Marriage’s Paradoxical Utility

The urge for the using his reproductive functions is a fundamental inclination in Man. He has sexuality; it is part of his being. However, because Man is an integrated being, he cannot engage in actions without necessarily involving his intellect and will at some level. Within a worldview framed by the personalistic norm, marriage emerges as the environment in which Man can satisfy his natural sexual inclinations while respecting the dignity of the other person as a subject. Only marriage can view a sexual partner as more than an object for sexual gratification, and primarily in marriage (and thereby using his sexuality) can Man overcome the isolation the Social Contractors insist is his lot in life.

The sexual act in Man is “something more than the mysterious power of human bodiliness, which acts, as it were, by virtue of instinct. On the level of man and in the reciprocal relationship of persons, sex expresses an ever-new surpassing of the limit of man’s solitude, which lies within the makeup of his body.” The inklings of this sentiment are found briefly in Aristotle, who admits that the urge, which is first merely sexual in nature, might turn into deeper friendship if the characters of the persons involved align with similar moral compasses. Wojtyla agrees with this and claims that:

the sexual urge in man has a natural tendency to develop into love simply because the two objects affected, with their different sexual attributes, physical and psychological, are both people. Love is a phenomenon peculiar to the world of human beings. In the animal world only the sexual instinct is at work.

Here, we see a key aspect of marriage: Through the sexual act, man and wife willingly bind themselves tighter together and become exclusively the source of fulfilling companionship for the other.

The sexual act is not exclusive to Man, but marriage as a binding and lifelong institution elevates the sexual act to one worthy of Man’s dignity. It creates a bond between two people, a bond imposing a responsibility but providing affection outside of the mere context of procreation. It protects the subjectivity of the individuals by preserving the attitudes of giving and receiving selfhood. All this is only possible, though, if such giving and receiving includes the gift of fertility within their sexuality. The necessary inclusion of one’s fertility in the sexual act creates, in one sense, a paradox of utility.

The paradox of utility within marriage is that the institution exists precisely as that means by which Man elevates his bodily functions to a state worthy of a person, and yet, this very institution, which protects against the utility of persons, itself exists primarily for an almost utilitarian purpose:

Marriage, objectively considered, must provide first of all the means of continuing existence, secondly a conjugal life for man and woman, and thirdly a legitimate orientation for desire… If any one of the above-mentioned purposes of marriage is considered without reference to the personalistic norm—that is to say, without taking account of the fact that man and woman are persons - this is bound to lead to some form of utilitarianism.

Wojtyla articulates here the three ends of marriage according to what the “Church teaches… and has always taught:” procreatio, mutuum adiutorium, and remedium concupiscentiae—procreation, mutual aid (or edification) of the spouses, and the remediation of concupiscence. The apparent paradox of utility is reconciled through what we have thus far already discussed concerning gender in the body, anamnesis, and the Chief Good.

Wojtyla asserts that within marriage, the love of the spouses for each other as a person, with no attitude for the use of the person, ready to welcome another person as the result of their own love, is the foundation of true self-gift. All three ends of marriage are to be informed and performed through this foundation. However, the primary and secondary ends of marriage are those ends that most often fall into a form of utility for the spouses—even if subconsciously. And so, it is primarily the first two purposes of marriage that are fundamental to understanding the sexual act correctly within the context of the personalistic norm: the two, which often are disguised and become subtle avenues of utility between spouses.

With love infused by the personalistic norm as the basis for every aspect of marriage, the mutuum adiutorium is something distinct in itself. Wojtyla asserts that there can be no confusion by equating it or interpreting it as simply mutual love or help for survival shared between the spouses.  He defines this second aspect of married love as “man and woman who live together, complement each other, and support each other.” The marital act, performed in love and openness to life, not only offers a physical complementarity between the spouses but also inclines them towards a deeper affection and attentiveness towards the other. In this way, they truly become helpers to each other—especially in the education of children and mutual education between the spouses, whereby they receive “reciprocal ‘knowledge’ [of each other] which makes them one flesh’.” The mutuum auditorium, then, is aimed at complementing and educating this one person out of all others rather than being a mere source of affection.

