Tag it:

Unfortunately, the double-edged nature of the power of sex receives little consideration in contemporary western culture. Especially expressed in the dominant mediums of pop culture, the prevailing perception regarding the power of sex is that as long as sexual activity occurs between consenting persons who have reached puberty, its ends are entirely positive. Only when sexual activity is a manifestation of violence (rape, child abuse, sexual assault) or is ?unprotected? from disease or pregnancy is it considered destructive. Moreover, sexual activity is largely perceived as an exclusively physical endeavor. It is the mechanism by which a person can alleviate his physical?and uncontrollable?urges. Occasionally a talking head will discourage casual sex or suggest that teens wait to have sex until they really fall in love, but even then promiscuity is assumed to be a benign mark of immaturity rather than a vice or a danger.

Not only is most sexual activity (whether covenantal or not) seen as innocuous in our society, but our culture places such confidence in the positive power of sexuality that sex has been infused with redemptive expectations. What John Grabowski labels as the ?utopian ideal of sex? has become part of our cultural ethos (1). This view holds orgasm as the pinnacle of human experience and sexual pleasure as the key to health and well-being. Due in part to the influence of various pop stars, medical personnel, political advocates such as Margaret Sanger, and psychologists such as G. Stanley Hall, we have attached religious language and significance to sex?assuming that if we simply lose ourselves in the ecstasy of sex and romantic love, we will experience salvation from the ills that plague us (2). The virtues espoused by a companion ethic of this view are freedom from prudish restraint and commitment to enhanced sexual technique; the vices are shame and ignorance (3). And in a culture which operates according to this understanding, sex, divorced from its spiritual and even relational dimensions, easily becomes a commodity to be bought or sold (4).

If not through the residue of ancient wisdom, then perhaps through our own intuition or experience of disappointment, however, many of us are not so easily fooled by a salvific conception of sex. And thankfully, though the link between chastity and virtue has largely been severed in our culture, we still have the restriction of the ?adult? entertainment to the back room of video stores, the grimaces of children at the mention of sex, and the legal restriction of prostitution to remind us that while the consuming fire of sexual energy can bring light and warmth, it can also scorch and burn. When it is misused or disordered, it degrades our humanity and injures not only our bodies but also our souls. And even when it is properly appropriated, it cannot ultimately satisfy the longings of our hearts. Sexuality is a beautiful and mysterious component of created reality. And it is certainly meant to be enjoyed. However, its recreational dimension should not be severed from its covenantal, unitive or procreative dimensions. Moreover, only when it is a tool of worship and not the object or the avoidance of worship can it fulfill its intended purpose.

Historically, the Christian church has certainly not been blind to the destructive potential of sex. In his Epistles, Paul speaks repeatedly about the evil desires of the flesh and the degradation of the body and spirit through illicit sexual activity. A recurring theme in the writings of the early church Fathers was the renunciation of lust and the claims of Christ on the bodies of his followers. But, especially due to the platonic ethos of their day, many of the Fathers bought into a separation of body and soul and therein rejected much of the goodness of sex and sensuality. Disturbed by the overt sensuality of the Song of Songs, St. Origin interpreted the book as strictly allegorical. Not only did he emphasize the superiority of celibacy to marital life, but he also castrated himself in order to conquer his sexual drive. St. Jerome threw himself into thorns so that his desire for women would be overwhelmed by his physical pain, while St. Augustine equated sexuality with his pagan past and found spiritual peace largely to the degree that he was able to renounce his sexuality (5). Moreover, Augustine, like many leaders of the church who came both before and after him, virtually equated sexual desire with lust. Even within marriage, he considered sexual desire to be sinful (6).

Space does not permit an exposition of the trajectory of Christian attitudes towards sex throughout the church?s history. Suffice it to say, however, that in the church?s checkered and sordid history regarding the topic of sexuality, a holistic and biblical approach to sex has largely been absent. Most pervasive have been an Augustinian conception of the desires of the body as evil?as well as Augustine?s idea that the intent to produce offspring and the avoidance of unchastity are the only appropriate functions of sex. Despite notable exceptions and however practice might insinuate otherwise, throughout most of church history, sex has been perceived as a private and unmentionable marital good at best or an unqualified evil at worst.

Much of contemporary Christian literature, perhaps out of an effort to correct the overly negative perceptions of sex endemic to church history, and perhaps out of an unconscious accommodation to the utopian ideal of sex in modern culture, has emphasized the recreational function of sex to the neglect of its other dimensions. In most cases, the literature heralds delight and enjoyment in vast and varied expressions of sexuality?as long as they occur within marriage. To that end, technique is their chief concern.

