|
[Some portions
of these notes have been lifted from my existing
publications, and they are therefore copyright and should
not be used verbatim. They are provided here in order to
give a summary of points for those studying this topic, and
as a reminder of what was covered in the SEC lecture in
December 05.]
First of all - make it
clear that neither ‘Christian demands’ or ‘modern attitudes’
are clear. There are different views on sexuality within the
worldwide Christian community, and the arguments upon which
they are based vary. In part that is because, like any
religion, Christianity finds itself growing within different
cultures in different parts of the world, and some of those
cultures are stricter in terms sexual codes of conduct than
others.
Nor is there any single
‘modern’ attitude – an attitide is modern if it is used in
today’s society, and in the light of today’s society, and
not simply a yearning for the attitudes of an earlier age.
Although beyond what we
can do now – notice also that the early Christian community
had a very different set of social priorities from those of
today. First of all, as far as we can understand, they
expected the end of the world to come at any time.
Therefore, the best thing to do was to remain single, rather
than to become cluttered with worldly concerns for home and
family. The ideal, therefore is to remain single – but for
those who burn from lust, it is better to contain that
through marriage. So, in the earliest church, marriage was
a pragmatic solution to the problem of sexuality, in a
community that did not see any future. (Also, keep in mind
that the Christian community grew out of the Jewish one.
This contrasted with the very much more liberal views of sex
held within the general society of those times.
And this mis-match
between religious expectation and the mores of the
surrounding peoples was there also in the Old Testament. One
of the problems that Israel found was that the canaanite
religions were based on the idea of fertility. To celebrate
and also encourage the land to be fertile, one went to the
temple, which was well stocked with prostitutes, and
worshipped by acting out the most appropriate expression of
one’s desire for fecundity! No wonder the religion posed
its temptations for the Children of Israel!
Of course, it is worth
remembering that other religions have very different
attitudes towards sex. Hindu temples are decorated with
images of copulating couples. The Kama Sutra, most
informative of all religious texts, gives advise for
enhancing sexual pleasure. In Buddhism, there is, on the one
hand, a liberal attitude to sexuality (very much leaving it
up to the individual or the culture within which it is
practiced), and on the other an emphasis on the monastic and
celibate ideal.
Even within a body such
as the Anglican Church, there is debate about whether or not
gays should be ordained, and particularly whether they
should become bishops. There is tension on this and a whole
raft of other issues, between the European and North
American churches, for example, and those from Africa.
So be careful, in
answering an examination question on sexuality, not to
create a single caricature of a Christian position
(attitude, I mean, not sexual position) – show that you are
aware of differing views.
There is also the matter
of whether morality belongs to the realm of intentions and
thoughts, or just to that of actions. Thus, for example, the
official Anglican position on homosexuality accepts that
some people have homosexual inclinations and desires, but
insists that people should not put then into action. Those
who are homosexual and celibate, are therefore accepted if
they want to be ordained.
Having said all that, it
also needs to be remembered that Christianity has influences
social and cultural life in Europe
for so long, that what is generally presented as Christian
demands, and not too different from the demands of the more
conservative views within secular society.
Much of what passes for
Christianity, equally, is simply a baptism of conservative
social values. To caricature it, it is sometimes held that,
in the USA, family life, carrying a gun and earning good
money honestly, are all features of the ‘Chrisian life’ and
people would have no qualms about praying for success in
material terms.
Having said all that,
there are two very broad philosophical approaches to
sexuality, which can be taken to illustrate the broadly
religious and secular attitudes today:
·
Natural Law on one side – supported by Catholic and other
Christians
·
Utilitarianism – from the standpoint of secular ethics
The
Natural law approach to sex:
Originates in the
thinking of Aristotle – everything has its natural function,
which shows its ‘essence’
For Aquinas (combining
Aristotle with Christian beliefs) God creates everything in
order to play its part in the world – since it is designed
for a particular purpose, that purpose defines what is right
or wrong.
Example:
heterosexual intercourse --
·
Its
natural purpose is to fertilise an egg, which in turn
will be nurtured within a womb to produce another human
being. This process helps to maintain the human species.
·
Given the
physical contortions involved, it is difficult to
imagine how copulation could occur by random chance in
the course of normal social life! Sexual attraction and
arousal is therefore the means that nature has supplied
for achieving this particular end.
·
Sexual
arousal and the act of penetration are therefore the
'efficient cause', whilst the production of a new human
being is the 'final cause' of the sexual act.
If it is the 'final
cause' that determines right and wrong, then strictly
speaking, in terms of sex:
·
Intercourse between members of the same sex is wrong
(because it cannot result in conception);
·
Intercourse with those who are outside the age range for
childbearing is wrong (for the same reason);
·
Anal and
oral intercourse and masturbation are wrong (for the
same reason);
·
Any
attempt to frustrate the process of conception is wrong,
because it tries to separate off the sexual act from its
natural purpose.
