This is the fifth installment of my commentary on The Human Body: a sign of dignity and a gift by Fr. Richard M. Hogan. For publication details, see the blog for September 9, 2007.
In his booklet, The Human Body, Fr. Richard Hogan attempts to explain why sexual sins are sinful. That’s an important effort, and he gets off to a good start by noting that “It is obvious to most of us that our sexual desires often ‘get in the way’ of a genuine other-directed love. When we ‘give in’ to our desires and act on them, we act selfishly. We act contrary to love. We fail to love ourselves and others. In effect, we sin.”
So far, very good. He then continues. “In acting against ourselves, we violate our own dignity and value because we use ourselves.” Here he makes no distinction between the good use and the bad use of ourselves and others; in his lexicon the word “use” always seems to have a negative meaning. Next he drags in his customary references to theology. “We act in opposition to the wonderful vision of the Church taught in the theology of the body. . . We act in opposition to the marvelous vision of the Church taught in the theology of the family.” I’m sorry, but I simply cannot imagine myself or anyone else having any good effect on a group of young people by saying that sexual sins are wrong because they are in opposition to the marvelous visions of the Church taught in those theologies. Talking about the theology of this and the theology of that simply puts a cloud of smoke between the teacher and the student.
Father Hogan then treats briefly of a number of sins against life and sexuality. Lust in general, pornography, intimate touching, masturbation, extramarital sexual activity, divorce and remarriage, contraception and sterilization, artificial reproductive techniques, abortion, and homosexual activity are treated in that order. He describes each one as contrary to human dignity. In fact, in each treatment he notes that “[the sinful activity] violates both human dignity and the wondrous vocation of love given to all of us as images of God.”
I agree. On the other hand I do not think that this is an effective way to teach the evil of these actions in our contemporary culture because the application of the concept of human dignity to any particular behavior is highly subjective. For example, back in the Sixties, the leaders of the so-called majority report of the papal birth control commission apparently thought that contraceptive behaviors did not violate human dignity. A bit of background is necessary here. The so-called minority report had criticized the majority’s acceptance of contraceptive behaviors as logically accepting oral and anal copulation, masturbation, and direct sterilization. The majority writers responded that their theory did not accept anal and oral copulation because “in these acts there is preserved neither the dignity of love nor the dignity of the spouse as human persons created according to the image of God.” It is important to note that they offered no such reply to the accusations regarding masturbation and direct sterilization. Most important, they offered no such reply regarding common contraceptive practices. In short, those who wrote that oral and anal copulations are contrary to human dignity must have thought that common contraceptive behaviors were within the bounds of human dignity. That’s what I mean by saying that the application of the dignity principle is highly subjective. You can read more on the birth control reports in my book, Sex and the Marriage Covenant, p. 307.
Another example of subjectivity in applying the principle of human dignity is the organization name selected by those who advocate the acceptance of homosexual sodomy and still call themselves Catholic. They use the name “Dignity.” It seems that they think that oral and anal sodomy is within the bounds of human dignity.
As mentioned in a previous blog, Father Hogan has publicly criticized the covenant theology of human sexuality as deductive, objective, and principled. What he finds objectionable about it is precisely what I think is advantageous. The covenant theology of sexuality states that sexual intercourse is intended by God to be exclusively a marriage act. The marriage act then becomes an objective standard by which other behaviors are measured. This standard is derived from the many biblical texts about sexuality. Every form of sexual behavior is condemned except honest covenantal sex. That is, all that is left is the marriage act. You will find a review of the biblical teachings on sex in Chapter 17, “Biblical Foundations” of my book, Sex and the Marriage Covenant.
Using the marriage act as the objective standard, we can then logically explain why adultery, fornication, sodomy and other sexual sins are sinful: they are not marriage acts. The standard also applies to marital contraception. The marriage act ought to reflect and renew the marriage covenant, for better and for worse. The whole purpose of marital contraception, however, is to say “We take each other for better but not for the imagined worse of possible pregnancy.” Regardless of any words they may say, their body language clearly says “but NOT for the imagined worse…”, and actions speak much louder than words.
Next week: Natural family planning and the repentant sterilized couple.
John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality (Ignatius, 2005)
Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book, a short, readable, and free e-book available for downloading at www.NFPandmore.org .