In Intended for Pleasure, a manual on sexual technique within Christian marriage, Dr. Ed and Gaye Wheat stress that the sum of all they teach about sex is fulfillment. ?It is God?s will and design?that sexual experience for a man and a woman in marriage produces wonderful feelings, for God intended sexual relations for our great pleasure (7).? The Wheats do mention the importance of the self gift of agape as a foundation for marital sex, and they also reference the Ephesians 5 comparison of the marital sex act to the love of Christ for the church. However, the focus of their book is clearly placed on the couple?s sexual fulfillment. Similarly, according to Dr. Willard F. Harley in His Needs, Her Needs, sexual fulfillment is the first thing a husband cannot do without (8). In Sheet Music, Dr. Kevin Leman puts the value of marital sexuality this way: ?Into this world of obligation and responsibility, God has dropped something absolutely fabulous into our laps. At the end of the day?we can touch each other and kiss each other and pleasure each other in such a way that the world feels like it is light-years away. We?re transported to another place and removed to another time, and it?s a glorious feeling indeed (9).?

These three books are just samples out of a large collection of Christian handbooks designed to help married couples maximize their sexual fulfillment. Within most of this literature one can find echoes of popular culture?s stress on the therapeutic value of sex. While sexuality is certainly meant to be enjoyed, much of the depth of Christian sexuality is missed when pleasure and fulfillment are the principle focus. Culture?s obsession with sexual pleasure baptized with the stamp ?For Marriage Only? does not provide an adequate understanding of the mystery and purpose of sex.

The testimony of Scripture unquestionably reveals that structurally, sex is good. It is a beautiful and mysterious aspect of creation. God is playful, and in our play, we bear God?s image. By delighting in the beauty and wonder of what God has created, we glorify him. God?s delight in sensuality is so pervasive that references to the wonder and glory of the human body, erotic love, and the conception of children are laced throughout Scripture. Yet, focusing on the recreational function of sex?even within marriage?is incomplete at best and degrading at worst. When sexual activity is treated merely an enjoyable bodily activity, it is mishandled. For sex does not just involve our bodies. It is psychological, relational, and spiritual. Sexuality, says Dr. John Grabowski, ?is necessarily a relational and nuptial reality (10).?

Perhaps more than any other phenomenon of creation, humans are tempted to worship the gift of sex itself rather than the giver of sex. It is no wonder that fallen humans attempt to use sex as a way to reconstruct Eden. The Hebrew definition of Eden is ?delight,? and Genesis describes the first couple enjoying the pleasure of Eden naked and without shame (11). Yet, the sensual pleasure connected in Genesis? depiction of Eden is only part of a broader picture. The sensual pleasure is in service to and a parcel of worship. The garden first and foremost is a symbol of intimacy and delight in God. When sexual expression is a manifestation of worship of God, it is beautiful and good. But when it is a symbol of the worship of self, another human, or pleasure itself, it is a poisonous idol.

A person need not be engaging in fornication or adultery for sex to take on this cheapening, if not destructive dimension. Even within a marriage, sex is cheapened when it is merely an expression of primal urges or the avoidance of pain. Marital sex is also stripped of its beauty when it comes out of a desire to control or manipulate or simply an emphasis on the needs or wants of self. According to Dan Allender and Tremper Longman, ?A husband and wife either participate in the mystery of sexual union as a taste of intimacy with God, or they see it as nothing more than a momentary pleasure. And for some people, the pleasure is so webbed with fear, disgust, or anger that it has lost even its sensual delight. Sex draws the heart toward either greater intimacy or a deeper sense of abuse and harm (12).?

Ecstatic release, however (potentially) wonderful and good, is not the primary purpose of sex. Instead, sex is meant to arouse and fulfill a longing for intimacy. Sex, when functioning as it was intended, serves to promote greater union between spouses. It brings glory to God by uniting more deeply what has been joined through the covenant of marriage. This unitive dimension is described in Genesis 2:24 by the ability of sexual intercourse to make one flesh out of what was formerly two. Moreover, throughout Scripture the term know is used to describe sexual union (13). The act of marital sex is the deepest possible form of human intimacy. A person can be known most profoundly though this act.

