Quantcast
Click here to read more...
March 27, 2008
Newsletter:     
Search:        
 
Click Here to Order!
 
Return to Home Page Return to Old Archive Home Page Doctrine, Scripture, Morality, Vocation, Community Identity, Sexuality, Family, Healing, Work Art, Ideas, Technology, Science, Business Politics, Bioethics, Ecology, Justice, Peace Spirituality, Prayers, Poems, and Witness Archive of top news from around the web Columns, Reviews and Personal Essays What is Godspy?
faith article
spacer
spacer
<LIFE>
RELATED LINKS
Andrea Dworkin and Me, by Maggie Gallagher
To most conservatives, Andrea Dworkin was an expletive to be deleted. But her recent death brought back the time when the infamous feminist invited me, the unknown young conservative, to tea, where we shared glimpses of the same truth.

Boinking Without Oinking: A Review of 'Female Chauvinist Pigs', by Dawn Eden
Ariel Levy’s new book on the rise of ‘raunch culture’ and its effect on women has gotten raves for challenging sexed-up feminism. But its daring is only skin-deep.   

Telling Lies with the Body: Expert Christopher West explains Pope John Paul II's 'Theology of the Body,' a reflection on sexual love
“…we no longer understand what it means to love. So often what we call love in our culture is nothing but a man and woman or two men or whoever using one another for our own selfish pleasure… The opposite of love is to use someone as a means to my own selfish end. This is not some abstract theology-we know this to be true. When somebody uses us, treats us as a thing rather than as a person, we feel violated.” [Beliefnet]

ADVERTISEMENTS
Click here to buy the movie...
 
 
 
 
 
 
Click here to see the video!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Click here to buy!
 
 
 
Click to buy at Amazon.com
 
 
 
Click here to buy!
 
 
 
 
 
 

THE MEANING OF SEX: FERTILITY AND THE RECOVERY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

Few dare talk about it, but beneath the surface of elite opinion there's growing unease about the sexual revolution. Not only hasn’t it delivered happiness, it’s brought the opposite. Juli Loesch Wiley explains why misery is the natural result of severing the connection between sexual fulfillment and fertility, and what it will take to restore whole sexual love between men and women.

Raphael's 'Adam and Eve' (1509-11) from the Stanza della Signatura, Pallazzi Pontifici, the Vatican.

With all the obsessing over condoms and "safe-sex", the media drumbeat over global population control, the relentless magazine-TV-movie drooling over the sexual option smorgasbord—Desperate Housewives, Cosmo's latest sexual positions, Maxim's 'Hometown Hotties', not to mention instant-access internet pornpeople plugged into the mass culture have heard few discordant notes about the sexual revolution, except maybe one—that "the Pope" is against it.

And, especially maddening to the sexual-commercial complex, "the Pope" is even—for some bizarre reasonunaccountably opposed to what even most churches agree is the best thing since One-a-Day vitamins: contraception.

Secular journalists seem to want us to assume that a comprehensive critique of the agenda and the paraphernalia of the sexual revolution is an idiosyncrasy of "the Pope" alone. They're unaware that such opposition is only the latest expression of the continuous Judeo-Christian concern for sexual integrity going back to the early Church and the New Testament, going back in fact to Genesis.

It's assumed that a critique of the sexual revolution is an idiosyncrasy of 'the Pope' alone.
Neither do these journalists bother to understand and explain, even superficially, the rationale for the traditional Christian teaching against contraception. The implication is that there are no reasons for the historic Christian position: nothing worth examining, nothing even worth refuting. Those believers who do accept the traditional teaching, mostly Catholics, and a minority of them at that, accept it on faith alone—the poor unthinking sheep—and that's that.

Yet the sexual revolutionthe disjointing and dismembering of human sexuality into a heap of fragments to be rearranged again in any shape at willrests upon certain underlying assumptions about the nature and ends of sexuality. It rests upon contraceptive paraphernalia as its necessary technology. I'm not a professional philosopher, but I can see the urgency of examining the assumptions before taking a stance with regard to the technique.

The Nature of Sexuality

Sexually, we resemble baboons. But even to say that seems like a dig, a put-down.

We know that human sexuality is something like other mammalian sexuality, and at the same time something more. For us, as for apes, mating fulfills a drive and satisfies an itch. Like other primates, we reproduce sexually. Again like other primates, we use sexual gestures to express affinity or belonging on some level; our mating patterns order our herd, our group, our community.

But there is still something more. The sacramental view of matrimony was never based on studies of baboon communities or squints at barnyard sex. Christians believe that, first, since we were made in the image and likeness of God, our design is both revelatory and providential. Second, the "honor of the marriage bed" is rooted in the scriptural view of marital union as showing forth, mysteriously, the love-union of Christ and the church.

