What Determines the Morality of a Sexual Act?

[Skwim]

The following is from

Questions and Answers on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
[Roman Catholic theologian]​

2. What determines the morality of a sexual act?

A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty.

Sexual acts are not exempt from the moral law. To be moral, each and every knowingly chosen sexual act must have three good fonts of morality. The intention must be good, the moral object must be good, and the good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences.

In order to have a good moral object, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. Each and every moral sexual act always has these three meanings: marital, unitive, procreative. The deprivation of any one or more of these meanings from the moral object causes the sexual act to be intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

The natural sexual act is genital-to-genital intercourse between a man and a woman. This act is unitive and procreative. Natural sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is called natural marital relations. Only natural marital relations is martial and unitive and procreative.

The use of contraception deprives the act of natural intercourse of the procreative meaning, causing the sexual act to be non-procreative. The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because it deprives sexual relations of its procreative meaning, which is required by God for sexual acts to be moral. Therefore, natural marital relations must always be open to life (not contracepted).

A non-marital sexual act is any type of sexual act outside of marriage. Acts of adultery, pre-marital sex, and masturbation are non-marital. All non-marital sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because these acts lack the marital meaning, which is required by God for sexual acts to be moral.

An unnatural sexual act is any type of sexual act that is not unitive and procreative. Examples of unnatural sexual acts include oral sexual acts, anal sexual acts, and manipulative sexual acts (i.e. masturbation of self or of another). All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because these acts lack the unitive and procreative meanings, which are required by God for sexual acts to be moral. These acts are not procreative because they are not the type of act that is inherently directed at procreation. These acts are not truly unitive, even if there is a certain mere physical union of body parts, because this is not the type of sexual union intended by God for human persons. Unnatural sexual acts are not justified by being done within marriage because the moral law requires each and every sexual act to be not only marital, but also unitive and procreative.

To be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. All non-marital sexual acts, all non-unitive sexual acts, and all non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. All such acts have an evil moral object, and so they are not justified by intention, or by circumstances, or by other acts.
source​

Question: How reasonable is the above, and is it relevant in today's society?


EDITED to ask the Catholics here:

Why does the church forbid non-procreative acts such as masturbation, and oral and anal sex?





.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not very much.

I just don't understand why sexuality would need to be procreative to be moral. Nor why it would have to be centered on the genitals exclusively.

Calling non-marital sex "evil" is quite irresponsible IMO. It encourages unnecessary, destructive guilty feelings and threatens the institution of marriage by pushing people into engaging into it without proper awareness of the meaning and consequences of such a decision.

It is a shame that he spent no effort at elaborating what he means by "unitive". On that much we could probably agree.

 

[Kemosloby]

I don't think that pertained to any society, ever. And not at all what the Apostles were saying. First of all there was no written code, nor was there meant to be that goes into such detail. Basically they were saying get married and that made it ok.

 

[Sapiens]

It is idiotic and monomaniacal making the dubious assumption that the only "purpose" for sex is procreation. The very idea that sex must be marital to moral is little more than the author's attempt to establish a monopoly on sex itself. What a system for social control!

 

[Quintessence]

Seems fine to me. Am I supposed to have a problem with it?

 

[Skwim]

Not very much.

I just don't understand why sexuality would need to be procreative to be moral.

I don't either. It would be nice if he had included a few "Becauses:" Thing is, later in the piece he addresses the question

6. If the husband or wife is not fertile, due to injury, illness, or old age, is the act of natural marital relations still moral?
​

To which he says:

"Yes, natural intercourse is still moral, even if the husband or wife is not fertile due to injury, illness, or old age."
​

So procreation isn't the deal breaker he previously makes it out to be.

Nor why it would have to be centered on the genitals exclusively.

My thought is that he wanted to keep it focused.

.

 

[Skwim]

Apparently catholics believe that god made a mistake with the innate sexuality, libido, instincts, etc. of our design and figured that we're better off living and breeding like fruit flies.

If god had been on his toes he would have waited until two people were married before giving them a libido.

.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think that pertained to any society, ever.

Well it certainly pertains to those societies where Catholicism predominates. Today Mexico is 85% Catholic (back in 1910 France was 98% Catholic). And I assume these morals were pretty much the same when the Catholic church first laid down its rules of behavior so many years ago.

.

 

[Kemosloby]

Well it certainly pertains to those societies where Catholicism predominates. Today Mexico is 85% Catholic (back in 1910 France was 98% Catholic). And I assume these morals were pretty much the same when the Catholic church first laid down its rules of behavior so many years ago.

.

Yeah they say those are the rules but don't you think those people deviate from them?

 

[Polymath257]

Question: How reasonable is the above, and is it relevant in today's society?
.

I think it is *immoral*. To limit the advantages to sexuality to married couples intending procreation is evil.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Question: How reasonable is the above, and is it relevant in today's society?

There's nothing even remotely reasonable about it, nor realistic.

It's relevant to today's society in that it is potentially negative and harmful - not only in terms of its destructive emotional and psychological impact, but also because of its promotion of people having children they can't or shouldn't have - which generally trends towards negative consequences for the parents and the children.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah they say those are the rules but don't you think those people deviate from them?