Marital sex is also symbolic of an unending commitment between two people. The language surrounding the sexual union of the first man and woman in Genesis is one of covenant. The marital sexual act is a covenant-ratifying gesture which betroths two people to one another for as long as they both live. Sexual union indicates the sealing of an oath of fidelity. By taking the other?s ?bones and flesh? into himself/herself, each partner assumes the other?s strengths and weaknesses as his/her own (14). Thus, every time a couple engages in intercourse, they reenact their lifelong commitment to one another.

Along these lines, sexual activity within marriage also functions as an act of service. Each partner serves his/her spouse by seeking to bring joy, comfort, and pleasure to the other. Laying down herself for the benefit of her spouse, a Christian offers her body as a gift through the donation of self. And in so doing, she mimics the self-donation of Christ. Thus, in their sexual union, a couple participates in ?the great mystery? of Christ?s love for the church described in Ephesians 5:32. ?In some real sense,? writes Peter Elliott, ?Saint Paul sees Marriage as a unity between heaven and earth, at once a Christological and ecclesial mystery (15).?

Marital sexual union serves to deepen and edify the relationship between spouses, but it also points toward a deeper and more ultimate union?eternity in the presence of God. Pleasurable sensory experience, whether it be eating chocolate or smelling spring rain, kindles a longing for more. Eventually, if only for a moment, desire is appeased and we rest. In this sense, intercourse, as the culmination of sexual desire, leads to a moment of peace. According to Allendar and Longman, this brief sense of peace or rest ?is but a mere glimpse of what lies ahead. All rest, in other words, rekindles a desire for what cannot be found in any other way or place but heaven (16).? Mysteriously, the desires of our flesh connect to the longings of our spirit. And as the most intimate of human relations, sexual intercourse points toward intimacy and union with God. It thus provides us the opportunity to know and worship God in deeper and richer ways than we might otherwise. In this sense, it is sacramental.

Sexual intercourse, when functioning as it was intended, is fruitful. It facilitates joy, intimacy, and even sanctification. Despite efforts on behalf of many contemporaries to conceal or circumvent this most obvious biological function, sexual intercourse also produces new life. Miraculously, as John Chrysostom, a fourth-century Eastern church father described, in sexual intercourse a man?s seed is mingled with a woman?s substance and is returned as a child(17). A couple?s offspring embody their one-flesh union. For just as the couple becomes one through the intimacy of intercourse, they also become one as the sex cells that each has contributed merge together to form another human being. Though it would certainly strip sex of much of its beauty and power to assert that procreation is the only valid purpose of sex or that every sexual act must result in fertilization for it to be worthwhile, ignoring or downgrading the procreative function of sex is also reductionistic. In our culture, as Dr. Grabowski has observed, we are prone to separate sex from babies and babies from sex (18). Regrettably, the tendency to sever the ties between sex and procreation is nearly as pervasive inside the church as it is outside of it. Most Protestant denominations openly endorse that conception of children is an optional consequence of marital sex. And while the official teaching of the Catholic church prescribes otherwise, the bulk of Catholic parishioners assume this view as well, if not in their thought then often in their practice.

Instead of buying into the culture?s perception of fertility as a disease (except when the couple?s fulfillment is essentially linked to the conception of a child), the Christian community should be one which welcomes and celebrates new life. Ideally, marital sex should foster a safe and welcoming environment for children. This is not to suggest that family planning should be condemned or even discouraged. Yet, to fully honor their sexuality, couples must acknowledge the procreative possibilities inherent in each sexual act. Moreover, they should seek to create an environment of hospitality in their marriage. Every marriage should foster a hospitality to be enjoyed by the foreigner and the neighbor, but in many cases a full expression of hospitality will extend to new life as well. A Christian couple honors the created norms of their sexuality when they embrace the fruit of their union.

Sex, like all other aspects of created reality, is unable to transport us back to Eden. Yet, when marital sexuality features a dance between its unitive, procreative, and recreational functions, it bears witness to the redemptive forces at work in the world and anticipates the coming of the Kingdom of God. The composite picture of marital sexuality is not encapsulated by any one of these three purposes of sex. Yet each contributes to the mystery and glory imbued by God into our sexuality. Unfortunately, maintaining a balanced and biblical view?let alone praxis?of sex has been a difficult enterprise throughout the history of the church. Often, sex has either been condemned outright or limited to one of its functions. Even if, in this particular historical vantage point, we are freed from the tendency to either idolize sex or condemn it as a dirty and repulsive enterprise, we are still left with the challenge of converting theory into practice. One?s theology of sex is not necessarily synonymous with his operative views regarding his sexual activity. In this dimension of our humanity, too, may God grant us the fortitude to embody what we believe.