Honoring the Design

If human sexuality has no designer, then vain is an appeal to honor the design. Furthermore, if there is a design, and the design is already perfectly reflected in our instincts, drives, and appetites, then "honoring the design" should need no appeal at all: it should happen automatically.

When Christ, during his ministry here on earth, was asked (in Matthew 19) about the propriety of certain sexual customs, his method was to refer his questioners back to Genesis, He used the argument from design: that the Creator had made the human race male and female, that he had designed them to hold fast together, becoming one flesh.

So the design of male and female is a sign of different-gender alliance and fidelity (Gen. 3:18-24) as well as God's way of making his human creatures fruitful (Gen. 1:28.) This is the way it was in Eden (literally, "Delight").

The design of male and female is a sign of different-gender alliance and fidelity... 
The question Jesus was asked had to do with divorce. His answer made clear that in the beginning (Genesis), in the time of delight (Eden), man and woman were one: there was no divorce. He notes that divorce came in later because of people's hardness of heartin other words, because of sin. But rather than accommodating that hardness of heart, he challenges his listeners with a hard saying ("Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another, is guilty of adultery")a hard saying that paradoxically upholds once again the norm of Eden, the full-orbed sexuality of delight.

What does this discussion of divorce have to do with contraception? The underlying question in both instances is whether we are justified in breaking this full-orbed sexuality apart.

May we break apart, rearrange, a man and a woman? May we break apart fruitfulness and delight? Are we free (because we are able to do so) to split sex up into its various "animal" and "angel" componentsfondness here, fertility there; here the itch, there the issue; affection, desire, covenant, and conception considered separately and experienced separatelyrearranging the pieces to suit whatever project we have in mind?

The picture is complicated by the fact that men and women have become hardened in their responses, in their feelings, in what seems natural to them, because of sin. We're not in the Garden anymore. Our hearts are hard.

So, for instance, rape seems natural, even urgent, to some poor sinners. To others, nature is the pleasure of serial seduction. For some men, mating with a man seems natural; still other seek sexual gratification with children. Or animals. Or plastic sex toys and video images.

And many—especially in our day—think it a problem and vexation that natural sex should so easily produce offspring. It seems to them normal that sex should be usuallyalmost invariably—infertile. The fruitfulness of the sexual embrace distresses them: I could almost say it affronts them. The connection between sexual fulfillment and fertility strikes them as a defect of design.

The Choice: Sanctity or Sabotage

Fruitfulness is undeniably a component of real sex. Bible and biology; Genesis and genetics; every source of knowledge, natural and supernatural, is there to tell us so. It is not a defect. It is part of the design.

The question, then, is what do we do about it? Do we learn to live with our created sexual design, learn about it "on our knees" as learning something holy? Do we live it whole? Or do we reject our sexual nature as it is, and invent something else?

Contraception means the rejection of real sex; it is an insistence that we can break sexuality into pieces, select the bits we like, and put the rest in the wastebasket.

Fruitfulness is undeniably a component of real sex. Every source of knowledge, natural and supernatural, tells us so. It is not a defect. It is part of the design.
It takes patience and humility to live with a husband or wife whose sexuality is whole, entire, and unbroken. It means there is a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing. It means one's great bodily powers and heart-energies are at the service of somebody else—at the service of another gender, and another generationand not of one's self.

This laying out of sexuality at the service of another—this seeing of genital activity itself not as self-fulfillment but as self-donationis at the heart of Christian sacramental reflection.

Now consider this: if the husband or the wife says, "I love you, dearie, but you've got one God-given, healthy, holistic power that gives me a pain: fertility. So bag it. Fix it. Suppress it. And then I'll sleep with you"—that's not exactly the acceptance of a whole person by a whole person. It's altering the person (suppressing natural fertility) as a condition for marital union.

Thus contraception doesn't just offend the "procreative" power: it offends the "unitive" power too. It involves a maiming of bodily wholeness—cutting sex down to sizewhich ultimately means cutting your spouse down to size.

Wholeness and Holiness

It should go without saying that marital acts that are exploitative and degrading are not rendered good just by being fertile. Fertility is not the issue: wholeness is.

Both reason and revelation tell us that a great purpose of the sexual bonding of a man and a woman—and therefore of marriageis the begetting and raising of children. But there are some who, while in the main valuing Genesis norms and sexual wholeness, say that openness to life inheres in the relationship, not in individual sexual acts.