In traditional
Catholic teaching it is therefore wrong to practise
contraception. Each sexual act should include the
possibility of conception. Pope Paul VI's encyclical
letter Humanae Vitae (1968) expressed it in this
way:
‘The Church... in
urging men to the observance of the precepts of the
natural law, which it interprets by its constant
doctrine, teaches as absolutely required that any use
whatsoever of marriage must retain its natural potential
to procreate human life.’
Sex within the 'safe
period' of the woman ovulatory cycle is generally
permitted in Catholic moral teaching because the failure
to conceive at that time is part of nature's limitation,
rather than the result of a direct attempt to do
something unnatural. The same applies to those who are
past childbearing age, on the grounds that, by a
miracle, conception might take place.
Utilitarian approachs to sex:
For those following the
‘natural law’ argument, the natural function of sex was the
conception of children, and that this was is justification.
Sex that deliberately sought to frustrate this (e.g. through
contraception), or which did not have it as a possible
outcome (e.g. homosexuality or masturbation) was therefore
wrong.
In practice, however,
for what appears to be a majority of people, sexual morality
is assessed on a utilitarian basis. It might be right to
have sexual intercourse provided:
·
1) that
it takes place in private (nobody else is involved or likely
to be offended by it)
·
2) that
the partners consent to it (it is considered by them to
increase their own happiness)
·
3) that
it does not harm others.
'It's not
hurting anyone, and it's what we want, so why
shouldn't we?'
This statement about
sexual morality is utilitarian. Now try to imagine how a
parent might respond if this is the attitude of his or her
son or daughter. There are two lines of approach:
1. 'It's
wrong, unless you're married.'
or 2. 'It will
lead to unhappiness because.... '
or 3. 'If you're
going to have sex anyway, at least make sure you use
contraception.'
·
In the first case, there is an absolute rule. This could be
backed up by natural law, but if challenged, many would give
a string of reasons why sex outside marriage is not a good
idea, and most of these would be based on results.
·
The basis of the second response is clearly utilitarian -
and may become the 'fall back' position of someone who
starts with the first response and is then challenged.
·
The third response is also utilitarian - taking a positive
approach to minimise possible harmful effects, and thus tip
the balance of happiness in favour of having sex rather than
not.
Although the positions
taken by the young person and the parent may sound very
different - the one libertarian and the other authoritarian
- they may actually be using the same utilitarian methods
of assessing the situation.
Notice that, for example
in advertising about contraception and the risks of HIV
infection, the moral arguments in favour of taking a
'responsible' attitude to sex, are utilitarian. Indeed, the
major shift in sexual attitudes brought about by the threat
of HIV and AIDS, is largely due to the threat of harmful
results, and these, when taken seriously, become the basis
of 'responsible' behaviour on a utilitarian view.
Note the difference
between ACT utilitarianism and RULE utilitarianism. The
latter says that, if a rule is there for the benefit of
society as a whole, it should be taken into account in
making a utilitarian assessment. So a utilitarian will not
simply set rules aside for the immediate benefit of
individuals.
An example of this might
be the assessment of the value of marriage and stable family
life.
The same sort of
utilitarian argument surrounds issues of adultery and the
break up of marriages. Very often debate focuses not on the
actual sexual desire of one person for someone who is not
their marriage partner, nor on the morality of their sexual
relationship as such, but on the potential harm that this
might to do others - especially children of the marriage.
Sexual attraction
outside marriage may be presented as the cause of so many
single-parent families, which in turn may be the reason why
so many people are dependent on state help. The sexual act
is therefore not condemned from a traditional 'rule based'
standpoint, but from one which highlights the social and
economic consequences.
I am not arguing here
that the utilitarian view is necessarily the right one with
regard to sexual morality, but that it is implied by much
current debate on sexual issues.
Problem with utilitarianism – you can never know ALL
the results of what you do. It may have long-term
repercussions, if not to you, then to others, that you
cannot guess at the present moment.
BUT that applies to everything, not just sex. We have to do
what we believe to be right at the time, and in the light of
what we expect to happen. But there are no guarantees that
it will work out – most people who get beyond middle age
would be able to give you many examples of decisions taken
in the past, which – had they known the full tally of
consequences – they would not have taken.
Not every secualar or modern attitude is dominated by
utilitarianism – but is has been hugely influential, and
many people assume it, rather than thinking it through.
So, to recap:
No single thing as ‘Christian demands’ – because there is
variety.
No such thing as a single ‘modern’ attitude – except,
perhaps, the idea of personal responsibility and freedom to
make up your own mind
|