1. John S. Grabowski, Christian Marriage and Family, Catholic University: Spring 2004, class lecture, January 15.
2. Peter Gardella, Innocent Ecstasy: How Christianity Gave America an Ethic of Sexual Pleasure., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 140-149.
3. Grabowski, class lecture, January 15.
4. Grabowski, Sex and Virtue: An Introduction to Sexual Ethics., (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America: 2003), 23.
5. Dan B. Allender and Tremper Longman, Intimate Allies., (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1995), 228.
6. See Augustine, The Good of Marriage in Fathers of the Church., vol. 15.
7. Ed Wheat and Gaye Wheat, Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sex Fulfillment in Christian Marriage., (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1977), 18.
8. Willard F. Harley, Jr., His Needs, Her Needs, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1986), 42.
9. Kevin Leman, Sheet Music: Uncovering the Secrets of Sexual Intimacy in Marriage., (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003), 45.
10. Grabowski, class lecture, January 13.
11. Ibid., January 27.
12. Allender and Longman, 212.
13. Wheat, 17.
14. Grabowski, class lecture, January 29.
15. Peter J. Elliott. What God has Joined., (New York: Alba House, 1990), 5.
16. Allender and Longman, 214.
17. See John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life.
18. Grabowski, class lecture, April 20.

Comments

Add New Search RSS

ersit - The Purpose of Sex: An Issue T   | 121.97.187.xxx | Jul 16, 2007 (02:13:04) Sexuality: it provokes within us intense longing, absolute disgust, unrelenting attraction, debilitating dread, indescribable joy, utter repulsion. One does not have to be an expert on the subject to appreciate the power of sex. It is difficult to predict how a person will respond to manifestations of his or others? sexuality?except to say that it most likely will not be apathy or indifference. Human sexual expression can bear the glorious fruits of celebration, joy, intimacy, and worship?or it can spawn the rot of shame, fear, and defilement. It can enhance our humanity, but it can also degrade it. Unfortunately, the double-edged nature of the power of sex receives little consideration in contemporary western culture. Especially expressed in the dominant mediums of pop culture, the prevailing perception regarding the power of sex is that as long as sexual activity occurs between consenting persons who have reached puberty, its ends are entirely positive. Only when sexual activity is a manifestation of violence (rape, child abuse, sexual assault) or is ?unprotected? from disease or pregnancy is it considered destructive. Moreover, sexual activity is largely perceived as an exclusively physical endeavor. It is the mechanism by which a person can alleviate his physical?and uncontrollable?urges. Occasionally a talking head will discourage casual sex or suggest that teens wait to have sex until they really fall in love, but even then promiscuity is assumed to be a benign mark of immaturity rather than a vice or a danger. Not only is most sexual activity (whether covenantal or not) seen as innocuous in our society, but our culture places such confidence in the positive power of sexuality that sex has been infused with redemptive expectations. What John Grabowski labels as the ?utopian ideal of sex? has become part of our cultural ethos (1). This view holds orgasm as the pinnacle of human experience and sexual pleasure as the key to health and well-being. Due in part to the influence of various pop stars, medical personnel, political advocates such as Margaret Sanger, and psychologists such as G. Stanley Hall, we have attached religious language and significance to sex?assuming that if we simply lose ourselves in the ecstasy of sex and romantic love, we will experience salvation from the ills that plague us (2). The virtues espoused by a companion ethic of this view are freedom from prudish restraint and commitment to enhanced sexual technique; the vices are shame and ignorance (3). And in a culture which operates according to this understanding, sex, divorced from its spiritual and even relational dimensions, easily becomes a commodity to be bought or sold (4). If not through the residue of ancient wisdom, then perhaps through our own intuition or experience of disappointment, however, many of us are not so easily fooled by a salvific conception of sex. And thankfully, though the link between chastity and virtue has largely been severed in our culture, we still have the restriction of the ?adult? entertainment to the back room of video stores, the grimaces of children at the mention of sex, and the legal restriction of prostitution to remind us that while the consuming fire of sexual energy can bring light and warmth, it can also scorch and burn. When it is misused or disordered, it degrades our humanity and injures not only our bodies but also our souls. And even when it is properly appropriated, it cannot ultimately satisfy the longings of our hearts. Sexuality is a beautiful and mysterious component of created reality. And it is certainly meant to be enjoyed. However, its recreational dimension should not be severed from its covenantal, unitive or procreative dimensions. Moreover, only when it is a tool of worship and not the object or the avoidance of worship can it fulfill its intended purpose. Historically, the Christian church has certainly not been blind to the destructive potential of sex. In his Epistles, Paul speaks repeatedly about the evil desires of the flesh and the degradation of the body and spirit through illicit sexual activity. A recurring theme in the writings of the early church Fathers was the renunciation of lust and the claims of Christ on the bodies of his