The Church’s answer to this contradiction is subtle: it argues first of all that the state of chastity and celibacy of the worldly clergy and the regular orders is theologically superior to the marital state and the sexual life, but that it is licit and necessary that there should be married, fertile couples if only to breed new Christians.
The Fathers’ second argument is that if God created sexuality, as he created the five senses and taste, it is not so they might be abused (in luxury or gluttony) but so they might be used parsimoniously and with just necessity (borrowed from the Aristotelian, then Stoic, doctrine of moderation). Hence the imperative to limit sexuality to the strict framework of couples united in Christian marriage for the sole purpose of reproduction. How about within the framework of pleasure between spouses without any reproductive goal? We shall see later that this question has posed and continues to pose serious problems.
The Church quickly played down this dogma of the superiority of chastity to marriage, forgetting the Church Fathers’ horror at the notion of sex (and of women, as the texts show).[6] This dogma was only approved for the clerisy (monks, whether preachers or not, and nuns), which makes Catholicism the only religion in which celibacy is imposed on everyone in religious orders.
Of course, there is also a practical reason for priestly celibacy. Like soldiers unencumbered with families, they can better consecrate themselves to their ministry. Protestants, Jews, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims have reasoned differently that a married cleric will be better balanced and more effective, since he is better integrated socially. But let us pass on.... Since the Church Fathers, Christianity has aggravated the anti-sexual and unnatural prescriptions present in the Old Testament.[7]
But the most vexatious point within the framework of the natural order created by God, of this chastity imposed on monks and nuns under pain of divine punishment from the time they enter the bosom of the Church until their death, is that they — contrary to licitly married couples — absolutely cannot make use of their genital organs.[8] So the point is clearly to suppress their usage permanently, to suppress a whole physiological function — in other words, to carry out a mutilation. In Buddhism and Hinduism, for example, (or in numerous pagan initiatic brotherhoods of the Greco-Roman and Oriental world, from Pythagoreanism to the neoplatonism of the fourth and fifth centuries), the stage of renunciation can only be reached at the end of a life in which one has known sexuality, which seems much more prudent and realistic. Chastity is experienced not as the repression of a bad impulse, but as a voluntary choice designed to liberate the spirit from bodily contingency. It is not a matter of puritanism, of morbid hatred of sex on the part of frustrated celibates, but of ascesis. Above all, chastity was not imposed on others; the initiates kept it for themselves.
Implicitly or explicitly, the sexual morality of the Church considers — at least for those in religious orders — sex as a sin, and a sin that is punished. This has provoked, and still provokes, serious psychological dysfunctions among the clergy and many monks. The Church tried not only to channel, to standardise, to regulate and to order sex (as did, for example, all the pre-Christian religions of Europe — and this is entirely indispensable for the social order) but it fundamentally made it a matter of guilt. This would have serious consequences and provoked, by way of reaction, the sexual chaos with which we are familiar. Indirectly, the sexual morality of the Church bears a certain responsibility for this chaos.
* * *
This culpability is expressed in the second dogma of the Church’s sexual morality, according to which sex is a ‘necessary sin’. Under certain very strict conditions, the sin is immediately forgiven and gives occasion for neither confession nor penitence. Let us look at these cases of permissibility and impermissibility.
The general rule is that for a Christian (man or woman), the sexual act is only authorised within the framework of a religiously married couple who want to reproduce and sincerely believe that this carnal relation can be fruitful.
All other forms of sex are, therefore, excluded. Let us enumerate them in order of the seriousness of the fault they represent: first of all, the Church forbids sexual relations between spouses who do not seek fertilisation but eroticism (pleasure-seeking); this excludes relations at times the woman is not fertile (and a fortiori during her periods, which is an aggravating circumstance). This poses the problem of whether a sterile husband may have relations with his wife, since he knows that they will not be fruitful, and whether a wife who has reached menopause can engage in sexual activity. On these last points, most theologians today disagree with any prohibition in the name of ‘love’, but the dogma remains implacable and unchanged.[9] These contemporary theologians think that non-reproductive conjugal eroticism is licit, which is what most Christian couples think; a point on which the Church remains very vague.
Next, erotic attitudes called ‘excessive’ are prohibited between spouses, including too much caressing, fellatio, cunnilingus, sodomy (a more serious case, because of its ‘deranged’ attitude). ‘Modesty’ and restraint must govern relations between spouses.
In the third place, all sexual relations outside marriage are sinful. Fiancés must remain virgins until their wedding,[10] a bachelor or unmarried woman must not have any sexual partner, with adultery being considered especially serious, along with homosexuality. As for Islam, which is only interested in male sexuality, it provided for polygamy in order to prevent adultery, a practice already present among the peoples concerned well before Muhammad. Next, masturbation, or solitary pleasure, is especially condemned, classed as a particularly filthy and perverse ‘impurity’ because it egoistically diverted the orgasm (and emission of sperm) from the function assigned to it by the Creator. This question of masturbation was of capital importance in Church morality until the 1970s, and sometimes up until today, at least as much as adultery. In support of this thesis, up until the middle of the twentieth century, sex education manuals of Christian inspiration developed airy and wild theories about the harmfulness of solitary masculine pleasure — they had to ignore that women also practiced it.[11]
* * *
One will note in these impressively severe rules requiring iron self-discipline some striking points not very conformable to human ethology: a bachelor is held to the same standards of chastity as a priest, which he can only break by marrying; a couple must not manifest physical ‘concupiscence’; their love must be ethereal, that is, spiritualised and mediated by divine love, of which it is an avatar.
