At one of our Religious Education Family sessions, an enthusiastic priest shared a bit of philosophy with us. He presented Saint Thomas Aquinas' Four Ways of Knowing, a refinement on Aristotle's teachings, to a group of folks ranging from preschoolers to senior citizens and including a few non-english speaking families. The discussion was vibrant and surprisingly easy to grasp even for the youngest students.
What is Aquinas' Four Ways of Knowing? Here I'll give just the meagerist and most informal summary here, based on the simple example we went over in class. First, imagine a table. Aquinas's first way of knowing has to do with form. This means we can recognize a table as a type, regardless of variations in style or material. His second method, makeup, simply means that we can know about an item by determining what it is made of. For instance, we can determine that a certain table is made of wood, another has a glass top and a wrought iron base. The third method of knowing regards the understanding about how something arises, for instance how the table came to be. In this case, we could probably tell you where we obtained this particular table, but also this type of knowledge could extend back to include the manufacturing process or even the design process or details of the harvesting of the particular tree used to make the table. Lastly, we have the final method of knowing: purpose. The table's purpose is to set food on, or other items; it's purposes does not include sitting on or use as a vehicle.
Later, I was reading "Love your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save Our Nation From the Culture of Contempt". Author Alfred Brooks notes that when talking about morality, individuals on the left and the right have vastly different takes. While the morality of fairness and care of others are nearly universals, other forms of morality, such as respect of authority are treated far differently between people of differing viewpoints.
Nowhere do I believe this difference is amplified than the consideration of sexual morality. Folks on the left are more likely to disregard any sexual morality beyond that of "two consenting adults (or adolescents)", while those on the right are frequently depicted as a group of puritans, hopelessly bogged down in repressive, close-minded rule-making and rule-policing when it comes to sexuality. Has modernity left the need for sexual morality behind with the ideas of the sexual revolution? Were the old rules just a method of repression and control? Or is there something else we're missing when we quickly dismiss sexual morality as a thing of the past?
I think this is a good opportunity to look at sex using Aquinas' perspective of the "Four Ways." When we presently consider sexuality at all; firstly, it seems like we are considering it solely from the second vantage point. The "what is it" is the only question we seem to have- how we are defining our particular sexuality. When we consider sexuality, from the first perspective, form, we can consider the fact that we are all familiar with what makes up sexual expression, even when we are sometimes in denial about it. For instance, we, as a population, did not buy for one minute President Bill Clinton's statement, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." We can also recognize that our children are participating in activities on the sexual spectrum when they are encountering sexting or pornography, though they may not be in physical contact with a partner. Just as a tall table or a small table or a pine table or a marble table are all still tables, sex is still sex even when it comes over the intrawebs.
The harder points for our modern culture to wrap our heads around are perspectives three and four. From an entirely biological standpoint, we're sexual creatures in the same way as all vertebrates, participating in the process of sexual reproduction for literal ages. From a more metaphysical standpoint, I personally believe that God gave us sex as a sacred gift. He gave sex to us to join in union; to be fruitful, to intensify our relationships and to create permanent, loving, and caring families.
The fourth point seems to be integral to the whole consideration. Why bother? From a Catholic perspective, we've always believed that the purpose of sex is twofold. First of all, it is for procreation. Bringing new life into this world is one of the most basic, primitive, instinctual and obvious purpose of sex. This point is one of inherent beauty, goodness and joy. It's one we can't deny. This purpose is evident based on our biology and our hormones. However, I believe sex for us is different than solely a matter of procreation such as that you would see in other animals. Ideally, it is elevated and goes beyond this first purpose
The other purpose for sex, I believe, is bonding. It is an enjoyable reward to bring two different people together to become one, to lead life together in good times and bad. Since sex is about both bringing children into the world and creating unity in the relationship, we've also always believed that the proper place for sex was within marriage. This protects the children of the union with permanence and security. It protects the woman from the assymetries of sexual risk. Life's a grinding challenge when needing to simultaneously provide for and care for the children (yes, I see you, single mothers, I respect you and you're doing your best in this challenging situation, but it is hard work to make this happen!)
Also, the bonding aspect of sex is just as important as the procreative part. For instance, which of us don't want a real partner, a truthful and kind soul, to grow old with? We are built mentally, physically and spiritually for relationship. While many are called to other forms of relationship as you may see in single life, a good number of us are called for a desire for relationship that is fulfilled in lifelong union.
