In general, again, remember to distuinguish between acts of the will and other acts, and that personal moral guilt can only exist in connection to acts of the will.
Well, much more could be said, but that's enough for now.
For more in general, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, particularly here and here. Also see my fictional dialogue on sexuality and gender here.
Published on the feast of the First Martyrs of the Holy Roman Church.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment