Fr Chris Hayden (pictured), Spiritual Director of St Patrick’s College, Maynooth, addressed a meeting of the Iona Institute on the topic of the Catholic vision of the human person, which among other things addressed what Catholicism has to say about relationships and sexuality. Is the Catholic vision ‘repressive’ as critics say, or is it, in fact, more compatible with human flourishing and welfare? Fr Hayden argued that it is, especially in view of the fact that ever more evidence is at hand which shows that the ‘sex revolution’ is delivering less happiness, not more.
At the heart of his talk is the contention that the secular view of sex has at its heart consent and the need to avoid disease or unwanted pregnancy. The Catholic and Christian vision also believe in these concerns, but goes much further and emphasises marriage and the dignity of the human person. As Fr Hayden says: “The person must not be treated in an impersonal or sub-personal way, by being used, or regarded as a means to an end. It is above all in the area of sexuality that human beings can be ‘used,’ without regard for their dignity, and so the principle of the dignity of the human person applies with particular clarity in this area.”
You can listen to a recording of Fr Hayden’s talk here.
The text of his talk is below.
The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality
We can and should locate concerns about the understanding of human sexuality in the context of broader controversies regarding what it means to be a human being. For instance, is the human person realized substantially in isolated freedom from others; with others – and society – regarded as the bearers of obligations so that the isolated individual can be the bearer of rights? Or is human nature an inherently social reality, a reality that can’t exist fully in the isolated individual conceived of as such? Might we need to be careful to distinguish between the individual and the person? A narrow focus on the individual, considered apart from others, misses out on the crucial aspect of personhood, which is being-in-relation to others.
These considerations lead to questions of ethics and morality. If being-in-relation is essential to our nature, then we need to consider what being-in-relation looks like, and what is conducive to it, and what is destructive of it. This, in turn, leads to the consideration of freedom. Just what is freedom? Is it all about the act of choosing, and not at all about choosing well, i.e. choosing in accordance with values that lead to human flourishing? If freedom is in the service of human flourishing, then the ‘free’ choice of what is contrary to human flourishing will, even though it is a ‘free’ choice, result in a lack of freedom. Prisons are full of people who have lost their freedom by the exercise of free choice.
What if it turns out that our true nature, the deepest truth about our human reality, is not that we realize ourselves by being the centre of our own universe, but by being satellites, orbiting around what we love, around what is good, true, beautiful? Do we even need to demonstrate the truth and attractiveness of this way of understanding the human person? Imagine if we could choose between a world in which everyone did their own thing, (as long as no one gets hurt, but regardless of the lasting happiness of others), and a world in which everyone sought the happiness of others, and understood that happiness as the only true means to their own happiness. Which would we choose? Which sounds like the more inhabitable world?
These considerations are in the background of discussions of sexuality. Does the fact that we are sexual beings mean that others are for our gratification (as long as we don’t ‘hurt’ them)? Is sexuality a way of being the centre of our own universe, or a way of being a satellite? Is it about one’s pleasure and satisfaction considered in isolation from the good of others and of society? Or is it a way in which we live with, and give ourselves to, others?
Sexuality: Truth and Meaning
One of the richest Catholic Church documents on sexuality is a 1995 document, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality. Truth and meaning – those words are at the heart of the matter for those who want to hold and pass on a sane understanding of human sexuality, those who hold that sexuality is not indefinitely fluid, plastic, malleable, but that it has truth, and it has meaning.
In the U.S., when they are not busy protecting the President, the Secret Service have another task: they are also the guardians of currency, of the dollar. One of their tasks is the policing of counterfeits, forgeries. How do they learn to spot forgeries? In a certain sense, they don’t. Because rather than looking at every single forgery that has ever been produced, they look at what is true, genuine, original, valuable. They become expert in spotting the real thing. And it’s against the background of that recognition that they are able to spot forgeries.
Something similar might be said of us: We don’t all need to know every detail of gender ideology; we don’t need to be able to argue every point, and correct every misleading or false statistic; we don’t all need to be able to present a careful series of psychological and sociological arguments. My point is that any rejection of what is wrong is based on a vision of what is right; any ‘NO’ we pronounce is based on a far deeper ‘YES.’ If I am critical of various contemporary approaches to sexuality, but I don’t have something better, a better vision, to offer, then I’m just being curmudgeonly!
The better vision which is the Catholic vision for human sexuality is not based on some obscure tenets of exclusively Catholic doctrine. It is a statement of observable, liveable human sense, that can be – and is – subscribed to by people of all faiths and none. I tend to use the term ‘secular’ to refer to approaches that are fundamentally at odds with the Catholic vision, and when I do, I’m using the term ‘secular’ as a kind of shorthand. Truth to tell, the Catholic vision can be regarded as entirely secular, in the sense that it works, it is coherent, here and now. It has something to offer to our time, our age, our saeculum (which gives us the word ‘secular’). That said, however, believers also have the promise of God’s grace, which is no small reassurance, given the challenges, both personal and cultural, faced by anyone who wants to lead a life of genuine self-possession and self-gift.