followers. But, especially due to the platonic ethos of their day, many of the Fathers bought into a separation of body and soul and therein rejected much of the goodness of sex and sensuality. Disturbed by the overt sensuality of the Song of Songs, St. Origin interpreted the book as strictly allegorical. Not only did he emphasize the superiority of celibacy to marital life, but he also castrated himself in order to conquer his sexual drive. St. Jerome threw himself into thorns so that his desire for women would be overwhelmed by his physical pain, while St. Augustine equated sexuality with his pagan past and found spiritual peace largely to the degree that he was able to renounce his sexuality (5). Moreover, Augustine, like many leaders of the church who came both before and after him, virtually equated sexual desire with lust. Even within marriage, he considered sexual desire to be sinful (6). Space does not permit an exposition of the trajectory of Christian attitudes towards sex throughout the church?s history. Suffice it to say, however, that in the church?s checkered and sordid history regarding the topic of sexuality, a holistic and biblical approach to sex has largely been absent. Most pervasive have been an Augustinian conception of the desires of the body as evil?as well as Augustine?s idea that the intent to produce offspring and the avoidance of unchastity are the only appropriate functions of sex. Despite notable exceptions and however practice might insinuate otherwise, throughout most of church history, sex has been perceived as a private and unmentionable marital good at best or an unqualified evil at worst. Much of contemporary Christian literature, perhaps out of an effort to correct the overly negative perceptions of sex endemic to church history, and perhaps out of an unconscious accommodation to the utopian ideal of sex in modern culture, has emphasized the recreational function of sex to the neglect of its other dimensions. In most cases, the literature heralds delight and enjoyment in vast and varied expressions of sexuality?as long as they occur within marriage. To that end, technique is their chief concern. In Intended for Pleasure, a manual on sexual technique within Christian marriage, Dr. Ed and Gaye Wheat stress that the sum of all they teach about sex is fulfillment. ?It is God?s will and design?that sexual experience for a man and a woman in marriage produces wonderful feelings, for God intended sexual relations for our great pleasure (7).? The Wheats do mention the importance of the self gift of agape as a foundation for marital sex, and they also reference the Ephesians 5 comparison of the marital sex act to the love of Christ for the church. However, the focus of their book is clearly placed on the couple?s sexual fulfillment. Similarly, according to Dr. Willard F. Harley in His Needs, Her Needs, sexual fulfillment is the first thing a husband cannot do without (8). In Sheet Music, Dr. Kevin Leman puts the value of marital sexuality this way: ?Into this world of obligation and responsibility, God has dropped something absolutely fabulous into our laps. At the end of the day?we can touch each other and kiss each other and pleasure each other in such a way that the world feels like it is light-years away. We?re transported to another place and removed to another time, and it?s a glorious feeling indeed (9).? These three books are just samples out of a large collection of Christian handbooks designed to help married couples maximize their sexual fulfillment. Within most of this literature one can find echoes of popular culture?s stress on the therapeutic value of sex. While sexuality is certainly meant to be enjoyed, much of the depth of Christian sexuality is missed when pleasure and fulfillment are the principle focus. Culture?s obsession with sexual pleasure baptized with the stamp ?For Marriage Only? does not provide an adequate understanding of the mystery and purpose of sex. The testimony of Scripture unquestionably reveals that structurally, sex is good. It is a beautiful and mysterious aspect of creation. God is playful, and in our play, we bear God?s image. By delighting in the beauty and wonder of what God has created, we glorify him. God?s delight in sensuality is so pervasive that references to the wonder and glory of the human body, erotic love, and the conception of children are laced throughout Scripture. Yet, focusing on the recreational function of sex?even within marriage?is incomplete at best and degrading at worst. When sexual activity is treated merely an enjoyable bodily activity, it is mishandled. For sex does not just involve our bodies. It is psychological, relational, and spiritual. Sexuality, says Dr. John Grabowski, ?is necessarily a relational and nuptial reality (10).? Perhaps more than any other phenomenon of creation, humans are tempted to worship the gift of sex itself rather than the giver of sex. It is no wonder that fallen humans attempt to use sex as a way to reconstruct Eden. The Hebrew definition of Eden is ?delight,? and Genesis describes the first couple enjoying the pleasure of Eden naked and without shame (11). Yet, the sensual pleasure connected in Genesis? depiction of Eden is only part of a broader picture. The sensual pleasure is in service to and a parcel of worship. The garden first and foremost is a symbol of intimacy and delight in God. When sexual expression is a manifestation of worship of God, it is beautiful and good. But when it is a symbol of the worship of self, another human, or pleasure itself, it is a poisonous idol. A person need not be engaging in fornication or adultery for sex to take on this cheapening, if not destructive dimension. Even within a marriage, sex is cheapened when it is merely an expression of prim... Reply | Quote 0   0

