Sex is one of the key features for making judgements about particular actions in Christian ethics today. Premarital sex is held to be sinful by almost all denominations of Christianity as most importantly, it is thought that the only place for sex is within the contract of marriage, which is due to the belief that sex is solely for procreation and that marriage is the only stable state for a family. It is also thought that sex should only take place where there is commitment and marriage is thought to be the example of this as married couples relationships are monogamous and fulfilling, and from the Roman Catholic point of view, it’s though that marriage is a Sacrament.
Traditional Christians feel that any sexual act which doesn’t result in reproduction, such as masturbation, oral sex and anal sex are intrinsically wrong. Aquinas’s Natural Moral Law largely influenced these beliefs and its features are still upheld by certain Catholics today due to its acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church. The two precepts of Natural Moral Law claimed that firstly, the purpose of genitalia was for procreation and secondly, that contraceptive were forbidden as they prevent God’s purpose. In the secondary precept of Natural Moral Law, Aquinas stated that masturbation was not allowed, that the purpose of sex must be procreation not personal pleasure and that homosexuality was an intrinsic evil. Natural Moral Law prohibits any form of contraception as it is thought to prevent God’s will and it also forbids sex that’s unconventional in terms of position and anything that hinders procreation is considered a mortal sin. Although the Catholic Church adopted the beliefs stated in Aquinas’s Natural Law, it now allows natural contraception, as it is recognised that the body specifically provides a time during the month for a woman to have sex without getting pregnant. The Church relented on natural contraception due to the fact that although it was unhealthy for women to continually have children, many families were also struggling financially to support large families.
Contrasting the above beliefs about sex by Christians is the Libertarian view that sex is morally permissible if both parties are of mutual consent, and this can also be recognised as a contractarian viewpoint. Libertarianism is tolerant of different sexual lifestyles as well as celebrating sexual liberation. The libertarian view of sex is that not only is marriage not necessary for it to take place, but that there are neither traditional or religious connotations with sex itself, seeing it merely as a physical function and believing freedom and independence to be of the highest importance. Although Libertarianism believes sex can be solely for pleasure, it does not exonerate sexual crimes like rape, as it disregards the freedom principle, it reproaches sex with minors, as children are thought not to be old enough to truly have free will and libertarians also condemn sex involving deception, as if one party is in ignorance, they believe that free choices cannot truly be made.
When it comes to homosexuality, the Christian Church differentiates between sexual orientation and sexual activity. Whilst some Christians see homosexuality as a choice and that homosexuals can convert to heterosexuality, the majority understand that homosexuality is innate, although they prohibit acting on homosexual feelings. Christians believe not only that sex is for reproduction and not pleasure, they also feel that sex between two men is unnatural due to the creation story, where God created a man and a woman as a couple. Christian attitudes towards homosexuality are largely influenced by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and verses such as “Thou shall not lie with a man, as with a woman; it is an abomination,” Leviticus 18:22, and “If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination,” Leviticus 20:13.
In contrast, a large majority accepts homosexuality in the world today, mostly by those who believe that it is morally permissible if neither party involved is harmed nor anyone else is harmed by having homosexual sex. Libertarians also adopt this ‘harm principle’ in their approach to sexuality and sexual ethics, as to observe the harm principle is to guarantee that no harm is done to those involved in the sexual act or to third parties. Libertarianism takes the view that it is justifiable to do as you please, as long as your actions to not hinder another’s freedom. Therefore, it is believed by Libertarians that what is done during sex is also up to the individuals involved, believing that there should be no constraints on one’s sexual activity. They feel that sexual acts such as oral sex, anal sex and masturbation, which don’t lead to reproduction, should be allowed if it is what certain individuals wish to take place and do not prohibit the use of contraception.