But is it really a matter of self-discipline? Perfectly conscious that its sexual morality (destined above all for the policing of bedrooms, social surveillance) was hard for its flock to apply, the Church generalised the practice of confession, one objective of which was not only to control the intimate life of its parishioners (and clergy), but to allow the limitation (without excluding it altogether, as with a safety valve) the presence of an illicit and erotic sexuality. The inconvenience of this was that unauthorised sex was broadly practiced but tarnished with a bad conscience. Divine Eros has fled; sex has become sad, and a transgression.
The method is clever: as soon as one has committed one of the sexual faults enumerated above, one must immediately go to confession. Why? Because all of the sexual faults enumerated above partake canonically of mortal sin (as distinct from venial sin). Now, if by accident you die after committing a mortal sin without having repented, confessed, and done penance, you are automatically condemned to the torments of hell by divine justice. It is thus extremely dangerous not to confess after having committed one of these ‘mortal sins of impurity’. Such, at least, was the teaching listed in the catechism, the pulpit and religious institutions for generations, and which was still taught in religious secondary schools in the 1960s, the decade in which the ‘sexual revolution’ exploded by way of backlash.
In fact, in this sexual morality, it is the orgasm and libido as
such that are targeted, as natural biological manifestations. Now, what is contradictory is that ‘sexual concupiscence’ like the orgasm is a natural reflex, an innate behavioural reflex which does not, properly speaking, have anything to do with the will, but whose seat is in the animal brain. By demanding the sublimation of the libido and orgasm, transforming them into something that they are not (even within legitimate couples), the Church is contravening the laws of nature and thus of divine Creation. To successfully procreate, the man must physiologically become erect and ejaculate with an orgasm; now, these two physiological symptoms, indispensable to reproduction, can only be provoked by the famous ‘concupiscence’ otherwise condemned. (In the face of these contradictions, theologians have argued for a general revision in the direction of common sense — Aristotelian sophrosyne.[12]) You can imagine the mental disturbance (and sexual frustration) engendered among Christian couples who wish, out of fear or feelings of guilt, to follow this punctilious and anti-natural teaching.
Quite logically, these teachings end in the prohibition of contraception, whether chemical,[13] by withdrawal (‘onanism’ or coitus interruptus), or with a condom; for contraception presupposes that the sexual act does not include the desire to procreate, but lewdness. No Pope has returned to this question of the condemnation of contraception.
What is extraordinary is that the Church (which vehemently claims to respect the laws of nature established by God, especially in attacking contraception, but also in opposing gene therapy, genetic manipulation, and eugenics) attacks by its sexual morality the very laws of nature by rejecting the libidinal aspect of sex and giving it a single definition, strictly reproductive and within an ethically and theologically licit framework.
One must note a final point which shows that in spite of its severity and its numerous oppressive rules, the Church places reproductive sexuality at the centre of marital life. Divorced Christian couples are quasi-excommunicated (the Church’s heaviest sanction), that is to say, they are no longer given access to the sacraments and, according to dogma still in effect, have little chance apart from a special act of grace of going to heaven after death. This explains why adultery, forgiven in the confessional, is much less serious than divorce, the breaking of the ‘sacred bond of marriage’. But if the marriage is not consummated by the end of a certain time — for example, because of the husband’s impotence — the ecclesiastical tribunals can declare the marriage annulled, although it is still sacramental. Secular laws, which authorise divorce, do not go so far.
Failure of the Sexual and Conjugal Morality of the Church
The present day Church has responded to the untenable difficulties and contradictions presented by its sexual morality by delays and increasingly vague teachings on sex, without daring to change its dogma. The liberation — or rather dissolution — of morals has combined with the often absurd and anti-natural character of Catholic teaching. Only a tiny minority of Catholics, even among those who practice, follow the sexual and marital commandments of the Church. The majority disapprove of, for instance, the prohibition against condoms, especially in order to prevent STDs and AIDS, and the choice of abstinence as sole remedy. A great number of priests live in concubinage, and their ‘wives’ have even been seen demonstrating. (It was the same when the Inquisition prosecuted numerous cohabiting priests: ‘copulaverunt in facie Ecclesiae!’ — they copulated in the sight of the Church!) Within the Church, some clerics are demanding the marriage of priests, and others female access to the priesthood, as in the Anglican Church. Others want sexual faults excluded from the list of ‘mortal sins’ (moreover, the idea of mortal sin itself is being contested). Certain prelates (let us recall Mgr Gaillot) touch upon, with contrition or delectation, the question of their own ‘sex life’ in public. In the nineteenth century they would immediately have been excommunicated and dismissed. Let us also mention the scandal of paedophile priests which has shaken Ireland, Canada, and Germany, and which can only be explained by a psychic disturbance originating in the brain of these men upon whom a traumatising sexual morality has been imposed, which has caused them to deviate into perversion, that is, into a pathological transgression of their duty of chastity. The prohibition against non-reproductive eroticism between the married couple is in disrepute among the overwhelming majority of Catholics, who no longer follow the other catechumenal prescriptions or commandments of the Church.