wonderkid and wonderchild - A Word on Premarital Sex   | 121.97.187.xxx | Jul 16, 2007 (02:21:40) Why should there be restrictions a person's sex life? Doug McManaman There are restrictions involved in the use of anything that is truly good and holy, and sex is indeed good and holy. For example, your mother may have a necklace of pearls that is very expensive. There are restrictions on its use, no doubt. A mother would hardly allow her child to play with them outside. Similarly, the reason why there are so many restrictions on the use of the sex act is that sex is profoundly good; for the sex act is the act of marriage, and marriage is good and holy. Marriage is the foundation of the family, which in turn is the fundamental unit of society. To misuse and abuse the sex act is to abuse the marriage act; in short, it is to abuse marriage. Abusing marriage will have serious repercussions on your own marriage in the future. Make no mistake about it, there is a real connection between the widespread misuse of the sex act and the reality that currently one in two marriages end in divorce. Marriage is a joining of two (male and female) into one flesh, one body, through a commitment in which the two establish one another as unique, irreplaceable, and non-substitutable. Marriage is unitive in so far as the two consent to be one body, that is, the two freely choose to give themselves entirely to one another. Now the self includes the body, as well as one's time. To give oneself to another entirely -- not partially -- is to commit one's life to the other. Now marriage is not only unitive, it is also procreative. The procreative aspect of marriage follows from the unitive aspect, for the procreation of new life results from the union of the male seed with the female egg in the unitive act of sexual intercourse. It results, in other words, from their one flesh union; for the child is the fruit of the couple's one flesh union (how many of you have your father's eyes, your mother's nose, etc.,.). What distinguishes human behaviour from the behaviour of brute animals is reason. Animals lack reason, and so they are governed by their instincts. If they have an urge to eat, they will eat. If they have an urge to mate, they will mate, regardless of the prospects of commitment, fidelity, a successful relationship, etc. Dogs and cats don't care about these things. Human beings, on the other hand, are not governed by instinct, and ought not to be governed by passion or feeling, but by their highest faculty, namely reason. There are two types of goods that we ought to consider in order to make sense out of this issue: sensible goods and intelligible goods. Brute animals are motivated solely by sensible goods, that is, things pleasing to the senses. Now it is certainly possible for human beings to be motivated by sensible goods, but we are ultimately motivated by higher goods, namely intelligible human goods. These cannot be sensed by any of the five senses or any of the internal senses. For example, life, truth, beauty, leisure, sociability, friendships, marriage, religion, and integrity constitute the entire network of intelligible human goods. The senses cannot apprehend life, or truth, or beauty, or integrity. They are not sensible, they have no color, shape, size, taste, etc.,. They are intelligible to the human intellect and are desired by the will, not by the senses. A fully human act will be one ordered towards intelligible human goods, and a morally good action -- to make a very long story short -- is one that respects or reveres intelligible human goods. The two aspects of the sex act (the unitive and the procreative) are, in fact, basic intelligible human goods. In other words, they are not sensible goods. Marriage or conjugal union has no color, shape, size, taste, etc.,. And neither is human life a sensible good (something that can be perceived by the senses). The unitive and procreative purposes of marriage are known not by the senses, but by the intellect and desired by the will, because they are intelligible human goods. Consider the diagram below. You can see that the goods which constitute the sex act are in fact the goods of marriage. That is why the sex act is called the "act of marriage", or the "marriage act". In this act, the two become one flesh, one body. Marriage: ---- Unitive (a joining of two into one flesh, one body) ---- Procreation (a community of life) Sexual Union: ---- Unitive (a joining of two into one flesh, thus an expression of married love) ---- Procreation of New Life 1. MARRIAGE is a community of love and life. 2. LOVE and LIFE, like the wedding ring, form a circle that is indivisible. Now, human happiness is nothing other than human well-being. Happiness is not pleasure. One may have many pleasures in life and yet remain profoundly unhappy. Happiness is a matter of choosing, not having (i.e., pleasures, money, fame, etc.). When a person chooses well, that is, on the basis of intelligible human goods, that person is on the road to genuine human happiness. Happiness is the state of integral human fulfillment, which is the integration, in one's self, of all the intelligible human goods that exist. The pursuit of pleasures does not bring about integral human fulfillment because there is a real distinction between sensible goods and intelligible goods. A person can have many pleasures in life, yet remain unhappy. Conversely, a person can have few pleasures in life, yet experience profound happiness, that is, a sense of well-being and integration. Why Sex is Not For Pleasure Sex is indeed pleasurable, as is eating and drinking. But eating is not primarily for pleasure, but for the sake of preserving human life. Eating is an activity that serves an intelligible human good, namely life. And it is certainly a good thing that eating is pleasurable and that there is a hunger instinct. If a person never got hungry or had no desire to eat because eating was not particularly pleasurable, he'd probably rarely eat and become undernourished, and possibly die. Thus it is reasonable that eating is pleasurable. The same is true for sex. If it was not pleasurable, people wouldn't engage in sexual union and the species would likely die out. Nevertheless, the purpose of sex is not pleasure, even though it is pleasurable. That this is true is rather easy to demonstrate. Consider two people (even a married couple), both of whom are having sex merely for the sake of pleasure. Person A -- -- -- -- -> Person B -- -- -- -- -> Person A * Person A is having sex for pleasure. Hence, Person B becomes a means to A's pleasure. 