Ask a Question - or - Return to the Faith and Spirituality Forum Index

Question Title	Posted By	Question Date
Sexual Morality	Michael	Tuesday, February 8, 2005
Question: A friend of mine criticized the Church for putting so much emphasis on sexual sins when violence is so rampant, saying that it is possible to engage in sexual activity for the sake of pleasure without hurting yourself or anyone else. I know this is contrary to Church teaching, but I wasn’t sure how to argue against it. I responded by saying that the purpose of sex is procreative, and sexual activity which isn’t procreative is contrary to the purpose of sex, to reproduce. She responded by saying that just because we use a God given faculty contrary to its purpose, does not necessarily make our actions wrong. I once heard that the reason sex is so pleasurable is because propagation of the species if the most important goal in an animal’s life. It only makes sense that God would make sexual intercourse so pleasurable since reproduction is how species keep from going extinct. If it weren’t pleasurable, animals would never reproduce and species would disappear. It makes sense that sex would be pleasurable because of the importance of procreation. But since when are we obligated to use our capabilities solely for their original purpose? Even if sex for pleasure is contrary to the purpose of sexual intercourse, why does this mean it is wrong? A musician, who sings to produce beautifully moving sounds, is using his voice contrary to its purpose, since it evolved to facilitate communication, not to make music. Are we using our legs for their original purpose when we dance? God gave us the sexual faculty, but he also gave us the faculty to pleasure ourselves whenever we want to, so why is this wrong? I want to make it clear that I fully accept the Church’s teachings, and I only ask these questions so that I can defend these teachings and understand them better.
Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM Dear Michael: The purpose for sex is more than procreative. The second purpose of sex is to facilitate the bonds of love, the mutual self-giving of one another, between the marriage partners. Thus marriage partners who cannot have children can still have sex because the second purpose of the bonding of the couple in the love of the marital embrace of mutual self-giving still applies. Fornication, adultery, and masturbation are all moral evils because it removes sex from the mutual self-giving and bonding that belongs only to marriage. Sex belongs only in marriage because sex involves, by nature, the potential for children. Children outside of marriage damages the child and distorts the security and economy of family. Sex, by nature, also facilitates a spiritual and even mysterious bond between the couple. Outside of marriage, this effect damages the spirit and soul of the person as they are not able to live out that bond. And of course, sex outside marriage is the cause of sexually transmitted diseases. Therefore, having sex for the mere hedonistic pleasure of it DOES hurt someone. It hurts both partners. It hurts them for the reasons just mentioned and because it reduces and distorts human dignity to a mere copulation little different than an animal. Your friend's comment that using the sexual faculty contrary to God intentions is not necessarily wrong is, frankly, a stupid and self-serving response. The very definition of sin is taking an action that is contrary to purpose God has given to the human order. The analogies you have given about singing or dancing are non sequiturs. Singing is not contrary to the faculty of communication and God's intention that we use our voices for communication. Singing IS communication. Music is communication. St. Augustine said that when we sing a prayer that we pray twice -- by the words and again by the singing. Communication through singing is a moral good. Dancing is not contrary to the faculty of movement. God has given us the ability to artistically and creatively move our bodies to communicate the moral good of beauty. Sex outside of marriage, however, IS CONTRARY to the faculty of marriage and the intention of sexuality which God has ordered and intended to marriage marriage alone. Thus while we have the ability to have sex outside of marriage, and while our sexuality is a natural faculty, to use that faculty outside of God's intention for sexuality does violence to the virtue of marriage, modesty, chastity, and love (which does violence to the spirit and soul of the fornicators since our spirits and souls are ordered and made for God, not for ourselves). Sex outside marriage is by definition a selfish act, not a loving act, no matter what the couple may think. Love is defined by God, not human wisdom. God is love. Thus anything contrary to God is contrary to Love. God says that sexuality is for love only, not for mere pleasure, and that sexual love can only be properly expressed in the sanctity and protection of marriage. Any thoughts to the contrary are excuses for evil behavior. God Bless, Bro. Ignatius Mary Footer Notes: This forum is for general questions on the faith. See specific Topic Forums below: Spiritual Warfare, demons, the occult go to our Spiritul Warfare Q&S Forum. Liturgy Questions go to our Liturgy and Liturgical Law Q&A Forum Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) Questions go to our Divine Office Q&A Forum Defenfing the Faith Questions go to our Defending the Faith Q&A Forum Church History Questions go to our Church History Q&A Forum

Question Title

Posted By

Question Date

Sexual Morality

Michael

Tuesday, February 8, 2005

Question:

A friend of mine criticized the Church for putting so much emphasis on sexual sins when violence is so rampant, saying that it is possible to engage in sexual activity for the sake of pleasure without hurting yourself or anyone else.