Up until the 20th century, the Church did not recognise the link between love, sex and intimacy and so the Church attempted to acquire a greater understanding of the relationship between love and sexual activity. By doing so, both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church came to the conclusion that although loving sex is a bonding and intimate experience, this can only be expressed within marriage, claiming that “Sexual love is uniquely expressed and perfected through the marital act.” Vincent Puzo, author of ‘Reflective Naturalism’, has voiced that what makes sex and love morally acceptable is the mutual trust and acceptance as well as the sharing of the most intimate thoughts and that marriage is simply a ceremony. Puzo also claimed that sex without love corrupted and broke down human personality and felt that sexual abuse of minors, rape, swinging and bestiality were exploitative forms of sex which should not be accepted. Although these beliefs are appreciable, there are several criticisms of the ‘love and intimacy’ approach to sexual ethics. Firstly, one asks does an intimate, loving relationship necessitate monogamy? Secondly, does this approach regard sexual acts that are not loving and intimate as morally unacceptable? Finally, one wonders whether pleasure may be a goal of love.
Today, sexual morality is largely tackled with a utilitarian approach in that it may be right to have sex if it takes place in private, it does not harm others and that both partners are consenting. An alternative Christian prospective, developed by Joseph Fletcher, promoter of situation ethics and author of ‘Situation Ethics’, felt that any sexual act was morally permissible if love was best served. He believed that every situation should be judged on its own merits and that no rule should apply to all situations; therefore he felt that any action, sexual or not, could be justified if the outcome is most loving. Joseph Fletcher applied sexuality to situation ethics by claiming that sex should not be limited to marriage, as sexual crimes such as rape can still take place within marriage and therefore agape is not best served. Similarly, the example of a woman being paid to have sex can be seen from different perspectives. If she has sex solely for the money, which she will then spend on herself, this can be seen as a selfish and demeaning sexual act. However, if the woman uses the money for a good cause, such as paying for a lifesaving operation for her mother, then agape is the outcome.
In the 21st century, I think that it is reasonable to claim that religion and a person’s sexuality are two subjects that should and can be treated separately. Since sexuality is one of the most important ways in which we can define ourselves, to have this expression governed by a religion that applies the same rules a majority seems absurd. Due to the fact that people differ in sexual orientation and sexual drive, it seems farcical to expect everyone to abide the same rules that set down by a specific religion. It can be noted that sexuality doesn’t correlate with one’s religious beliefs, and so it seems reasonable in the modern world that you can be religious without following the religious rules about sexuality, and also sexual without having to follow a religion.
Due to the fact that we live in a liberal society, the majority generally accept that what is done in private does not harm anyone else and is also no-one else’s business. The sexual rules imposed by religions like Catholicism are impractical in a number of ways. Although prohibition of sex until marriage is acceptable to some people, the forbiddance of the use of contraception seems impractical as a couple may not want pregnancy to be the result of every time they have sexual intercourse, and furthermore, may not be able to afford to have such a large family. Similarly, the belief that sex is solely for producing offspring and therefore should not take place before marriage is also impractical as surely the easiest way to propagate the species is to have numerous partners. Sexual laws about the prohibition of adultery are again unnecessary as such laws are accepted by supremacy.
It is recognised that religious laws about sexuality are repressive and have caused numerous problems, most notably the rising rates of sexual abuse of children by priests. It is thought that a state of celibacy causes one to be closer to God as there are no distractions. However, disturbingly it seems that this repression of a person’s sexuality causes them to act out in perverted manners, leading them to abuse minors. The shocking results of the repression of sexuality due to religion leads me only to confirm that the relationship between sexuality and religion is an unhealthy one.
In conclusion, I can understand that if an individual is religious they may feel obligated to follow the rules set by their religion where concerning sexual activity, however, since sexuality is one of the most important forms of human expression, I can only conclude that no religion should have the right to govern someone in this way. I personally identify with the Libertarian approach to sexual ethics in that what an individual chooses to do in order to express themselves sexually is acceptable, as long as it does no harm to others and is in private, and therefore conclude that the link between sexual ethics and religious beliefs should be a removed one.
Bibliography
‘Ethical Studies’ - Robert A Bowie
‘The Puzzle of Sex’ - Peter Vardy
‘Ethics’ - Mel Thompson
