The Roman Catholic Church has little to say about the sexual morality of married couples, but what it does say has great import. The Church affirms the commandment against adultery found in the Bible. (While there are many other prescriptions in the Bible regarding sexual conduct, they apply to people who are not married to each other.) In addition to this the Church teaches that it is morally obligatory that married couples not engage in genital sexual activity with each other unless (1) the activity culminates in vaginal intercourse, and (2) neither spouse is using artificial contraceptives when the activity takes place.

     This teaching is based in part on a premise derivable from both the Bible and natural law as the Church understands them (natural law is moral law apprehended by human reason apart from divine revelation). This premise is: God has imposed on the human race the obligation to procreate. I accept the truth of this premise.

     But the teaching of the Church cannot be derived from this premise without the addition of a supporting premise. The supporting premise is as follows. If the human race is to procreate, it is necessary that married couples not engage in genital sexual activity with each other unless (1) the activity culminates in vaginal intercourse, and (2) neither spouse is using artificial contraceptives when the activity takes place.

     This supporting premise is demonstrably false. Over the course of human history innumerable married couples have engaged in genital sexual activity that has not met the Church's criteria, and yet the human race has successfully reproduced itself. As long as sufficient numbers of couples choose to have children for the sake of having children, the moral obligation of procreation that God has imposed on the human race as a whole does not imply that every married couple has a moral obligation to abide by the Church's criteria.

     That leaves us with the commandment against adultery, and the overarching commandment to love God with one's whole heart and one's neighbour as oneself, as the guiding principles for the morality of sex in marriage. In this Theological Soapbox I shall outline how I think the commandment to love God and neighbour can be applied to provide clear direction to the consciences of married people in the conduct of their sexual lives.

     For the purpose of this article I shall define love simply as the choice to do what one believes to be for the good of another. Christian couples begin their marriage by explicitly and publicly stating their choice to love one another. They undertake to express this love within the covenant of marriage, a covenant which obligates them to share themselves and their possessions in as full a way as a man and woman can.

     If love calls for spouses to do what they believe to be for one another's good, they must learn what things are good for one another. They begin marriage already knowing that what is good for people in general will also be good for their spouse in particular. Therefore, they know from the beginning of the marriage that it will be for their spouse's good if they are truthful, kind, generous, affectionate, trustworthy, reliable and faithful.

     If the couple decide to have a child, then they will agree on having vaginal intercourse and foregoing contraception. This cooperation will be an expression of love.

     If the couple find pleasure in sexual activity, they will find ways to make it as pleasurable as possible. If the two people differ in the strength and frequency of the desire for sex, they will find ways to accommodate one another and compromise. 

     In all these matters they will be guided by knowledge of what is good for their spouse. This knowledge will come not only from their knowledge of what is good for people in general, but also from what they learn about their spouse that makes their spouse different from everybody else.
Let's look at some examples. 

     There are several ways in which genital sexual activity can benefit a couple. I have already mentioned that sex for the purpose of procreation can benefit the couple and advance God's plan for humanity. But sex can also benefit a couple in respect of the way it schools a couple in the art of love, in the pleasure it gives, the playfulness it introduces into the couple's intimate life, and what it can heal and teach through the theatre of sex. By providing any one of these benefits to one's spouse, a person fulfills the commandment of love. It is not necessary that every sex act have procreation as one of its purposes.

     The procreative aspect of sex is well understood. I will turn my attention to the other ways in which sex can benefit a married couple.

     Sex as school in the art of love. Every married person is challenged to balance their needs and desires in having sex with the needs and desires of their spouse. They must be attentive to the body, emotions and spirit of their spouse. They must learn how to communicate their wishes and feelings to their spouse and pay attention to what their spouse is communicating. They must learn how to negotiate their way to mutual satisfaction. If they can do these things in their sexual lives, they will be well equipped to do them in other aspects of their life together and in their relations with other people.

     Sex as pleasure. Historically the Church has not only ignored the benefit of sexual pleasure, it has regarded it as a source of temptation. But as married couples well know, the pleasure of sex is more than a physical sensation. Satisfying sex relaxes each spouse. Their bodies shed tension and this has healthful psychological and spiritual consequences. The cares and anxieties of life seem less pressing. There is a profoundly felt sense that all is right with the world, which Christians experience as the feeling of being loved by God. For the spouses the words of Psalm 131, "But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a child quieted at its mother's breast; like a child that is quieted is my soul," apply also to the peace and serenity that follows upon sexual intimacy.

     Sex as play. The companionable and free-spirited sexual activity of the spouses retains the same playfulness that children experience in play. Were it not for sex, some married couples would never play together. And as play and shared secrets bond children, so does it bond spouses. The "Why don't we try this?" and "I have an idea!" involved in sexual experimentation has a childlike simplicity and openness that exemplifies the words of Jesus, "Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3). In sex we shed our pretensions and status symbols with our clothes. In being naked with our spouse we make ourselves equal to them and to every other human being, for without our clothes, and what they represent, all humans are equal.

     Sex as theatre. In sex the spouses act out fantasies and take on roles that express aspects of themselves that they have repressed. For example, cross-dressers and those who indulge in domination and bondage are often ashamed to reveal those sides of themselves. But if their spouse is willing to take part in the theatre of sex, if only as audience, they are able to allow these aspects of themselves to surface. This makes it possible for them to gain insight into themselves and why they are the way they are. It gives hope that they will be able to achieve integration of their whole personality. Through self-expression comes self-discovery, and through self-discovery comes the possibility of healing the mind and soul.

     Acting out repressed fantasies --- the willingness to make oneself so vulnerable --- is based on trust in one's spouse, and when it meets with love and acceptance, the result is even greater trust and a willingness to explore even deeper within oneself. Physical orgasm is a powerful symbol that brings together many things, both conscious and unconscious, in the psychic and spiritual life of a person. In the theatre of sex orgasm may be incorporated as an element through which important aspects of oneself are brought to light. In its symbolic use, orgasm need not be tied exclusively to vaginal intercourse.

     In developing a sound moral theology of sex in marriage, the contribution of couples who have experienced sex as  schooling in the art of love, pleasure, play, and theatre, must carry as much, if not more, weight as the views of celibate theologians. In the previous millennium this has not been the case in the Roman Catholic Church.

     Married couples cannot sin by any sexual act they freely engage in with one another. They may sin by selfishly withholding themselves from their spouse or by adultery, but they cannot sin by having sex with each other in whatever way they mutually agree on.

     In my next Theological Soapbox I will address the moral questions raised by unmarried people living together and by homosexuality.
 

Arthur Menu, Sidney, B.C.