This better vision corresponds to the facts of human nature. It is rational, reasonable, responsible, respectful, joyful… So, let’s be wary of those who would dismiss our concerns as only religious or dogmatic, and as such, not having any place in the public sphere, or in the classroom. Our vision makes better sense. Demonstrably. For the remainder of this presentation, I want to point to three aspects of that better vision, namely: that it esteems sex; that it regards sex as the language of self-gift; and that its fundamental principles are more coherent than those of secular understandings.
Our Faith Esteems Sex
Many people, including more than a few Catholics, think that for the Church, sex is at best a necessary evil – something to be tolerated rather than celebrated. Happily, that’s not true. Our faith esteems sex; it esteems the human body, and that positive attitude goes right back to the beginning of the Bible.
Do you know what the first commandment is – God’s very first instruction to human beings? (Here, I am not thinking of the first of the Ten Commandments – they feature somewhat). God’s very first commandment to men and women is: ‘Go and make babies!’ Or, in the language of the Bible: ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen 1:27). There is no mention of shame, fear or embarrassment; just a joyful command to produce offspring. Things got a little more complicated with the human propensity to sin, but from the very beginning it was made clear that sex is a gift to men and women, an expression of love directed towards the creation of new life.
And there’s more: the Bible teaches not only that sex is good, but that its goodness is something profound. It is good at a deeper level than the level at which food is good, or warm clothes are good, or art, music or sport are good. Because sexuality is so tied up with who we are as human beings, and because it reflects our being created in the image and likeness of God, it is something to be treasured. But in the area of sexuality we also experience human brokenness; this is an area in which we can be deeply hurt; it’s in the area of sexuality that sin can and does play havoc. And so, sexuality is both profoundly good and profoundly fragile.
What do you do with something that is both precious and fragile? You don’t treat it with disregard: you take care of it! And that is what the Christian attitude towards sex does: it seeks to take care of this gift, to value it, and in doing so, to respect and value men and women, as sexual beings.
In a moment I’ll contrast some opposing sets of principles, but now, just to note a striking contradiction at the heart of the prevailing secular/liberal understanding of sexuality. On the one hand, there is the conviction that sex is pretty much the most important form of self-expression and of human freedom, and that it should not be restricted by moral values. On the other hand, sex is regarded as no big deal, of no consequence, a game, a recreational activity; it shouldn’t be tied up with commitment, there should be no strings attached, no demands.
What a mixed message! Sex is, at one and the same time, utterly important and of no consequence. Does that sound like the ‘rational, fact-based’ thinking that many of the proponents of that understanding say they want to bring to sex education in our schools. Utterly important – and of no consequence?
Sex as the Language of Self-Gift
To get to the very heart of the Catholic vision (and this, for anyone who wants to pass on a sane understanding of human sexuality, is the take-home point): Sex is the language of self-gift. It is body-language, and it says: ‘I am yours; here, I give myself to you, fully, in all my vulnerability; I hold nothing back.’ That is not the language of a temporary loan, but of a permanent gift. The body makes a promise of total self-gift, and it is in the nature of total self-gift that it is permanent.[1]
To be sure, a person might not want sex to say anything of the sort. Their intention might be captured by common phrases such as ‘no commitment, no strings attached; just a fling, a one-night stand.’ But sex retains its fixed, inner meaning irrespective of that contrasting intention. No matter what way it is used, sex remains the language of complete self-gift, of permanency. And when sex is understood and used casually, or without regard to deeper truths and values, human beings suffer.
Incidentally, this whole business is how other humans are brought into the world! But that happens, or should happen, in the context of a loving communion of life. And all of this is the language of sex: it speaks of communion, and of self-gift, and of permanency. And this is why a wise person has said that Christians are people who make love only to those to whom they have made promises.
Two Competing Sets of Principles
One way to understand and appreciate the Catholic vision for human sexuality is to compare it with other understandings. Let’s consider the fundamental principles underlying the common secular understanding of sex, and those underlying our ‘better vision.’
The prevailing secular approach to sex has two broad but simple principles: consent, and hygiene: If you have consent, and you’re taking precautions, you’re good to go! In this secular approach, the rightness or wrongness of sexual activity is determined not by any underlying convictions regarding human flourishing or happiness, but by concern for sovereign, in-the-moment, individual freedom; along with concern for health. Sex, in this view, is of no consequence either morally or spiritually. Once pregnancy and infection are avoided, consensual sex is a ‘no-strings-attached’ activity, with no lingering effects or obligations. But if we’re to be perfectly frank, this understanding of sex is more likely to facilitate the sexually irresponsible and the sexually predatory than it is to guide those who are searching for love and commitment.