Just a moment now. Suddenly we have a "relationship" that is somehow independent of its "acts." Try this statement instead: "Marital fidelity inheres in the relationship and not in individual sexual acts." (Oops—that comes a little too close to what the mass culture is already saying.) Let's try once more: "Your Bank believes that business ethics inheres in the relationship and not in individual financial transactions." Now we're cooking!

A relationship is not separable from its "acts." The acts are the ingredients of the relationship. If your "fundamental bread recipe" is 99 percent wholesome but a tablespoon or two consists of something you dipped up from the cow pasture, is it not reasonable to suspect that you've subtly altered the character of the whole loaf?

Natural Planning

Contraception means the rejection of real sex; it is an insistence that we can break sexuality into pieces...
But don't we have a dilemma here? On the one hand, the marriage relationship is ordered to self-donation: one-fleshness with one's spouse and the procreation and education of children. (I use the word "education" in the fullest sense: the rearing, the training, the providingfor, the "nurture and admonition" of children.) But there are occasions—particularly in times of sickness, poverty, and hardshipwhen the arrival of more children would seriously compromise a family's ability to care for the children they have already been given and make oneness far more difficult, if not (apparently) impossible.

In these cases, wouldn't contraception actually serve the ends of marriage: by making it more likely that the children already generously conceived will also be generously cared for, given the parents' limited resources of time, energy, and money?

No, even in these cases, contraception would not serve: but natural family planning might.

There is something intrinsically disordered about contraception: it entails actively rejecting and frustrating our created design. For the same reason, it should be clear why natural family planning (NFP) is morally acceptable: it means knowing, respecting, and acting in harmony with that same design.

NFP involves knowing the bodily signs of fertility and infertility and then acting accordingly: choosing intercourse during fertile times if the conception of a child is desired, or abstaining during those times if there are grave reasons to avoid conception. In either case, the spouses are acting with, and not against, the natural powers and potentialities inscribed by divine wisdom in their own bodies.

That's why it is inaccurate to call NFP a "method of contraception." Contraception is a key part of the larger modern project of splitting sexuality into its components and then exploiting the components separately. It calls for nothing by way of virtue. It requires only drugs, devices, and surgery. It is the ultimate technical fix.

NFP expresses a much more ancient and holistic view: that sexual powers require harmonious cooperation, patience, gentleness, self-control—in fact, all the fruits of the Holy Spirit. NFP presupposes husbands and wives who have placed their sexual lives humbly in each others' hands; who can, by mutual consent, lovingly abstain for a little while, and lovingly come together again (1 Cor. 7:4-5); who know there is a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing (Ecc. 3:5).

Sexual Mystery

St. Paul said something about human sexual love that was never said about any animal's sex life: that for us—for human persons and particularly for baptized persons—sexual union is a mysterium tremendum. It is the prime image of the union of Christ and his church (Eph. 5:32).

To be sure, St. Paul does not say that this imaging is a property of sexual relations considered in isolation, but of marriage as a whole. Nevertheless, we're not talking here about the love of parent and child, or of brothers and sisters, or of the monastery or the parish, but precisely the union exclusively proper to married persons. The sacred sign of this is sexual intercourse.

It seems to me that the goal of Christ's work is the creation of a new human race, one that lives the way God originally wanted the human race to live. This is a call backward to Genesis, to original design, to what one might call Alpha Humanity. But it is also a call forward to something new, to Omega Humanity fulfilled in Christ.

If the sexual act signifies this, then its structure is not to be tampered with, any more than one would tamper with the matter of the Eucharist or the name of the Trinity. This means that wholeness is not just desirable, not just an ideal, but is obligatory for purposes of signifying what God wants to signify: in other words, for sacramental reasons.

This is why both honest virginity and honest married love both honor the sacramentality of sex: virginity by keeping sex wholly reserved; and marriage by keeping sex whole whenever it is expressed.

NFP expresses a much more ancient and holistic view: that sexual powers require harmonious cooperation, patience, gentleness, self-control...
This doesn't mean that a baby must be desired whenever intercourse is chosen (although it is a beautiful thing for husband and wife to come together knowing that conception is possible; they are then true wonder-workers in each others' eyes!). But it means that the natural pattern of fertility/infertility is recognized as providential. We cooperate with it. We respect it. We don't restructure it.

The Real Feast

It has truly been said that those who never really fast, never really feast. The seasons of nature alternate cold and warm, dry and wet, the hard-shelled seed buried in darkness and the spring and sap of the new green shoot. In the same way the church calendar is spangled with its purple and rose, its white, green, and gold, keeping its octaves, counting its days, fasting without bitterness and feasting without shame.

