Since I first began to enunciate the covenant theology of human sexuality in 1967, I have had little or no criticism from orthodox Catholics. Thus it was surprising to learn that Father Richard Hogan has pejoratively labeled it as deductive, objective, and principled and therefore irrelevant in a day when thinking is inductive and subjective. Not just once did he level those allegations in a public forum, but twice. I wrote him twice by email (12/05/2006 and 04/20/2007) and asked him to explain what he meant, but he has not replied. The irony of this dismissal of my work is that it was done in the context of promoting the papal theology of the body (TOB), a work that is commonly thought to be about self-giving love, i.e., charity.
Father Hogan is known as a defender of Humanae Vitae, and it’s not pleasant to criticize one of the few priests who have national reputations for upholding that teaching, but public accusations invite a public response. Father Hogan is also on the Board of Directors of the Couple to Couple League and apparently has a lot of the responsibility for replacing, in CCL’s new teaching program, the covenant theology of sexuality with his interpretation of the papal TOB. So, until Father Hogan lets me know what he means by his allegations of “deductive, objective and principled” etc., I don’t know what to think of his statements. Perhaps there is something to them. On the other hand, perhaps he has never looked seriously at the covenant theology of sexuality and doesn’t understand it, or perhaps his comments are simply that familiar form of promotion that starts with bashing one alternative instead of promoting another alternative on its own merits. He also said that the covenant theology of sexuality is “arguably” more difficult to understand than the papal TOB, a statement that strikes me as far off the mark.
In actuality, the covenant theology of sexuality is extremely easy to understand. It can be stated in 17 words: “Sexual intercourse is intended by God to be at least implicitly a renewal of the marriage covenant.” I suggest that the person who cannot grasp that the marriage act really ought to be a true marriage act may lack the capacity to enter into marriage.
It is also easy to explain. God invented sex, God has a plan for sex, and God has revealed that sexual intercourse is meant to be exclusively a marriage act. When husband and wife engage in the marriage act, they ought to be renewing the love and the lifelong gift of self they pledged when they married each other.
The covenant theology is realistic, and thus the words “at least implicitly” are important. They mean that the spouses do not have to be consciously thinking “I want to renew my marriage covenant with you” as they approach the marriage act. At the least, however, the spouses must not be acting against the love they pledged at marriage. The covenant concept helps spouses to see that the physical expression of their love for each other in the marriage act ought to express the caring love and commitment of their wedding day when they pledged their love “for better and for worse until death do us part.” That is, the covenant insight helps spouses to see that the sex act is not just a way to have sexual pleasure or just a way to try to have a baby. Adulterers and fornicators do the former and some unmarried folks do it for the latter reason. But married couples are invited to understand that the marriage act ought to express and renew the self-gift they made without reservation on their wedding day. The covenant concept gives meaning to the sex act. It gives unmarried persons a meaningful reason to postpone sexual activity until they are married.
I have written somewhat on this subject, and I invite you to read “A Covenant Theology of Sex” that was published in 1983. Or, if you want the long route, go to www.NFPandmore.org, then to NFP Resources, then NFP Articles, and as of this writing it’s the 17th item in the column. I hope you’ll keep going back for other articles as well.
How is the covenant theology of sexuality helpful for natural family planning? As mentioned above, this concept helps spouses to understand more fully the God-given meaning of the marriage act. It also helps them to understand why contraceptive behaviors are wrong. When we marry, we marry “for better and for worse” or we don’t marry at all. That means that if one or both of the spouses go through a wedding ceremony with the idea that “I’m giving this person exactly one year to meet my expectations or I’m out the door,” that’s not a marriage no matter how elaborate the ceremony. That sort of arrangement would be an invalid marriage, null and void from the beginning. It would beg for a legal divorce and declaration of nullity.
In the authentic marriage act, the spouses are implicitly saying with their bodily actions, “We take each other once again, for better and for worse.” But in the contracepted sex act between spouses, they are saying with their bodily actions, “We take each other once again, but definitely NOT for the imagined worse of possible pregnancy.” Such an action contradicts the “for better and for worse” of the marriage covenant. It pretends to be what it is not. Such pretense is dishonest, and therefore the act is objectively sinful. I believe that this is what Pope Paul VI had in mind when he wrote in Humanae Vitae that marital contraception is “intrinsically dishonest” (n.14).
The covenant concept is also helpful for teachers of natural family planning. They can ask, “When is having sex truly ‘making love’?” They can answer the question by explaining the Christian Tradition. First of all, the entire biblical Tradition teaches us that sexual intercourse ought to be exclusively a marriage act. Every other sexual act is condemned in the pages of the Bible. (For more on that, see Chapter 17, “Biblical Foundations,” in my Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality.) Second, within marriage, sexual intercourse ought to be a symbol of the self-giving love they pledged at marriage, a true renewal of their marriage covenant. Third, the teacher can point out the content of the previous paragraph, namely, that marital contraception contradicts the “for better and for worse” of the marriage covenant and thus renders the action dishonest as a true marriage act –- and thus objectively sinful.
Sometimes it may be helpful to preface such an explanation by getting the agreement of NFP course attendees that not every act of sexual intercourse within marriage is automatically a true marriage act. The most obvious example is marital rape. Marriage is not a license to do any and every sexual act that can be imagined. It is not a license for one spouse to demand sex from a spouse who has a very good reason to refuse it. It is not a license to physically force a spouse into sexual submission. It ought to be a renewal of the caring, committed love pledged at marriage. If people agree that any one form of sex contradicts the marriage covenant, then in principle they agree that other forms of sex can also contradict the marriage covenant.
Explaining the sin of marital contraception in terms of dishonesty may have more effect with some than teaching that it is a form of lust. In our culture, it seems almost a point of pride to call oneself lustful or to be known as that by others, but I suspect that very few people like to think of themselves as dishonest or want others to think of them in that way.
In brief, the covenant theology of sexuality with its teaching that the marriage act needs to be a TRUE marriage act offers a platform from which teachers can more fully explain the true marital meaning of sexual intercourse. The fact that the marriage act is intended by God to be more than just a legal means for the release of sexual tension may come as a surprise to some engaged and married couples. Some may be surprised to learn that mutual masturbation and marital sodomy contradict the marriage covenant. Others may know this in their hearts but need to hear it clearly stated. Almost no one will be offended to learn that the marriage act really ought to reflect the covenant they made with God and with each other on their wedding day. On the other hand, it may be that few have previously connected their marriage covenant with the physical expression of that covenant in the marriage act.
It is, of course, necessary to flesh out such teaching with the gospel message of love. Whether engaged, newly married, or married a long time, we all need to be reminded that nowhere in the Gospel does Jesus tell us that loving is easy. If it were easy, would He command us to love one another? That this applies to loving one’s spouse is evident to anyone who knows anything about marriage.
In summary, NFP teachers who explain the evil of marital contraception in terms of the marriage covenant do their students a lifelong favor. Pope John Paul II incorporated the covenant renewal concept into his own teaching in his 1994 Letter to Families, (n. 12). The covenant theology of sexuality has not been rendered obsolete by the papal TOB; it remains a valuable tool for conveying the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church.
For further study about the relationship of the covenant theology and the papal TOB, see “John Kippley’s Covenant Theology of Sex” by Tracy Jamison at www.nfpandmore.org/fa_jameson.shtml.
Sheila Kippley will offer daily blogs on breastfeeding during Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, July 22-28.I will offer blogs dealing with Humanae Vitae on July 23, 25, and 27 at the blogsite at www.cuf.org.
John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality (Ignatius, 2005)
Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book, a short, readable, free and downloadable e-book available at www.NFPandmore.org.