It hardly needs to be said, but perhaps it’s no harm to say it, that nothing about the Catholic vision implies that consent is unimportant; but as a fundamental principle for guiding sexual behaviour, it is utterly inadequate. It’s no great surprise that consent as a principle is being increasingly criticised, even by secular commentators. Just ponder how many people have messed up their lives, how many marriages have been destroyed, careers ended, by a moment of perfectly consensual stupidity!
So much for the secular guiding principles of consent and hygiene. For Christians, two very different principles apply to human sexuality: the principle of the dignity of the human person, and the marriage principle. The first of these refers to the fact that each and every person has a dignity that must never be violated. The person must not be treated in an impersonal or sub-personal way, by being used, or regarded as a means to an end. It is above all in the area of sexuality that human beings can be ‘used,’ without regard for their dignity, and so the principle of the dignity of the human person applies with particular clarity in this area.
While there are degrees of moral failing, the fact is that whenever sexual pleasure is sought with no, or little, or insufficient thought for the good of the other person, there is a disregard of their dignity. And the good of the other person is something far richer, more complex, more lasting, more long-term than can be captured in a legalistic understanding of in-the-moment consent. Let’s face it – people can get the consent of sexual partners in whose life-long welfare they have no investment and no interest.
The second principle that guides – or should guide – the behaviour of Christians, is the marriage principle. Sex is about complete communion between two people. It is the language of self-gift and of permanency, a language inscribed in the bodily difference between man and woman. It is a language that says ‘yes,’ always in principle and occasionally in practice, to the arrival of a new life. If sex is used to speak of a temporary or disposable relationship, it is being used to say something untrue. If the intention is for sex to say nothing of any significance, that too is a lie, because as we have seen, sex is inherently meaningful.
The marriage principle is something of an axis, a centre, around which all other aspects of sexuality rotate: when we are clear, that sex belongs in marriage, and only there, we are not singling out any other behaviours for some unique criticism: rather, we are seeing them through the ‘marriage principle.’ Is this difficult and demanding? Is it counter-cultural? Most certainly. Is it realistic? That’s a big question, needing more time that we have, but I believe that it is best answered with another question: Is the trajectory we currently find ourselves on, with its confusion, its brokenness, its off-the-chart statistics for STDs, its sadness and anxiety… is this trajectory realistic in the long term? The indications are not universally encouraging. And however demanding, we need to be acquiring and promoting a better vision.
Human Brokenness: ‘Culture Wars,’ and the Battle in each Human Heart
We know, of course, that the issues of sex and sexuality are a battlefield. The ‘war’ is not just a culture war: it takes place, to some measure, in each human heart. Among the effects of our brokenness, our sinfulness, is our capacity to turn giving and receiving into imposing and grasping, and that has direct consequences for human sexuality. Under the influence of sin (and we are all under the influence of sin), men and women experience sexual desire not only as a healthy force inviting us to give of ourselves, to be people of communion; that same desire is often experienced as an urge to possess, to use.
I’ve used the religious term, ‘sin,’ but let’s be mindful that what I’m touching on is observable, empirical: the brokenness of humanity in the sphere of sexuality is part of our social and personal experience. And whether we use the faith-language of sin, or more secular terms to describe that brokenness, it’s clear that we need to exercise some care when it comes to sex and sexuality. We need to do more than just ‘go with the flow’ of our desires, impulses and urges. And because we all share, in some measure, in this brokenness, we proclaim our understanding of sexuality gently, compassionately. This vision is not a cudgel with which to beat sinners. It is, rather, medicine for our healing; it is kindly wisdom for our walk through life.
Think about your own relationships for a moment. If you are married, ask yourself how important in your marriage are realities like commitment, self-restraint, self-gift, sacrifice, love? Would your marriage work without them? Hardly. That’s because these attitudes, mindsets, ways of being in the world, are simply necessary for healthy, contented living.
But who is teaching these values to our children? How much mention of self-gift and of sacrifice do we find in our school programmes? How much talk of love? And isn’t it interesting that the only considered reference to conception is when the topic is contraception; not making babies in a committed relationship, but avoiding them in a non-committed relationship. There are mentions of care and respect, and who would argue against that, but who is to teach our youngsters that self-gift is about more than, to use a phrase from a recent NCCA document,[2] ‘consent, intimacy and mutual pleasure’? And no, it’s not that we’re against consent, intimacy and mutual pleasure, but these things are – or should be – part of a deeper and more far-reaching reality. If we seek to educate our youngsters in sexuality, but we don’t teach and model and inculcate things like self-gift, self-restraint, sacrifice and commitment, then we are leaving them ill-equipped, if not actually handing them over to a world of disposable relationships and broken hearts.
[1] Consider the humorous personal ad: ‘Wanted: meaningful overnight relationship.’ It’s funny because we know it’s absurd. It wouldn’t be any less absurd if we extended the duration from ‘overnight’ to ‘for the weekend,’ or ‘for the summer break.’
[2] NCCA Draft Senior Cycle SPHE specification for consultation.
ENDS