I speak here of sexual abstinence: the virginity of the unmarried, the continence of the celibate, and the periodic abstinence of natural family planning couples; and also of those many occasions when husband and wife are unable to come together because of illness, weariness, or separation. These are our fasts. But the meaning of abstinence is never found in itself, but in rhythms larger than ourselves, larger than our whole lifetimes. The meaning of the fast is found in the Cycle of Feasts.

Truly if this life were all there is, there would be no reason not to squander sexual energy ad libitum, de-coupled as to partner, disoriented as to gender, Dionysiac as to its final end: remember that in The Bacchae it ends in death.

But if this life points mysteriously to a life to come, we must honor the "secret meaning" of our sexuality as a sign of sacred fertile union. To deliberately splinter the parts of the signto break up the sacredness, to split off the fertility, or to disrupt the spouses' one-flesh unity—would be like hacking a written highway marker into a heap of unrelated syllables. But to restore the sign of whole sexual loveman and woman, lifelong, exclusive, faithful, and fruitful—means to read the sign rightly and to reach the destination to which it points: the Marriage of the Lamb, the feast that has no end.

spacer
October 31, 2005

JULI LOESCH WILEY is a writer, speaker and activist for the consistent ethic of life.

A version of this article was first published in 'Regeneration Quarterly.' Republished with permission of the author. ©2005, Juli Loesch Wiley. All rights reserved.

Email A Friend
READER COMMENTS
02.28.06   RuthRevert says:
I'd like to respond to Antigone. Mary Beth Bonacci, a chastity/TOB speaker, addressed this at the National Catholic Singles Conference in Denver, in 2005 and 2006. Her take is that the "pool has been poisoned" by original sin, and our modern culture; that there are now limited suitable candidates for marriage, that God's Plan A is that all who have the vocation of marriage be able to fulfill it, but because "the pool has been poisoned," we have to look at God's Plan B. Which, she says, "is still pretty good." Her suggestion is to live a life of self-donation, to join "communities of persons" in our parishes, with our friends and extended families. To matter in the life of a child by being aunts and uncles to our neices and nephews, and children of friends, by becoming mentors to children who could use us as such. To volunteer at our parishes and become part of our parish community, even if your parish appears to ignore the singles over 30 and under 65. To engage in intimate friendships, to give and receive love, and to support each other in our chaste lives. She also suggests that a life of prayer, frequent mass and Adoration is also necesssary to sustain our chastity, as well as to keep us connected to God's love for us. And, I would add, we are to remain open to God's will for our lives, and open to dating appropriate candidates brought into our lives.But, I would also like to respond to Antigone's pain. I too feel that pain. I feel that this pain, this ache, this longing for marriage, for completeness, never really goes away even as you live a life of self-donation and receiving love through non-romantic friendship. I feel we are designed this way, to feel this hole, this need for a mate, so that we are compelled to take steps to fulfill our vocation. I agree with Tom Sullivan, that intimate non-romantic friendships help us fill this longing, this need for emotional intimacy (it doesn't help much, though, with the need for physical intimacy!).

02.14.06   vitabella-05 says:
Thank you to everyone who has posted a comment. Just two quick things: first, there is a citation error in the article. The author wrote Genesis 3:18-25 as the passage of the creation of man and woman for the one-flesh union. It is actually Genesis 2:18-25. Chapter three deals with the Fall. This brings me to the second point. The reason why our sexual passions have been disordered is because of sin, a result of the Fall. This affects everyone, both married and non-married, Catholic, non-Catholic. No exceptions. What I believe the Holy Father is trying to do in his magnificent Love and Responsibility and later in the Theology of the Body is remind us of our weakness in this area because of sin, and recuperate for us our integrated "wholeness" (as the author mentions). We have been redeemed, which means that God's original plan was brought to fruition in Christ. In other words, the impact of Christ's salvific act is something we have to meditate on daily, and bring to our thoughts, words, and especially in our interactions and relationships with others. I recommend that any interested readers either join a group discussing both of these books by JPII, or begin a group in your parish, home, or school. This way the seemingly intellectual concepts will have a place to take root in your day-to-day life, aided by the companionship and accountability of like-minded people. If anyone is interested in joining a group that meets regularly at St. Malachy's Church in midtown Manhattan, please visit http://catholicculture.com/ToB_blog/. From my experience attending this group, I have started processing the fundamentally life-altering concepts in these books.TextTextText