We've seen an unprecedented change in the way we consider sex in our world in the last half of the twentieth century to present, and I'm doubtful that even the most free-love "sex positivity" promoting individual would say it was all for the good. Though there are folks who feel that sexual freedom is paramount, problems arise when sexual freedom is considered more paramount than sexual responsibility. In fact, in all human realms, a balance of responsibility and freedom is necessary to lead to the conditions that lead to human flourishing. To think that sex is any different is to live in denial.
A person who has no interest in a relationship with another, but just wants to use that person's body, either by looking at that person lustfully or having sex, but disrespecting, dismissing or degrading that individual is certainly using sexuality in a way that doesn't lead to human flourishing, for themselves or for their partner. The used one, regardless of whether words of consent were spoken at the time, will most likely suffer due to this ill use.
What is another risk of the libertine "Do whatever feels good as long as you have consent"? When we remove sexuality from the confines of either of its dual purposes, so it meets neither the purpose of procreation or bonding, it loses all meaning. Meaningless sex, for those who've participated in it, leaves us cold and sad and lonely. Meaninglessness overall hurts our culture because it brings in nihilism and hopelessness. Clinical depression rates and suicides are unfortunately on the rise. If there's no point in life, what is the point? Our culture already struggles with despondency, so we don't really need sexuality to become another source of isolation and despair, no matter how "liberating", do we?
I have a confession to make. It took me a very long time to muster up the courage to finish this blog. I started writing it several years before I actually finished it. I hesitated because of the volatility of the material, and how much our culture seems to draw lines of division around any differences in our thoughts on this subject. Simply put, it is a topic with landmines hidden under the surface at every turn. Likewise, I did not want to cause distress or division between folks who might view this subject differently than me. I don't speak these works today from a place of perfection or condemnation. However, more and more, the large scale stakes of ignoring sexual morality to our society seems clear to me. Also, my continual conversations with many people frequently show me that I had information to impart and explain that might increase more understanding on the topic. We should do the hard work of discussing these topics and discussing them well. I'm a firm believer in hashing these differences out.
We may argue about what should make up our morality. "It may be possible to argue about which morality is the necessary morality," Jordan Peterson explains in his recent book Beyond Order, "but it is not possible to argue that morality itself is thus unnecessary." It's understandable that we need rules to follow in order to keep society functional and to encourage human flourishing Yet, in our society today, at least when it comes to sex, it seems we've declared that no rules need apply. Although we try to pretend they don't, rules actually matter, even if many of our rules are implied today rather than explicit.
Many people consider these discussions of sexual morality as one of their major objections to Christianity, and many Christian groups have therefore made an effort to free their congregants of the "repressive" Christian rules regarding sex. While complete abandonment of these rules don't lead to human flourishing as I've argued throughout, it's important to realize that they are just one piece of our overall picture in Christianity. For instance, Bishop Robert Barron warns against getting bogged down with the "Crotch issues" of the church, as it diminishes the inexhaustible love and forgiveness given to us by our Lord. None of these rules should serve to make us feel like we are gate-keepers of the faith, and church leaders need to serve the needs of people regardless of their sexual practices and identities. If our Lord can call lovingly to St. Mary Magdellen, a former prostitute, our job is to love our neighbors in their brokenness, while sharing the truth that will lead them to greater human flourishing.
Nowhere do we see the failure of disregarding sexual morality and the loss of sexual responsibility than in its most gaping absence; in things that we can nearly universally still recognize as problems. Child sexual abuse is a clear example. We see that one person crosses a moral line and follows only a selfish call to fulfill a desire with no regard to the dignity or worth of the child involved. Another example is human trafficking, while both adults and children are held against their will to generate money for greed-motivated individuals and satisfy the appetites of other depraved individuals. Rape and sexual assault also clearly fall into this category. All these examples point to the need to set boundaries, to follow rules. We're not only talking about ideals and the highest human pursuits, but clearly, the loss of sexual morality can be implicated in some of the worst human rights abuses of our times.
Morality needs to point to an ideal human situation, that leads to the highest level of human flourishing. That doesn't mean that people, in our collective weakness, should despair when we don't live up to the ideal. When the culture at large disregards the meanings of sex, it disregards the meaning of people, family and culture.
While discussing sexuality, we should emphasize that it is a blessing, both good and important. We need to teach that it is also serious, with serious implications. It's not just one sport or recreation among many, to be taken up thoughtlessly for fun or to please a partner (and lets face it, the lines between consent, coercion and non-consent may be blurred by other factors like substance use, age and power differences and social pressures to conform). There are freedoms, but there are responsibilities as well. We would be well served to remember both.