The Church, with its customary hypocrisy and realism, has responded with suppleness. It avoids talking about its sexual and marital morality, but does not abolish it. It has turned toward a syrupy new discourse centred on Love, an all-purpose concept that serves as a viaticum in all domains. In regard to sex, this gives rise to a ‘we don’t want to know what you do in your bedroom, but do it out of Love for the Other and not out of egoism’ position. From this follows (in the sexual field as in many others) a sickly-sweet language in which terms such as sharing, giving of oneself, acceptance, openness to the Other, listening, and the like constantly recur.
Obviously, the Church continues to condemn homosexuality, albeit very prudently, limiting itself to discussion of ‘gay marriage’ and ‘civil unions’. It is careful not to recall the diabolical character (according to canon law) of sodomy, especially between men. Islam is not so prudent. It loudly affirms its aversion to homosexuality without anyone daring to say a thing, while an Italian Bishop who dared to recall the condemnation of homosexuality was lambasted with media fulminations. In short, in this matter as in others, the Church neither dares to abandon its doctrine frankly nor to assume it clearly. Whether you approve of the Church or not, you can only note that a constituted religion, that is, a religious institution, which no longer commands respect for its rites, dogmas, rules, and commandments, which is satisfied with vague general principles and leaves everyone a freedom to interpret them, has entered into a phase of decline. The decline of the Catholic Church by its abandonment of its arms, has entered a decisive phase.
The worst thing for a religion is vagueness. If it does not change when its dogma has become untenable, it suffers a loss of respect as well. This is the basic error committed by the Catholic Church: it has gone on too long, in the course of its long history, with untenable dogmatic positions (both in regard to sex but also to the sciences) rather than limiting itself to a purely theological or ethical dogma that does not spill over into other domains. Moreover, the Church never stops changing its rites, while the definition of a sacramental rite is its immutability. These contradictions, these incessant variations explain innumerable schisms, but also the gradual process of dechristianisation that began in the seventeenth century. But it is in its secularised form, its most dangerous form, that Christianity has endured in people’s minds, namely the teachings of turning the other cheek, loving one’s neighbour as oneself, and believing that all men are brothers and intrinsically good.
* * *
As in many other matters, the position of the prelates has considerably softened. The rigorous sexual morality of the Church has not continued except when it comes to the matter of abortion, the rejection of homosexual marriage, and the marriage of priests, and the rejection of condoms even in order to protect against AIDS — a papal position contested within the Church itself. This softening, this senility, this low profile of the Church contrasts strongly with aggressiveness displayed by Islam. For example, the protests against the killings and persecution of Christians in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia arouse only prudent, diplomatically-worded condemnations that amount to little more than lip service. The Church in France, suffering an unprecedented crisis of vocations and the desertion of its houses of worship, has renounced, in the face of rising Islam, any policy of reconquest and conversion, as if it were paralysed with fear. It is tending to become an institution of humanitarian benevolence (‘Love’) deprived of any theological or spiritual dimension. What is more, it extends a hand (masochism?) to Islam, which bites it. The Church of France i
s getting used to the idea of becoming a minority by playing with the sophism of leaven, that is, the quality of the minority as opposed to the quantity of the faithful. It forces itself to assume a phony optimism in the midst of its own ruin. The very idea of being Christian seems to have disappeared. Today, the principal influence of the Church of France no longer resides in a religious and cultural effort but in metapolitical work rather close to that of the extreme-Left, in favour of an extreme version of the ideology of the Rights of Man and immigrationism. It is a school of collective masochism.
Christian Sex-Phobia Has Provoked Sex-Mania by way of Reaction
The most harmful consequence of this rigidity and puritanism has been to provoke, by way of reaction, a converse movement (as it were, a sort of schizophrenia) just as excessive and pathological: the ideology of ‘sexual liberation’ and the pornographic sexualisation of the West. It was in the most puritanical of Protestant countries (Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian) that the pornographic industry was born. The first paradox is that Catholic countries (which, apart from France, were the last to embrace the ‘sexual revolution’) have much freer sexual mores than Protestant countries, because they were not sexophobic. The Protestant puritan mentality was the first to go into the pornography industry, quite simply by way of a neurotic inversion of its puritanism: sex-phobia and sex-mania are two sides of the same coin.
Sex and Deviance Page 33