Of course. We know they do:

"In 2008, 14% of Catholics responded that premarital sex is “always wrong.”
source

.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The following is from

Questions and Answers on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
[Roman Catholic theologian]​

2. What determines the morality of a sexual act?

A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty.

Sexual acts are not exempt from the moral law. To be moral, each and every knowingly chosen sexual act must have three good fonts of morality. The intention must be good, the moral object must be good, and the good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences.

In order to have a good moral object, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. Each and every moral sexual act always has these three meanings: marital, unitive, procreative. The deprivation of any one or more of these meanings from the moral object causes the sexual act to be intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

The natural sexual act is genital-to-genital intercourse between a man and a woman. This act is unitive and procreative. Natural sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is called natural marital relations. Only natural marital relations is martial and unitive and procreative.

The use of contraception deprives the act of natural intercourse of the procreative meaning, causing the sexual act to be non-procreative. The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because it deprives sexual relations of its procreative meaning, which is required by God for sexual acts to be moral. Therefore, natural marital relations must always be open to life (not contracepted).

A non-marital sexual act is any type of sexual act outside of marriage. Acts of adultery, pre-marital sex, and masturbation are non-marital. All non-marital sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because these acts lack the marital meaning, which is required by God for sexual acts to be moral.

An unnatural sexual act is any type of sexual act that is not unitive and procreative. Examples of unnatural sexual acts include oral sexual acts, anal sexual acts, and manipulative sexual acts (i.e. masturbation of self or of another). All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because these acts lack the unitive and procreative meanings, which are required by God for sexual acts to be moral. These acts are not procreative because they are not the type of act that is inherently directed at procreation. These acts are not truly unitive, even if there is a certain mere physical union of body parts, because this is not the type of sexual union intended by God for human persons. Unnatural sexual acts are not justified by being done within marriage because the moral law requires each and every sexual act to be not only marital, but also unitive and procreative.

To be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. All non-marital sexual acts, all non-unitive sexual acts, and all non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. All such acts have an evil moral object, and so they are not justified by intention, or by circumstances, or by other acts.
source​

Question: How reasonable is the above, and is it relevant in today's society?



.

Since he didn't use the word "consent" once, its reasonableness and relevance is extremely suspect, IMO.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why does the church forbid non-procreative sexual acts such as masturbation, oral and anal?

Masturbation is using one's genitals for sexual pleasure outside of being between male and female. Usually for sexual gratification which is considered a lust according to scripture.

Oral. Many people put whatever they want in their mouths. Some people put fire in their mouths. Doesn't mean it should be done. Our body parts are made for specific functions. Just humans have an expansive imagination that many other animals do not have.

Likewise with anal. It's where waste comes from. Who would want to do anything there?

Having oral and anal sex doesn't create children; so, that's another reason it's against scripture. That, and procreation is supposed to continue god's creation flourishing. If you want to blame someone, Skim, blame god for not having a sexual imagination. The Church is just one of many religions that don't care for a lot of this and it's usually because of cultural and political reasons not doctrinal ones.

 

[pearl]

It's relevant to today's society in that it is potentially negative and harmful - not only in terms of its destructive emotional and psychological impact, but also because of its promotion of people having children they can't or shouldn't have - which generally trends towards negative consequences for the parents and the children.

I think there's a middle road here. We all know how negative and harmful promiscuous sex can be, there is no real intimacy. One should be in a committed relationship, gay or straight, married or not. As for children, as the Pope said, 'Catholics don't have to breed like rabbits,'

 

[Skwim]

Since he didn't use the word "consent" once, its reasonableness and relevance is extremely suspect, IMO.

As I read it, there's nothing to consent to except "natural intercourse of the procreative meaning" within marriage. Now, whether or not consent is required is an interesting question. Can a husband insist that his wife submit to sexual intercourse? Catholics?
.

 

[Revoltingest]

If paying by check, it shouldn't bounce.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Likewise with anal. It's where waste comes from. Who would want to do anything there?

If that's your criteria, I have some unsettling news for you about the urethra.

Having oral and anal sex doesn't create children; so, that's another reason it's against scripture.

Neither does PIVMO sex most of the time.

@MysticSang'ha raised a good point years ago that stuck with me: lots of mammals go into heat; humans don't. It's entirely possible for a species to only desire sex when both partners are fertile... but humams don't experience this. We can become sexually aroused even when we aren't fertile.

Humans also experience covert ovulation. In many other mammals - including some of our closest relatives - there are outward signs when a female is ovulating. Not humans.

If we're going to infer God's intent from our form, the we would have to conclude that God intends for humans to have non-procreative sex.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think there's a middle road here. We all know how negative and harmful promiscuous sex can be, there is no real intimacy. One should be in a committed relationship, gay or straight, married or not. As for children, as the Pope said, 'Catholics don't have to breed like rabbits,'

That's not a middle road - you're on a whole other route.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

By the way, this is catholic criteria. Has nothing to do with me. I would have quoted from the CCC but I didnt think this thread was serious enough.