1. Human beings must never be treated as a means to an end. If person A is having sex for pleasure, then person B is a means to that pleasure, which exists in person A. But treating a human person as a means to an end is never justified. A "means" is something that is used, such as a piece of chalk or a computer. But a human being must never be used as a means to an end. Things must be used, not loved; persons must be loved, not used. It is good that sex is pleasurable, but the goodness of the sex act does not consist in its pleasure. The human goodness of the sex act consists in its unitive and procreative aspects. In the act of sexual union, the two become one flesh, one body, and this is precisely the definition of marriage. The sex act is an expression and celebration of marriage (the choice to be one flesh, one body until death separates the two). It is an expression of conjugal love. It is meant to be a loving act, an act that expresses total commitment, a total giving of oneself or one's entire body, that is, one's entire life. An unmarried couple who engage in the act of sexual union have not made that commitment to be one flesh, one body. In the act of sexual union, they do not therefore express a conjugal commitment or conjugal love. There is presently no intention to be one body (married), and so there is no openness to procreation (unless the motive is simply to conceive a child deliberately out of wedlock, but this is another moral issue). That is why non-marital intercourse tends to be contraceptive. And so the act of non-marital intercourse lacks intelligible human goodness. It is not a unitive act, except physically. At worst, the two merely use one another as a means to an end. At best, they pursue the feeling or experience of conjugal intimacy without the reality of conjugal intimacy. This is somewhat like the drug user who pursues the feeling of having his life in order (all together) without the reality of an ordered life (having it all together). In short, premarital sex is a lying with one's body. The act expresses and symbolizes a total giving of oneself, yet the two have not given themselves entirely to one another in the commitment of marriage. What one says with one's body does not correspond to one's intentions. But love is a willing of the other's good for the other's own sake, not for the sake of what he or she can do for me. It is not a feeling, nor is it necessarily willing that a person experience pleasure. Love is sober and intelligent, not sentimental. The mother who "loves her child so much" that she feeds him/her chocolate bars and jelly beans all the time does not have the strength of character and good sense to truly love. The loving mother will place all sorts of restrictions on her child and deny him/her all sorts of options - for his/her own intelligible goodness (health). For the sake of an orgasm, the teenage boy is willing to allow the other to become a mother without a commitment on his part, and he is willing to allow a child to be conceived without a legal father. Hence, the fornicator is an unjust person. And since happiness is a matter of character (good character), the fornicator will not experience a sense of fulfillment in his sexual actions. In his frustration, he will tend to seek sexual experiences with other women in order to try to find what he is missing in his own sexual life. But he will not find it, because what he is missing is a genuine unselfish love of the other, that is, he is missing a spirit of sacrifice. Sacrifice -- never forget -- is the language of love. Selfishness has never brought happiness or a sense of peace to any human being. On the contrary, happiness is found in self-possession through virtue. The mere experience of an orgasm is not a genuinely human act. Only when the sex act is the intentional pursuit of genuine human goods - the unitive good of marriage and the good of procreation - does it become a truly fulfilling act and a source of genuine human happiness. A Word on Masturbation Many young people ask whether masturbation is a sin, a serious sin, or morally wrong, etc.,. It is important to keep things in perspective here. First, adolescence, at least for boys, is the time of most easy arousal, that is, the sexual peak. This is a rather new drive that is experienced as powerful and at times might seem uncontrollable. It is not unusual for a teenage boy to masturbate. Statistics consistently reveal that masturbation happens more frequently among adolescent boys than girls. Let's just say that masturbation, in this light, is not the greatest sin in the world. This does not mean to suggest that masturbation is okay. Consider the following points. Repeated action leads to habits, and we all know that habits are hard to break. The purpose of masturbation is to procure the experience of orgasm. In other words, the purpose is merely pleasure. But pleasure is not a basic intelligible human good. The purpose of the sexual act is union and procreation. In other words, the sexual act is relational, not solitary. But masturbation is solitary. It is sex for the self. It is sex that has the self at its center. In other words, it is self-centered. Self-centered actions are selfish. Thus, masturbation is selfish. That's the moral problem with it. Furthermore, it creates the habit of using one's sexual powers selfishly. When one is in a marital relationship, the tendency will be to use one's spouse as a means of sexual pleasure, because one has been habituated to using sex selfishly. Again, it is not the worst sin that one can think of committing, nor is it something a teenage boy should be overly anxious about. Rather, one should take advantage of the Sacrament of Reconciliation in order to receive the graces necessary to eventually exercise control over one's sexual drive. That really is the goal here, to achieve a certain level of moral development, which involves control over one's passions. The morally and psychologically healthy situation is that in which one is in control of one's drives and urges, as opposed to the situation in which our drives are in control of us. This is slavery, not moral liberty. Furthermore, control does not mean suppression. One should not suppress one's sexual drive, which amounts to denying it, refusing to face it, refusing to affirm it and recognize its goodness. One should recognize it, affirm it, be aware of its goodness, but also recognize the purpose of one's sexual powers and allow them to be perfected by reason. As psychiatrist Conrad Baars points out, the human emotions have an innate need to be guided by reason. Emotional health can only be achieved by affirming and directing our passions according to the demands of reason. That is the essence of virtue. Reply | Quote 0   0

