A Note on Sexual Morality

When he summoned Vatican II in December 1961, John XXIII directed the Council deliberations to take account of “the signs of the times”. He advocated special attention be given to the development of Moral Theology. During the council conscience was given a new primacy in moral teaching. This was reflected in many council documents and in the subsequent body of social teachings. A new emphasis on historical consciousness (an awareness of and sensitivity to cultural and political realities which influenced the development of the Christian tradition), human rights, justice and the key role of conscience were embraced in statements on global issues, politics and economic issues. However, a similar awareness has yet to be considered in the formulation of teachings on sexual morality. The church uses a completely different methodology when it makes statements on sexual matters. In this arena the “signs of the times” remain unread.

Moral theology mediates between Gospel values and modern culture. In reality the gospel has always had to mediate in different historical times and cultures. However, the New Testament has little or nothing to say about issues in sexual morality. There is no code of sexual ethics in the Gospel. However, there are clear values of love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, respect for the other, justice and equal treatment of all reflected in the words and actions of Jesus. These values can provide a framework for all human relationships at a personal, communal and societal level. Incarnating how these values can be lived is the task of moral theology.

Similarly in Laudate Si, the recent encyclical on the environment, Pope Francis consulted experts in many disciplines.

Issues such as contraception, in vitro fertilisation, homosexual expressions of physical love and other issues in sexual morality especially in relation to human reproduction are not present in the Gospel. Even the few references to divorce are disputed by biblical scholars and need to be read in their historical and cultural context. Augustinian thinking on marriage and procreation dominates the current teachings. For Augustine, the sole purpose of marriage was procreation. Vatican II reached a different understanding.

“But marriage was not instituted solely for the procreation of children: its nature as an indissoluble covenant between two people and the good of the children demand that the mutual love of the partners be properly expressed, that it should grow and mature”. [Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 50]

It is interesting that the phrases “two people” and “partners” are used here!

On contraception the same paragraph says:

“....it also involves taking into consideration their own well-being and the well-being of their children already born or yet to come, being able to read the signs of the times and access their own situation on the material and spiritual level, and, finally, an estimation of the good of the family, of society, and of the church. It is the married couple themselves who must in the last analysis arrive at these judgments before God”.

Contraception, as we know, was taken off the agenda of the council. The twenty theologians entrusted with writing the encyclical changed the instruction on contraception in line with these reflections of Vatican II. Unfortunately, as we also know, Paul VI ordered the original group to disband and the published encyclical, Humanae Vitae reiterated the traditional stance.

What had brought about the change in thinking which led to the first encyclical were the contributions of committed American Catholics who were invited to speak to the theologians and in doing so reflected the living reality of married life.

The articulation of church teaching in the twentieth century in many areas, outside sexual morality, reflects in dialogue with scripture, tradition, sources in other disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, economics, current awareness of human rights and most significantly, the life experience of people. It recognises all human behaviour is complicated and multi-factored and therefore moral theology and teaching is of necessity, interdisciplinary.

If such approaches were reflected in sexual moral teachings, we would have a very different and more humane sexual morality. It would not be based on Aquinas’ natural law theory which declared that the mouth was for eating, the sexual organs for reproduction and led him to conclusions such as that masturbation was worse than rape because the seed was lost in masturbation but not in rape.

Sean Fagan, Lisa Sowle Cahill and Margaret Fairley have advocated such a theological approach to formulate a new sexual ethics: a theology in dialogue with the world, with the lived experience of the whole church community. An ethic based on justice, respect for persons as sexual beings, with a starting premise of do no harm, relationships built on mutual consent, commitment and fruitfulness in its widest meaning.

Gina Menzies