The Church & Human Sexuality

Like most secular universities, the school where I serve as campus minister offers a wide range of classes, from forensic science to European history to psychology. A couple of years ago two of my campus ministry students were taking a psychology class on “human sexuality." They came to see me on the very first day of class because the professor brought up... you guessed it, the Catholic Church! One could choose to be offended that the Catholic Church was singled out by this professor on day one. I choose to take it as a back-handed complement. No one ever attacks the Methodists or Presbyterians for their moral teachings on human sexuality (no offense meant to our Protestant brethren). But the Catholic Church is well known for its adherence to traditional moral ethics; she also makes the astonishing claim that her moral teachings are applicable universally to all humanity, not just the faithful in the pews. So she makes an appealing target.

Before continuing, I want to make it absolutely clear that I was not sitting in that classroom, and I have no firsthand knowledge of what the professor actually said. According to one student's notes, the professor characterized the Catholic Church’s teaching as, “sex is for reproduction, not just for pleasure.” The professor went on to show slides of chimpanzees and goats engaging in various forms of non-reproductive sexual acts, in an attempt to demonstrate that sex engaged in purely for pleasure was natural.

Let’s look first at the idea that the Church teaches that “sex is for reproduction, not just pleasure.” While that is true as far as it goes, it is certainly not the totality of the Church's teaching about human sexuality. Our professor may be surprised to learn that middle school biology teachers across America are instructing students that sex is for reproduction. No reference to Divine Revelation is needed to glean that truth. The Magisterium of the Church and the Magisterium of science are in lockstep agreement on that matter – it is only hedonists and academics who would disagree!

But what of the professor’s claim that sex engaged in purely for pleasure is “natural?” No doubt that is an attempt to undermine the Church’s reliance upon the natural law as the underpinning of her moral teachings. There is today a widespread misunderstanding of just what is meant by “natural law.” People think of “nature” as "wild areas" and therefore think that natural law equates to the way things are done in the wild. But humans are not wild animals (despite the very convincing impression many of us sometimes give). Just as chimps and goats, chickens and fichus trees have their own way of being -- their own manner of existing -- which makes them chimps and not chickens, goats and not goldfish, and so on, we human beings have a manner of existence that is particularly human. This is our nature. It has nothing to do with what happens out in the woods or under moist rocks. It has to do with what happens in the hearts and minds of man.

Philosophers, well before the Christian era, looked to this shared human nature as the measure of what was right and wrong behavior for humans to engage in. They asked questions like: What does it mean to be human? What is proper to our nature, and what is against our nature? Unlike animals which do not possess a rational intellect and a free will, human beings are capable of thinking and choosing. We can choose to act in accord with our nature or against it. When we act in a way that is against our nature, that is an immoral act. We Catholics call that a sin. So when the Church says her moral teachings are based upon the natural law, she means they are based on what it means to be human. Goats and chimpanzees always act like goats and chimpanzees, because they lack reason and free will. Those characteristics, possessed by humans, can raise us to astonishing heights of glory; they also make it possible for us to act in very inhuman ways.

Returning to the subject of human sexuality, was our professor correct? Does the Church teach that sex is “for reproduction, not just pleasure?” The Church, following the natural law, in fact teaches that the sexual act has two purposes, described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as, "the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life" (CCC 2363). These two ends are generally referred to as the unitive and procreative (or reproductive) aspects of sex. Anything that attempts to thwart either of those two ends undermines the natural purpose of the act itself and is therefore immoral. This is why the Church teaches that things like contraception, adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, etc. are sinful. These things all involve aspects that are contrary to one or both ends of the sexual act. When we engage in an action while simultaneously attempting to avoid the very purpose of that action, we do not act in a rational way.

It would be as if we were driving a car, yet we did not want to go anywhere. And I don’t mean taking a pleasure drive just for the joy of being on the road. The pleasure drive has a purpose, if just to feel the wind in your hair. I mean it is as if we got into our car, sat behind the wheel, turned the ignition, put it in gear, and put our foot on the gas when what we really wanted to do is stay home. That is an irrational act. If I flip the light switch on when I enter the room, but I desire it to be dark, that is irrational. My action does not correspond to my desired end. Engaging in the act of sex without desiring both the unitive and procreative ends of that act is just as irrational and ultimately unhealthy.

To return to my former analogy, what if we just want to take a pleasure drive? What if our desired end is sexual pleasure and we engage in that action for that purpose? Wouldn’t that be a rational action? Note that the two purposes of the human sexual act are reproduction and union, not reproduction and pleasure as our professor puts it. Does this mean the Catholic Church teaches that sex should not be pleasurable? Not at all. I would argue (and I believe I have the teaching of the Church supporting me in this) that both the unitive and reproductive ends of the sexual act have the capacity to produce great pleasure if they are sought with love. All too often people dismiss the Church's position on sex as being purely biological. But what the Church really teaches is this: "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person, as such" (Familiaris consortio 11).

Those who think the Church has a negative attitude about sex are woefully ignorant of her teachings. The Church tells us that the human sexual act is "noble and honorable" (Gaudium et Spes 49) and that "sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure" (CCC 2362). There is that word that our professor so loves – pleasure – right there in the Catechism. And lest we think this is some new teaching born of Vatican II, way back on Oct. 29, 1951, Pope Pius XII said that God Himself made the sexual act so that "spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment" (qtd. in CCC 2362). Simply put, Catholics are not Puritans. We do not, as some believe, look upon sex as a necessary evil which husband and wife must sometimes engage in to bring new Catholics into the world. This is not our teaching at all. But nor do we believe as the world believes today; that the primary purpose of sex is personal physical pleasure, with children being an optional byproduct, best avoided in most cases.

The world sees personal pleasure as the primary end of sex; therefore anything which helps us achieve that end is permissible. The Church sees pleasure as a happy byproduct of this natural aspect of our humanity which has much more noble and honorable ends. The world views children as an optional result of sex which can be chosen or not chosen. The Church views children as an integrated and inseparable part of the whole of human sexuality. "A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment" (CCC 2366).

When we pursue the unitive and procreative ends of sex we say to the other I desire to bind my life to your life and embrace the new life that may spring from our union. When we pursue the physical pleasure of sex as its only end, we say to the other I only desire to use your body for my own temporary pleasure.

Sex. Children. Marriage. These three are seen by the Church as one integrated good. Remove any one from the equation, and you do damage to the whole. Sexual pleasure then is not something to be sought for its own sake, but something which can only truly be achieved in any meaningful measure by employing our sexuality in accord with our human nature.

In closing, all of the above quotes I provided can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is an indispensable resource that every Catholic should have on their desk. Learn to use it. Become familiar with the index, the glossary, and the texts cited. It is your go-to resource whenever you have a question on what the Church really teaches. The Catechism and the Church documents it cites such as Familiaris consortio and Humanae vitae, are much better guides to authentically human sexuality than a class which uses the antics of chimps and goats as examples of “natural” human behavior.