Sexual Ethics

One of the strengths of Christianity, and of Catholicism in particular, is the idea that discipleship to Christ is all-encompassing. Through baptism, we become a new creation in Him, and our whole way of looking at and relating to the world is altered. Moral conversion is part and parcel of being Christian. Whatever you may think of Catholic morality, you can’t help but admire its synthetic coherence and inner consistency. A blend of natural law (which looks to non-religious facts of human nature as pointers to human right and wrong) and the doctrines of Scripture and Tradition, Catholic moral teaching provides a compass for how to live one’s life and general principles to apply to the concrete particulars of the here and now.

In the sexual realm, Catholicism teaches the goodness of human sexuality and of the human body. The obvious purpose for which sex exists in the biological sense is for the perpetuation of the species. This biological fact provides one of the basic data points for the natural-law teaching. And because the purpose is not just to make babies, but to raise them up in a stable way, we arrive at the ideal of sex within a stable, committed partnership of parents, which forms the basis of the human family. This natural-law insight matches up with the Scriptural foundations of marriage as a divine institution, from the first family in Genesis, through the teachings of the Old Testament, and into the Christian sexual ethic found in the New Testament and practice of the Early Church.

Summed up, Catholic teaching holds that human sexuality is ordered to the procreation of new life, within a stable and loving family. Each sexual act is an expression of love and selflessness to one’s spouse, with nothing and no one coming in between, open each time to the possibility of that love being concretized in the conception of a new person, forever linking the man and his wife. Anything that falls away from that ideal is disordered — masturbation, pornography, adultery, pre-marital sex, contracepted sex, or same-sex relations — because it fails in one way or another to lead to the ideal for which sex is seen to exist. To the degree that an act fails to reach the ideal, it is sinful. The entirety of Catholic sexual ethics is rooted in this integrated understanding of the purpose of human sexuality. To alter one piece of the teaching requires a rethinking of all the rest, and would seem to require a rethinking of the Catholic understanding of the human person.

The strongpoints of the traditional teaching are that it is fundamentally a positive vision of the body and sex, an ideal proposed (rather than primarily a list of prohibitions), a harmonious synthesis (rather than a loose grouping of unrelated teachings), backed by centuries of basically consistency. It also fits in well with the general biblical assumptions about married life.

When the subject comes up, people sometimes ask me why can’t we just accept gay marriage/gay sex/commited unions or whatever. Or, why can’t the Pope just decide it’s ok? Well, part of the problem is the difficulty of how to move from saying this is absolutely forbidden to saying that this is permitted. Second, a revision on the gay question would require a complete overhaul of all Catholic sexual ethics, and probably an overhaul of the general assumptions about human nature itself. You can’t just change one of the conclusions without also altering the premises. So, theologically it’s a hell of a lot harder than it sounds.

And if in conscience one comes to the sincere conviction that the Church is wrong on the permissibility of same-sex sex, then what standards do we take? Presumably our Christian values will shape our notions of right and wrong in sexual intimacy, as they shape everything else in our lives. So, where do we find an ethical source that can guide us surely and objectively in our sexual choices? If we just take everything as it comes and do what feels right, we’ve basically abandoned any sort of moral compass beyond our own momentary desire. Sex only in a committed and monogamous union, guarded by vows and blessed? Why only that? Why not also sex between consenting and loving partners, with or without a union? Or sex for recreation, even without love, so long as no one is coerced? And, once I’ve arrived at a standard, what does that standard have to say about heterosexual relations, because the two are bound to influence each other? Once I set aside the internally consistent and objective traditional teaching, I’m not sure what else offers me a firm and conscience-guiding alternative ethical standard. We can’t just make something up. Nor can we craft a new teaching that sounds good but does not flow from the rest of Christian moral teaching. It might be good, but it wouldn’t be Christian.

I think this is one of the biggest hurdles for articulating a gay sexual ethic, whether for an individual who decides to step outside of traditional Catholic moral doctrine on this issue, or for the Church in some hypothetical future where it decides to find a place for sexual relations between people of the same sex. I don’t have the answer, and I’ve never found a convincing theory anywhere else. If God really does intend for gay people to have sex, then the answer has to be out there. And if there is in fact no satisfying answer, then…

Delicious Links

Off to the right, among the little web widgets, you will see an assortment of links in a box titled Del.Icio.Us Links. Clicking that will take you to a growing del.icio.us page of interesting links grouped according to category. Many of them may be of interest to readers of Dear Aloysius.

Saint Sebastian

One of the things I want to feature on this blog is a representation of traditional Catholic art and literature that can be seen as having a homoerotic sensibility. This is not to say that the artists were necessarily gay, although some were, or that they were promoting sexual activity of one sort or another. What interests me is the place that homoerotic imagery plays in the Catholic tradition.

Portayals of Saint Sebastian seem a logical place to start.

For a plethora of images of Saint Sebastian, check out this online gallery.

And, for everything you ever wanted to know about St. Sebastian and his place in the history of art, see this amazing page, which takes special note of the homoerotic subtext to the cult of this saint.

A Very Good Place to Start

I don’t expect this blog ever to have much of an audience other than myself and a few friends, and so I thought I’d steal a line from old Aurelius and give these meditations their address as ta eis heauton, “To himself.” And because I need an interlocutor, at least mentally, I’ve conjured up Lord Sebastian Flyte’s teddy bear, Aloysius, as one who might have an interest in the two main themes of this blog, and one who will perhaps go easy on me if I stumble around a bit.

I’ve found that there are many very spiritual people who are enchanted by Catholicism, convinced by it, believe in it, and are willing to talk about it very seriously. I’ve also found that there are very many people (both spiritual and not) who are gay, who are intrigued by homosexuality, who think about what it means and how it has impacted culture, and are willing to talk about it very seriously. I’ve been dismayed that those two groups of people don’t overlap a great deal. There are plenty of Catholics who are homosexuals (whether practicing or not), and plenty of homosexuals who are Catholic (whether practicing or not), but if one decides to speak openly about the one thing, one usually stays very quiet about the other. So, I wanted to be different and talk about both.

I’m basically a traditional Catholic raised in a traditionally Catholic family. I believe in God, that He revealed Himself to mankind in His Son, and that His Son has perpetuated His presence on earth through the Catholic Church. I go to Mass every Sunday, and sometimes during the week. I pray and try to make it to confession. I’m active in my parish. I was also a seminarian for several years, and so I know more theology than the average guy. I’m also gay and really don’t feel any need to apologize for that. In Dear Aloysius, I want to explore how those things might fit together. There are plenty of blogs about churchy politics and how to be a better Catholic. And there are plenty about gay politics and how to affirm one’s sexuality. This will be about things that shed light on the intersection of same-sex orientation and the Catholic tradition.
I’m not interested in arguing about whether I can be heterosexualized. Nor am I interested in being persuaded to leave the Church. So let’s just leave that out from the start. And if you’re still reading by this point, welcome.