Catholic Sexual Ethics, Social Ethics, and Reality-Based Theology

October 21, 2010 — Terence Weldon

One of the key points in Salzman & Lawler’s exposition of Catholic sexual ethics (“The Sexual Person”) is the importance of  considering theology in the context of history. Explaining this idea, they describe two approaches to theology,a “classical” view, which sees all moral standards as static and fixed   for all time, and an “empirical” view, in which we recognize that circumstances and human understanding (for  example,of science), is constantly changing, and which implies that we must be constantly ready to refine our expression of those standards.

In its classicist mode, theology is a static, permanent achievement… In its empirical mode, it is a dynamic, ongoing process……. The classical understanding sees the human person as a series of created, static and definitively ordered temporal facts. The empirical understanding sees the person as a subject in the process of “self-realization in accordance with a project that develops in God-given autonomy, carried out in the present with a view to the future”.  Classical theology sees moral norms coming from the Magisterium as once and for all definitive; sexual norms enunciated in the fifth or sixteenth century continue to apply absolutely in the twenty-first. Empirical theology sees the moral norms of the past not as facts for uncritical and passive acceptance but as partial insights that are the bases for critical attention, understanding, evaluation, judgement and decisions in the present sociohistorical situation. What Augustine and his medieval sources knew about sexuality cannot be the exclusive basis for a moral judgement about sexuality today.

The empirical approach, they say, was endorsed by by Vatican II. Later, this view was clearly articulated by Pope John Paul II, in Sollicitudo rei socialis (1987).

Pope John Paul II, Progressive Theologian?

Yes, JP II, that arch- nemesis of gay and other progressive Catholics hoping for a rational basis for Catholic sexual ethics. How can this be? Well, the problem is that there is a double standard applied here.  In practice, the Church applies the empirical approach to theology (which strikes me as similar in its import to what I call “reality-based” theology) only to social ethics – and a generally good job it does, too.

This introduces a model of personal responsibility. JP II accentuates this by teaching that in its social doctrine, the Church seeks to “guide people to respond, with the help of rational reflection and of the human sciences”, to their vocation as responsible builders of earthly society.” The relationship of Magisterium and individual believer in this teaching merits close attention. The Church guides; responsible persons, drawing on the Church’s guidance, their own intellectual abilities, and the findings of the human sciences, respond accordingly.

- Salman  & Lawler

When it comes to sexual ethics, the Vatican simply falls back on the static, “classical” model of theology. Why then, does the double standard exist?  Salzman and Lawler do not go into this, but I would suggest two possible, related  reasons: the insistence on compulsory clerical celibacy, and an entirely unjustified assumption that unlike social conditions, human sexuality is fixed.

The problem with compulsory celibacy is that it had its origins in ideas of the early Church that assumed virginity somehow had a higher moral value than sexual lives, even within marriage. When the ideal was later imposed as a fixed rule on all (Western) clergy, mostly for financial reasons, it created a two-tier power moral caste system within the church which reinforced the negative view of all sexuality.  The horror of sex meant that until forced to  adapt very recently by the sexual abuse scandals, priests in training were denied even the  most basic sexual education, along with all practical experience. Is it any wonder that the senior theologians within the Church, who received their own theological grounding in seminaries several decades ago, are woefully ignorant of the now abundant research-based evidence?

It is true that at the level of simple plumbing, the biology of human sex is fixed. However, human understanding and expression of the basic biology, just like the rest of human social conditions, has  varied enormously across cultures and through the centuries. We now know, for instance, that the basic biology does not fit the simple binary model assumed by the early theologians (“God created male and female” – but also intersex). We also know that while it is undoubtedly true that procreation is a major purpose of sexual intercourse, it is most certainly not the only purpose. We know too that when seen from the perspective of  all human cultures and historical periods, the traditional Judaic / Christian insistence on exclusively heterosexual intercourse within marriage is a decidedly minority perspective.  Most societies have accepted, even celebrated, a place for same – sex intercourse as well, and for heterosexual relations that are not solely for making babies.

I  welcome the insistence of Salzman and Lawler, and of other theologians, that the study of sexual ethics must take seriously the contributions from research in secular science and history. Sexual ethics, just as much as social ethics, needs to be grounded in an empirically based theology.

Recommended Books:

Sexual Ethics

Farley, Margaret: Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics

McNeill, John: Sex as God Intended

Molvaer, Reidulf: Two Making One : Amor and Eros in Tandem

Salzman, Todd A. and Lawler, Michael G: The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology (Moral Traditions)

Sexual History

Boswell, John: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century

Crompton, Louis: Homosexuality and Civilization

Greenberg, David F: The Construction of Homosexuality

Norton, Rictor: My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters Through the Centuries

Ridely, Matt: The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature

Ryan, Christopher:Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

Related Articles

At Queering the Church

Elsewhere

Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Share|
Posted in Gay Catholics/ Christians. Tags: , , , , , , , . RSS feed for comments on this post.. TrackBack URL.
  • John

    The US Bishops’ Conference committee on doctrine has issued a statement clarifying that Salman & Lawler’s book falls outside the category of Catholic theology. The bishops’ statement essentially comes down to this: “because we have never thought this, we never can think this, therefore your work is outside the club rules.” Talk about static!

    • http://queering-the-church.com/blog terence@queerchurch

      Thanks for this info, John – I was not aware of this statement. I like your assessment, too. Once again, it comes down to disputing the conclusions only because they are not the same as their own, completely ignoring any question of evidence or logical reasoning – even though Vatican statements repeatedly insist that theology must make use of both.

«
»

Switch to our mobile site