The purpose of this essay is to make a case that a fundamental Christian doctrine requires traditional Catholic Sexual morality.. What is traditional Catholic sexual morality? Since I focus on the sexuality of a man, viz., Jesus of Nazareth, I state a principle of traditional Catholic morality for males. I call this the Paternal Principle
A man may not seek an orgasm except in consensual coitus open to conception with a woman to whom he has made a pledge of life-long fidelity with an intent to support and to protect her and any children resulting from their sexual intercourse.1
This principle is only a frgment of traditional sexual morality. The multiple facts, theories and customs which are used to justify and motivate such a rule comprise sexual morality. However, such a principle implies directly the behaviors which those who advocate revising Catholic sexual morality seem open to admiting as morally permissible2. However, such revisions cannot be made without revising, if not rejecting, doctrines about the nature of Jesus Christ3. For the Paternal Principle implies the immorality of the traditional sexual sins: masturbation, homosexual acts, fornication, adultery and forms of contraception which are physical or chemical interventions in coitus.
In this essay, I consider only masturbation. Masturbation is the foundational sexual immorality for men. Masturbation ,or the core intention of masturbation, is involved in all the other genital sexual immoralities. That core intention is seeking the estactic pleasure of an orgasm at the expense of the basic human good for whose promotion that pleasure is both a means and a constituent, viz., procreation and life-long male/female bonding.
What is the Christological doctrine requiring traditional sexual morality? It is the doctrine that Jesus was a man like us in all things except sin. (Heb 4:15, CCC467)
Why write of corroborating rather than use logical terms such as “implying” or “entailing?” I want to avoid any suggestion that traditional sexual morality came from Christian doctrine. To corroborate means to strengthen and confirm. I hope to show that elaboration of what it means for Jesus to be a man without sin provides considerations which strengthen belief that masturbation is truely immoral; not merely immoral according to a moral outlook which I call traditional morality.
My Christological corroboration of traditional sexual morality as the genuine, real, or objective morality requires a bipartite strategy. First, show that masturbation is traditionally immoral. That has been done by drawing implications from the Paternal Principle in conjunction with descriptions of the various sexual acts. Second, show that it is inconsistent to think that the perfectly sinless Jesus masturbated. An act which is physically possible but morally impossible for a sinless man to do is morally forbidden. Hence, the immorality of Jesus masturbating strengthens and confirms belief the traditional immorality of masturbation is a genuine immorality; not merely immoral by tradition.
Showing that the sexual morality of Jesus is that of traditional sexual morality would require showing for each of the sexual immoralities derivable from the Paternal Principle are acts we cannot consistenly think of a sinless man doing. Such a series of arguments would be strong confirmation for traditional sexual morality. For it would be the sexual morality of the sinless Jesus. However, the argument that masturbation is immoral in Jesus’ sexual morality provides a model argument for the others, eg., homosexual acts, are immoral in Jesus’ sexual morality.
Thinking about Jesus engaging in any sexual activity is offensive. Nevertheless, Christians who fly rainbow flags from their houses, schools and churches should think about it. Unfortunately, the offensiveness of the thought can lead to question-begging. With religious images in mind, we may immediately decide “Jesus would never do anything like that!” We would thereby “beg off” from answering the question “Why would Jesus never do anthing like that?” I recomend adopting a philosophic attitude of trying to ignore any sense of offence. To avoid being offended try not to imagine anything about the historical man consideration under descriptions such as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus as portrayed in Luke’s Gospel.” We can imagine Jesus under those descriptions sinning in all sorts of ways. My argument is that we cannot think or conceive of Jesus masturbating under the description of “a man like us in all things except sin” regardless of how our imaginations can embelish what we know of a historical figure.
However, we must take as our starting point the son of Mary and Joseph the carpenter around the time of the Finding in the Temple. The Christological doctrine refers to him. This specificity saves us from philosophical digressions such as analyzing the supposed sinlessness of man of an IQ around 50. Luke tells us “Jesus advanced in wisdom and age in favor before God and man.” We, then, are considering primarily what this intelligent and well behaved Jewish youth might have done during the hidden years in Nazareth. But how should we consider this historical figure’s moral thinking and acting?
We should not attempt a historical reconstruction of the consciousness of the young Jesus. For instance, how did Jewish culture guide his moral thinking? That would be historical speculation without any evidence. We can use some bland factual assumptions such as he became aware of “the facts of life. But we cannot even assume that before his first temptation to masturbate he knew the role of ejaculation and accompanying sensations in reproduction.