This brings us to the crux of the paradox of utility. Even the mutuum adiutorium, aimed at complementing and educating one specific person, still requires openness to the procreatio (the first end of marriage) as a prerequisite. The operation and natural end of sexuality and fertility is life, the existence of another human. Existence is the prime good from which all other goods flow. As we have discussed the good in a previous chapter, it is not new to say that there can be no good if there is no existence, and a thing is more perfect the more it is actual, not potential. Taking the personalistic norm as the foundation for any action within marriage - and especially within the context of the conjugal act—the prime attitude towards one’s sexual partner is a profound respect for their existence, at once object of my affection and independent and free subject within the relationship. Recognition of the possible creation of yet another free subject is the only proper response in such an encounter. 

To deny or artificially inhibit the introduction or creation of new life would be to deny that encountering existence in a subjective other is the highest encounter. The necessary next progression in attitude is to view the proximate other (the spouse) as an object for use since a denial of existence as a free subject has already been introduced into the relationship. However, and importantly, such interference of the natural act creates a barrier to a total gift of self. Not only is such a barrier a rejection of the principle that existence is the prime good, but it creates a limit to what of myself I am willing to give to another. Likewise, it is a limiting of what I am willing to receive from another by rejecting one key aspect of their personhood in the body: their sexuality, fertility, and their own natural inclinations, which they seek to fulfill in their own unique, unrepeatable way. 

That the sexual act is the highest form of the total gift of self is thus far apparent. In this intimate space, one spouse can “in a certain way… take upon oneself the solitude of the body of the second ‘I’ as one’s own” but only within the context of marriage. Pragmatic observation of the sexual organs informs us of the telos of sexuality, compelling us to consider that the natural end of the sexual act is the begetting of children since “nature does nothing in vain.” Since we have shown that the sexual act itself (and therefore marriage) can only properly be thought of within the context of welcoming another human being into the world, that is, for begetting children, the paradox of utility reaches its climax: Is there any acceptable way of performing the sexual act wherein the individuals engaging in it do not specifically intend the conception of children? And if the creation of life is the primary end of marriage, does not God Himself view human persons as merely objects for use, at least in the realm of sexuality? This cannot be the case since. 

If the principle of the personalistic norm is true, God then must not hold the sexual act merely as a means to populate the earth. On the contrary, God upholds the freedom of individuals to choose how and in what way they give and receive each other within the sexual act. He does this through His wondrous design in the woman’s body. 

Natural periods of fertility and infertility within the woman equip her to allow for the satisfaction of the sexual urge in both man and woman without subjecting either of them to being regarded as a mere tool for procreation. This, in turn, results in the ability for a true love to develop and bloom between them. Wojtyla writes on the possibility of a couple to decide to engage in sexual intercourse without intending that engagement to result in the birth of a child:

A man and a woman, uniting in sexual intercourse, do so as free and rational persons, and their union has moral value, if it is justified by true love between persons… For the Creator, in giving men and women a rational nature and the capacity consciously to decide upon their own actions, thereby made it possible for them to choose freely the end to which sexual intercourse naturally leads. And where two persons can join in choosing a certain good as their end there exists also the possibility of love. The Creator, then, does not utilize persons merely as the means or instruments of His creative power but offers them the possibility of a special realization of love.

Marriage, in this way, encompasses all three inclinations of Man (preservation of his own existence, fulfilling the basic functions associated with life, and need for society), and elevates them to a status worthy of his inherent dignity. 

Man’s basic bodily inclinations revolving around the sexual act in marriage and the begetting of children allow him to recognize the primacy of existence as the first good. He thereby recognizes within himself the desire and need for his own existence as good. Man’s sexual inclination towards reproduction is satisfied within the context of marriage, the institution that still allows him to remain adherent to the dictates of the personalistic norm. Simultaneously, marriage allows him to better preserve his own existence through the companionship of another being like himself, elevating his first inclination in the same manner. The companionship and sexual intercourse engaged in by couples in the context of avoiding a sense of use of the other person blossoms into the highest form of human love. It encompasses a total gift of self and offers an encounter with the entirety of the other person as person, not as “something purely biological, but [enveloping] the innermost being of the human person as such.”