A moral outlook’s theory of good characterizes the good we are to promote and how to promote it But ways of promotion of good are constrained by the definite prohibitions from its theory of evil. Both structurally and materially conjugal sexual morality’s theory of good differs greatly from that of consensual sexual morality. Consensual sexual morality’s theory of evil prohibits violation of sexual autonomy and its theory of good promotes sexual satisfaction. However, protection of sexual autonomy is independent of sexual satisfaction; autonomy is independent of what sexuality is for. Conjugal sexual morality’s theory of evil is to avoid that which interferes with what sexuality is for – sexuality’s telos<\/em>. Thus, the evil of conjugal sexual morality is not independent of the good of conjugal sexual morality. Hence, consensual sexual morality can be called a “rights theory of sexual morality” while consensual sexual morality can be called a “teleological theory of sexual morality.” Consensual’ s sexual good is uncovered by asking what sexual desire is for. The answer is sexual satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction is naturally and immediately seen as desirable. Conjugal’ s sexual good is uncovered by asking what are sexual satisfactions for. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The answer of marriage and family is not immediately seen as a good. I am a participant in a program for promoting Catholic male morality TMIY (That Man Is You). The challenges of marriage are clearly brought out. It must be admitted that finding sexual satisfactions under the constraints of attaining them only in conditions which are not contrary to what they are for may lead to a diminishing of sexual satisfactions, In one of the sessions on marriage there was a quotation from St. John Paul II: “Spouses are the permanent reminder to the Church of what happened on the cross.” It certainly can be brought out as a basic good upon reflection. The good of conjugal sexual morality is definitely an acquired taste. It’s an adult good. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A rejoinder to the claim that it is an adult good is that it is an adolescent good for young people who would like their story to be one of meeting, going through the trials and tribulations of courtship before falling completely in love resulting in a life-long marriage in which they live happily everafter. The reply is that we need not be and are not ignorant of the challenges of a lifelong monogamous marriage. The good of marriage is a good of struggle – a good of coping with hardship. The good of conjugal sexual morality is not a good of happiness. It is a good of struggling. In light of this type of goodness, the basic line of defense for conjugal sexual morality will be that whatever sexual activity weakens us for this struggling is immoral.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A moral outlook’s theory of good characterizes the good we are to promote and how to promote it But ways of promotion of good are constrained by the definite prohibitions from its theory of evil. Both structurally and materially conjugal sexual morality’s theory of good differs greatly from that of consensual sexual morality. Consensual sexual … Continue reading <\/p>\n <\/span> Conjugal Sexual Morality-Theory of Good<\/h4>\n