11.15.05   thomasdsullivan says:
I wonder if part of the difficulty Antigone raises stems from the fact that some people who give talks about the "Theology of the Body" always assume that they're speaking to married or engaged couples.Antigone’s comment provokes the question: What makes living a chaste life worthwhile, especially for a single woman or man? It has to be that we experience that living this way makes us truer to our own selves (including our bodies), that it brings us closer to Christ, makes His presence more welcome within us.Paradoxically, having (non-romantic) friends who we can live our faith with day-to-day makes this easier. They remind us that we are members of the Catholic Church (i.e., a place where real human beings love us as signs of Christ’s presence, and where Christ reveals Himself through them). True friends remind us that we have a vocation that extends beyond being married, or the work we do, or the success we enjoy (or lack). This experience can’t erase the pain of wanting to be married, but it can be a place where we can wait for that grace in a more positive way.Tom Sullivan

11.04.05   Heartache says:
I found this article to be heart breaking. My ex husband was Catholic and he chose to leave the church long before I met him and engage in carnal relations. By the time I met him he already abused one of his girlfriend and had scars on his bodies from their fights. My mother tried to teach me the rhythm method but I already knew about fertility signals from my own teenage years. My question to you is: whose responsibility is it to learn the rhythm method? My former mother in law would say mine but I would say the man is just as much responsible as the woman. And at any rate I did take the NFP home course and taught it to other women. NFP is the most ecological thing there is.

11.04.05   Antigone says:
Am I the only one disappointed by this article? Not disappointed by the message or the writing, but by the approach. I've heard and read this all before and I buy it--I BUY the Church's arguments, I've read John Paul II's glorious Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility, I've heard Christopher West, Dave Sloan, and a myriad of other Catholic speakers explain it. I understand, and I affirm. But this article addresses nothing new, nothing that those others haven't dealt with. It's well-written certainly, but it's preaching to the choir. I guess what I personally want to read more about is the cost and the suffering involved in living out God's plan for human sexuality. And so few writers and speakers seem to address this. I held my breath when I came to the sentence "The question, then, is what do we do about it?" I longed for some intelligent discussion of what it means practically in our lives. And yet--there was little that followed. Speaking from my own point of view as a single person, sticking to your guns on things like no sex before marriage, no contraception at any time, means that your dating pool dwindles to practically zero. It's painful, and it's lonely, especailly as you watch your other friends marry and have children (and yes, have sex). There is a very real possibility that because I choose to believe and to live out God's plan, I may never be married, may never have children, may never know what it's like to live with and share intimately with someone. And I'd love for more speakers to address how to handle these heartaches. Too many Theology of the Body speakers imply that if you start to follow God's will for men and women, you'll be happier, your life will be easier. Well, yes and no. Yes, you experience the deep joy of living God's Love. So did the early martyrs. But they were also dispossessed, beaten, burnt, tortured, and put to the death in public arenas. Was it worth it to them? Absolutely. But it hurt. I'm not saying a single, chaste Christian today experiences quite the same torments (having your friends and family believe that you're repressed/a lesbian/a closet nun isn't nearly as bad as being fed to wild boars). But it still hurts, deeply. Christianity doesn't shy away from the suffering and burdens of this world, and cost of taking up your cross and following Christ. Why do so many of the writers on the Catholic meaning of sex?

11.04.05   klossg says:
Juli thanks for this beautiful TOTB based article. As an NFP teacher (CCL method) any article this good is very much welcome.I am still looking for the 5 minute video short that describes the TOTB without getting into Contraception. If people are interested in TOTB they will eventually come to understand that contraception is a bad deal.

11.02.05   Luciano Miceli says:
Thank you for a very inspiring and thought provoking article and here are some of those thoughts. Let's go back to the basic choice given to us "Before you are life and good, death and evil, choose life that you may live!" Self donation is life giving and affirming, or on the other hand selfishness as in theso called consentual relation "I use you and you use me" reduces the other person to a plaything to be discarded just like trash that has lost it's usefulness. To all those users and used people I say "get a life"make a gift of yourself, seek the best for the other exclusively fruitfully and for life, then not only will you have a life you will also be able to grow as a human being for the rest of your days.

11.01.05   John Martin says:
A wonderful and virtually comprehensive summary of the Catholic view of sexuality and the faith's reasons for rejecting contraception. Absolutely great. People should hand this from neighbor to neighbor, and perhaps someday the media types who relentlessly trumpet unthinking secularism (Paula Zahn comes to mind here) will discover it and realize, by common grace, this is the real news.

10.31.05   Godspy says:
Few dare talk about it, but beneath the surface of elite opinion there's growing unease about the sexual revolution. Not only hasn’t it delivered happiness, it’s brought the opposite. Juli Loesch Wiley explains why misery is the natural result of severing the connection between sexual fulfillment and fertility, and what it will take to restore whole sexual love between men and women.

Click to buy at Amazon.com!
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Advertise | About Us