I make a significant assumption. The assumption that he was like us in all things except sin allows another assumption that he was a moral genius throughout his life. Jesus would, then, have been a child prodigy of morality. There are different ways to characterize a moral genius. A moral genius is someone who always wills what is for the good because it is for what is good.4 Such is the will of God. So, a moral genius always wills what God wills because God wills it. God wills what is good for whatever God wills. That is loving. So, a moral genius loves what God loves because God loves it. However, since we can better articulate the object of God’s willing and loving, it is better to talk of what is good. The italicized qualifications beginning with because are important. In a positive way they bring out the negative point that a moral genius wills what is good, etc., regardless of any inclination to choose otherwise. It is also important to note that genius is exhibited primarily in knowing how rather than in having theoretical knowledge. A mathematical genius may know how to get a result without being able to articulate a proof of how he reached the result. Little Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart knew how to compose without musical theory. So, a moral genius knows how to put together the elements of morality: representations of goods as both ends and means, inclinations, plans of action, forming and acting on intentions to act and to be in accordance with what ought to be done and how we ought to be. The mind of a moral genius is not filled with all of the factual knowledge about how the consequences of acts actually effect human happiness. A moral genius does not think as a consequentialist or utilitarian. It must be emphasized that the works of genius are not expressions of the genius’ individuality. The genius, working as a genius, expresses what is right, what is correct and what is beautiful for everyone. The works of genius present what is universal: what anyone who tries to get it right hopes to discover and become,
So, our question is runs: Would a boy who always knows how to will what is for the good because it is for the good will to masturbate?
For completeness, start with consideration of the temptation of a boy who does not yet know “the facts of life.” Such a boy can have a temptation to masturbate. To be tempted he has to know to what he is being tempted. So, he has experience an orgasm. Perhaps, he touched his genitalia enough scatching a rash in a way sufficient for an orgasm. Perhaps, he experienced it while riding in a cart on a bumpy road. It could have been in a dream.
The temptation comes as a strong inclination to repeat that experience of an orgasm. Our moral prodigy has the knack of always willing what is good regardless of any inclination to do otherwise. Without being able to articulate his knowledge, he has the practical knowledge that acting on strong inclinations whose satisfaction is not necessary for survival is morally risky. The strength of the inclination for mere pleasure would be a “red flag” to a genius at navigating through the moral life.
So, the sexually naive moral genius would not masturbate regardless of an inclination to do so. However, he may not find resisting the tempatation easy.
What about Jesus after he learned that the inclination for an orgasm plays an important role in starting and maintaining a man bonding to a woman to develop a family? He would recognize that monagamous marriage and family is a basic human good. Taking monogamous marriage and family as a basic human good is not a wild assumption. (See note 4.) It could be called a default view on sexuality. It is honored with an apology: ” If everyone could or would behave properly, that is how human sexuality would operate. But you know how human nature is, so. . . ” With this awareness of the basic human good of which an orgasm is both a means and constituent, one who is a genius at thinking morally would use the, perhaps implicit, knowledge that a fundamental way of not being in accordance with what ought to be done and ought to be is to choose a means to a basic good as a basic good. It puts disorder in the order of what is good. If we use “love” broadly to label that for which we have inclinations and that which we recognize as basic human goods, we can say a moral genius properly orders his loves. Hence, a perfect composer of intentions in accordance with what is good would not form or act on an intention to masturbate. He, however, may need to make an effort to resist temptations.
We, who are not moral geniuses, can validate the refusal of the moral genius to form or act on an intention to masturbate. Human sexuality functions well enough to cary on the human species. We cannot label human sexuality as dysfunctional. However, we humans make it troublesome, to say the least. The intention or maxim of a masturbator expresses the basic source of human sexuality’s problematic character. The maxim runs: I may enjoy the satisfaction of an inclination of a means for sexuality’s purpose regardless of attaining the purpose of sexuality. The maxim highlights the intrinsic disorder of masturbation. This is not to say that men who masturbate are intrinsically disordered; their masturbation is intrinsically disordered. With such a maxim, a masturbator joins that vast, almost universal, crowd of men who have disordered sexuality. Jesus, as a man like us in all things except sin would not join the crowd.
NOTES
1. From purely secular assumptions, I argue for this principle in my book: Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an antidote to nihilism, Oklahoma City, OK. 2014.
2. Cardinal Claude-Hollerich of Luxembourg advocates significant revisions to accommodate homosexuality Hollerich on homosexuality: the Cardinal’s many errors – Daily Compass. American Cardinal McElroy advocates revisions Cardinal McElroy’s Attack on Church Teachings on Sexuality Is a Pastoral Disaster| National Catholic Register Fr. James Martin SJ welcomes people with same sex attraction so enthusiastically, it seems to me that he condons homosexual acts Fr. James Martin on Marriage, Sexual Morality, and the Church’s Teachings: A Solution to the Puzzle – Public Discourse. Even some papal views suggest indefference towards traditional sexual morality. See Pope Francis’s Candid Views on Sexual Morality – CatholicCitizens.org
3. Previously, I thought revision of moral doctrines would not conflict directly with non-moral doctrines Sexual Revolution Undercuts Christianity
4. My notion of moral genius is an adaptation of Kant’s notion of a good will. Kant begins the first Section of his 1785 Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals with: “There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.” But I anchor the good will to willing basic human goods. Here I adapt the moral theory of the New Natural Law theory. Sexual Ethics, Human Nature, and New Natural Law Theory – Public Discourse. However, I am not providing any interpretations of Kant. Nor do I claim to present New Natural Law theory as its proponents would. This is not a scholarly essay. Note, though, that John Finnis’ excellent characterization of marriage and family as a basic human good can be found in the link to the New Natural Law theory. I suspect that any moral theory which condemns masturbation, Traditional (Thomistic) Natural Law theory or theology of the Body Relections, would conclude that a “natural born whizz” in apply those theories would refrain from masturbation as immoral. The crucial concept in this essay is “moral genius.”
Continue reading