Virtuous sex....

We saw in the last post what constitutes virtue on Aristotle's definition (i.e. that virute is a state of character consisting in a choice of the mean as made by the practically wise man.)  I wish to apply this, in my opinion the most rationally cogent and worthy of assent ethics there are, to a realm that is always sure to draw attention and admirers, sex.

We live in an age that likes to poison its wives, murder its children and grandparents, and is in love with mammon.  There is a shining light upon the hill, the Church and her sexual ethics, but hers is a voice in the wilderness.  Ruled by lower desires we have yet as a culture to gain the strength to shurk off the insane master we are all ruled by. Aristotle, and the Church, offer us a freedom for the perfection of our natures, if we'll only listen.

Catholic, and Christian sexual ethics usually draw the ire of progessives, sometimes rightfully so, for being rigid, or even stoical.  There are Christians who misinterpret the Gospel in a Manichean, dualistic, or Kantian way, and then brow beat moderns with a categorical command of the wickedness of sexuality.  This, of course, is anti-Christian and wrong.  God gave us sexuality, and all that exists is good, so He must have meant for us to enjoy it.  Of course, when talking about sexuality, you always walk a thin rope, as visions of Mary have often revealed that the number one thing that gets souls banished to hell is lust.  Sexuality gives us the power to be co-creators, a great power indeed, but with great power comes great responsibility.  Sexuality, going all the way back to the Garden of Eden, is the place where the first dehumanizing gaze took place, and it was the beginning of murder and all other sin.  Pride was the initial sin, but then our first parents realized they were naked. As John Paul the Great said, Adam looked upon Eve not as a person for the first time, but as an object of his gratification.  Lust is like a seed that dehumanizes others and can lead to all sorts of other crimes.

I say, then, that I walk a tight rope in talking about sexuality, but it is a tight rope that needs to be walked.  And, the last paragraph probably looks like the beginning of a dualistic diatribe against sex and sexuality.  Sed contra, God told us to be fruitful and multiply, which to my mind suggests he wanted us to enjoy our sexuality.  But as in all things with virtue or perfection, the correct context must be realized.  Let's just put it this way, those large Catholic families give us a hint that Catholic couples know how to enjoy sex, and they should.  God gave it to us as a very wonderful and humanizing gift.  It is a way in which we can realize our full humanity, our full perfection, a truly dignified life as gift, a fully human life.  And the place where you can realize your most human perfection, is also the place where the slightest errors can help you realize your most beastly attributes.  Small mistakes in the beginning result in large mistakes at the end. 

So what can Aristotle teach us about sexuality? What can the Church?  I am going to write today about virtuous sex.  In the last post, we talked about how temperance is the mean between self-indulgence and insensibility.  Self-indulgence being the over gratification in pleasures of touch, namely food and sex.  Insensibility being the under-indulgence as regards sex and food.  Speaking in the context of marriage, we actually have vindication for virtue theory as practiced in Catholic married couples.

The Church teaches, number one, that the only context in which sexuality is valid is within marriage.  This may seem boring to the modern slave, but to be virtuous there has to be a purpose, or telos, and a context for which something is done.  In the case of sexuality, its purpose is twofold, unitive and procreative.  Sexuality obviously serves the purpose of preserving the species, but it also serves the purpose of creating the greatest friendships on the planet, that between husband and wife.  Outside of the context of marriage, while in the ephemeral sex may be "fun," in the long run it leads to injury to individuals and society.  We have disease, fueds, violence, abortion, divorce, and real crime as the result of uncontrolled sexual desire.  Of course, these evils would exist even if sexuality was realized exclusively in marriage, but de-contextualized sex does lead to very real social evils.  As John Paul II said, the new ideologies of evil are more sinister than the old because they attack the cell of society instead of institutions, the family.  John Paul II didn't see the America of today, or he might say that they are now attacking both, the family is broken and our institutions are starting to reflect that with top down tyranny creating laws that contradict the natural law.  Obama has only begun to show his fangs.

So, the Church teaches that sexuality should be unitive and procreative.  Our culture wants to say all it need be is unitive.  "If they love each other, marriage between two individuals of the same sex is ok." "If they love each other, then marriage between a man and his dog should be ok."  Disturbing, but legally if "love" loosely defined is the prerequisite of marriage, we undermine society at its very principle.  The purpose of giving married couples special incentives is to preserve the nation, it's not based on some false jus naturale or false freedom.

From Catholicism, we get the context then. Sex must be within marriage; it must be unitive; it must be procreative.  Outside of that, the Church says be fruitful and multiply.

This doesn't seem too restrictive, but it is a challenge.  Virtue is a challenge.  The Church in her wisdom has given us NFP, which maintains both of the purposes of marriage, it draws the couple closer in communication and desire, and serves the function of procreation.  When paralelled with virtue theory, NFP is lifted from the musings of celibate men stuck in some archaic fideism, to a rationally cogent and defensible ethic.

NFP demands that the man and the woman, if they seek to avoid having a child for the time being for legitimate reasons, restrain their passions during the woman's fertile time.  So they are forced to communicate about their struggles, their desires, and even creates time for romance (the emotional romance women crave, not the physical romance men crave.) 

In general, men tend to the physical, or in the scheme of virtue theory and temperance, they tend to want to overindulge in sex (darn that testosterone.)  Women, on the other hand, in general, tend to the insensible when it comes to sex.  In layman's terms, the man always wants it, and the woman rarely wants it.  NFP forces their hand to the mean, not over indulging, and not under-indulging.  During the fertile times, the man must restrain his passions and see his woman for all her other gifts; he must be temperate in the area where vice is most pernicious to him.  During the infertile periods, the woman must give way to her natural bent to insensibility if she wants a happy marriage.  NFP requires the couples meet the mean and have virtuous sex lives. (Incidentally, the non-difference in homosexual couples eliminates this balance to "bend" them to virtue. A truly virtuous sex life, praise God for His wisdom, requires the balance of the sexes.  Crazy, this thing we call nature.  Men need women and women need men.  Like a true philosopher here, I know, stating the obvious.)

The beauty is there is statistical  vindication of both what the Church teaches and virtue theory realized in NFP.  NFP couples have a statistical divorce rate of less than 3%, outside of the margin for error.  Even better no poisioning of the wife or giving up of masculinity as in vasectomy. Non-NFP couples that rate is at 51%.   Most people don't get married hoping to get divorced, in fact, no one does (unless the marriage is set up on false pretenses anyway, say for economic gain or something.)  So living temperance in marriage means a satisfying marriage; a true and perfect marriage (as perfect as it gets for we sons of Adam and daughters of Eve.)  Aristotle's virtue theory claims that living virtue through a complete life is the happy life.  We have statistical vindication of virtue theory, and proof that the Church does not seek to hinder us.  She wants us to be happy. And being happy means living virtuously, and having reason and will in charge of the lower members.

So, my advice to married couples?  Have virtuous sex.