I know this is contrary to Church teaching, but I wasn’t sure how to argue against it. I responded by saying that the purpose of sex is procreative, and sexual activity which isn’t procreative is contrary to the purpose of sex, to reproduce.

She responded by saying that just because we use a God given faculty contrary to its purpose, does not necessarily make our actions wrong.

I once heard that the reason sex is so pleasurable is because propagation of the species if the most important goal in an animal’s life. It only makes sense that God would make sexual intercourse so pleasurable since reproduction is how species keep from going extinct. If it weren’t pleasurable, animals would never reproduce and species would disappear. It makes sense that sex would be pleasurable because of the importance of procreation.

But since when are we obligated to use our capabilities solely for their original purpose? Even if sex for pleasure is contrary to the purpose of sexual intercourse, why does this mean it is wrong?

A musician, who sings to produce beautifully moving sounds, is using his voice contrary to its purpose, since it evolved to facilitate communication, not to make music. Are we using our legs for their original purpose when we dance? God gave us the sexual faculty, but he also gave us the faculty to pleasure ourselves whenever we want to, so why is this wrong?

I want to make it clear that I fully accept the Church’s teachings, and I only ask these questions so that I can defend these teachings and understand them better.

Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM

Dear Michael:

The purpose for sex is more than procreative. The second purpose of sex is to facilitate the bonds of love, the mutual self-giving of one another, between the marriage partners. Thus marriage partners who cannot have children can still have sex because the second purpose of the bonding of the couple in the love of the marital embrace of mutual self-giving still applies.

Fornication, adultery, and masturbation are all moral evils because it removes sex from the mutual self-giving and bonding that belongs only to marriage. Sex belongs only in marriage because sex involves, by nature, the potential for children. Children outside of marriage damages the child and distorts the security and economy of family. Sex, by nature, also facilitates a spiritual and even mysterious bond between the couple. Outside of marriage, this effect damages the spirit and soul of the person as they are not able to live out that bond. And of course, sex outside marriage is the cause of sexually transmitted diseases.

Therefore, having sex for the mere hedonistic pleasure of it DOES hurt someone. It hurts both partners. It hurts them for the reasons just mentioned and because it reduces and distorts human dignity to a mere copulation little different than an animal.

Your friend's comment that using the sexual faculty contrary to God intentions is not necessarily wrong is, frankly, a stupid and self-serving response. The very definition of sin is taking an action that is contrary to purpose God has given to the human order.

The analogies you have given about singing or dancing are non sequiturs. Singing is not contrary to the faculty of communication and God's intention that we use our voices for communication. Singing IS communication. Music is communication. St. Augustine said that when we sing a prayer that we pray twice -- by the words and again by the singing. Communication through singing is a moral good.

Dancing is not contrary to the faculty of movement. God has given us the ability to artistically and creatively move our bodies to communicate the moral good of beauty.

Sex outside of marriage, however, IS CONTRARY to the faculty of marriage and the intention of sexuality which God has ordered and intended to marriage marriage alone.

Thus while we have the ability to have sex outside of marriage, and while our sexuality is a natural faculty, to use that faculty outside of God's intention for sexuality does violence to the virtue of marriage, modesty, chastity, and love (which does violence to the spirit and soul of the fornicators since our spirits and souls are ordered and made for God, not for ourselves).

Sex outside marriage is by definition a selfish act, not a loving act, no matter what the couple may think. Love is defined by God, not human wisdom. God is love. Thus anything contrary to God is contrary to Love. God says that sexuality is for love only, not for mere pleasure, and that sexual love can only be properly expressed in the sanctity and protection of marriage.

Any thoughts to the contrary are excuses for evil behavior.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary

Footer Notes: This forum is for general questions on the faith. See specific Topic Forums below:
Spiritual Warfare, demons, the occult go to our Spiritul Warfare Q&S Forum.
Liturgy Questions go to our Liturgy and Liturgical Law Q&A Forum
Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) Questions go to our Divine Office Q&A Forum
Defenfing the Faith Questions go to our Defending the Faith Q&A Forum
Church History Questions go to our Church History Q&A Forum