amazing twins - A Word on Masturbation   | 121.97.187.xxx | Jul 16, 2007 (02:28:10) Many young people ask whether masturbation is a sin, a serious sin, or morally wrong, etc.,. It is important to keep things in perspective here. First, adolescence, at least for boys, is the time of most easy arousal, that is, the sexual peak. This is a rather new drive that is experienced as powerful and at times might seem uncontrollable. It is not unusual for a teenage boy to masturbate. Statistics consistently reveal that masturbation happens more frequently among adolescent boys than girls. Let's just say that masturbation, in this light, is not the greatest sin in the world. This does not mean to suggest that masturbation is okay. Consider the following points. Repeated action leads to habits, and we all know that habits are hard to break. The purpose of masturbation is to procure the experience of orgasm. In other words, the purpose is merely pleasure. But pleasure is not a basic intelligible human good. The purpose of the sexual act is union and procreation. In other words, the sexual act is relational, not solitary. But masturbation is solitary. It is sex for the self. It is sex that has the self at its center. In other words, it is self-centered. Self-centered actions are selfish. Thus, masturbation is selfish. That's the moral problem with it. Furthermore, it creates the habit of using one's sexual powers selfishly. When one is in a marital relationship, the tendency will be to use one's spouse as a means of sexual pleasure, because one has been habituated to using sex selfishly. Again, it is not the worst sin that one can think of committing, nor is it something a teenage boy should be overly anxious about. Rather, one should take advantage of the Sacrament of Reconciliation in order to receive the graces necessary to eventually exercise control over one's sexual drive. That really is the goal here, to achieve a certain level of moral development, which involves control over one's passions. The morally and psychologically healthy situation is that in which one is in control of one's drives and urges, as opposed to the situation in which our drives are in control of us. This is slavery, not moral liberty. Furthermore, control does not mean suppression. One should not suppress one's sexual drive, which amounts to denying it, refusing to face it, refusing to affirm it and recognize its goodness. One should recognize it, affirm it, be aware of its goodness, but also recognize the purpose of one's sexual powers and allow them to be perfected by reason. As psychiatrist Conrad Baars points out, the human emotions have an innate need to be guided by reason. Emotional health can only be achieved by affirming and directing our passions according to the demands of reason. That is the essence of virtue. Reply | Quote 0   0

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.