V

VERITAS

Catholic Sexual Ethics

Dr. William E. May
 The Knights of Columbus presents
The Veritas Series
“Proclaiming the Faith in the Third Millennium”

Catholic Sexual Ethics

by
DR. WILLIAM E. MAY

General Editor
Father John A. Farren, O.P.
Director of the Catholic Information Service
Knights of Columbus Supreme Council
 Nihil obstat
Censor Deputatus
Reverend Isidore Dixon

Imprimatur
Reverend Monsignor Kevin Farrell
Vicar General for the Archbishop of Washington
April 26, 2001

The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is
free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who
have granted the nihil obstat and imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or
statements expressed.

Copyright © 2001 by Knights of Columbus Supreme Council. All rights reserved.

Cover: © PhotoDisc Inc.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Write:

Catholic Information Service

Knights of Columbus Supreme Council
PO Box 1971
New Haven, CT 06521-1971
www.kofc.org/cis
[email protected]
203-752-4267
203-752-4018 fax
Printed in the United States of America
 CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Dignity of the Human Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Existential, Religious Significance
of Human Acts as Freely Chosen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Norms for Making True Moral Judgments
and Good Moral Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Major Issues in Sexual Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Goods at Stake in Sexual Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Evaluating Specific Kinds of Sexual Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

-3-
-4-
 INTRODUCTION
In some ways the teaching of the Catholic Church on sexual
ethics is well known. Most people know what the Church teaches.
Her basic teaching is this: one can rightly choose to exercise one’s
genital sexual powers only when one, as a spouse, freely chooses to
engage in the conjugal act and, in that act, chooses to respect fully
the goods of mutual self-giving and of human procreation. From
this it follows that it is never morally right to unite sexually outside
of marriage, i.e., to fornicate or commit adultery, or to masturbate
or commit sodomy, i.e., have oral or anal intercourse, whether with
a person of the opposite or of the same sex, nor ought one
intentionally to bring about or maintain sexual arousal unless in
preparation for the conjugal act.
Unfortunately, a great many people, including large numbers
of Catholics, do not know why the Church teaches this. Many
believe that her teaching is anti-sex, rigoristic and repressive,
completely unrealistic and indeed inhuman. Some, among them
influential Catholic theologians, charge that “official” Catholic
sexual teaching is based on an untenable, “physicalistic” view of
natural law, one that makes persons slaves to their biology and one
completely irreconcilable with a “personalistic” understanding of
the moral order.
-5-
 Here I hope to show that the teaching of the Catholic Church
on sexual ethics, far from enslaving persons, liberates them and
enables them to become fully themselves. It helps them come into
possession of their desires and not be possessed by them. It does so
because it is rooted in a profound reverence for human persons, male
and female, as bodily, sexual beings, summoned from their depths
to self-giving love. I will begin by considering (1) the dignity of the
human person and (2) the existential, religious significance of
human acts as freely chosen. Then, after identifying (3) the true
moral norms necessary if our freely chosen deeds are to be morally
good, I will consider (4) major issues of sexual ethics.

1. THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

According to Catholic teaching, human persons have a
threefold dignity: (1) the first is intrinsic, natural, inalienable, and
an endowment or gift; (2) the second is also intrinsic, but it is not
an endowment but rather an achievement, made possible, given the
reality of original sin and its effects, only by God’s never-failing
grace; (3) the third, also intrinsic, is, like the first, a gift, not an
achievement, but a gift far surpassing man’s nature and one that
literally divinizes him.
The first dignity proper to human persons is their dignity as
living members of the human species, which God called into being
when, in the beginning, he “created man in his own image and
likeness…male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Every
human being is a living image of the all-holy God and can be called
a “created word” of God, the created word that his Uncreated Word
became and is precisely to show us how much God loves us.
When we come into existence we are, by reason of this
intrinsic dignity, persons. In virtue of this dignity, every human
being, of whatever age or sex or condition, is a being of moral worth,
-6-
irreplaceable and non-substitutable. Because of this dignity, a
human person, as Karol Wojtyla affirms, “is the kind of good that
does not admit of use and cannot be treated as an object of use and
as such a means to an end” but is rather a “good toward which the
only adequate response is love.”1
As persons, we are endowed with the capacity to know the
truth and to determine ourselves by freely choosing to conform our
lives and actions to the truth.2 Yet when we come into existence we
are not yet fully the beings we are meant to be. And this leads us to
consider the second kind of dignity identified above.
This is the dignity to which we are called as intelligent and
free persons capable of determining our own lives by our own free
choices. This is the dignity we are called upon to give to ourselves
(with the help of God’s unfailing grace) by freely choosing to shape
our choices and actions in accord with the truth. We give ourselves
this dignity by freely choosing to conform our lives to what the
Second Vatican Council called “the highest norm of human life,”
namely, the “divine law itself—eternal, objective, and universal—
by which God orders, directs, and governs the whole universe and
the ways of the human community according to a plan conceived in
wisdom and in love.”3 Human persons can come to know this
highest norm of human life because God has made them so that they
can, through the mediation of conscience, recognize his wise and
loving plan, his divine and eternal law.4 Indeed, “Deep within his
conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself
but which he must obey…. For man has in his heart a law written
by God. His dignity lies in observing this law, and by it he will be
judged.”5 To give ourselves this dignity we must choose in accord
with the truth, a subject taken up below.
The third kind of dignity is ours as “children of God,” brothers
and sisters of Jesus, members of the divine family. This kind of
-7-
dignity is a purely gratuitous gift from God himself, who made us
to be the kind of beings we are, i.e., persons gifted with intelligence
and freedom, because he willed that there be beings inwardly
capable of receiving, should he choose to grant it, the gift of divine
life. And God has chosen to give us this utterly supernatural gift in
and through his Son become man, Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus truly
shares our human nature, so human persons who are re-generated in
the waters of baptism and into whose hearts the love of the Holy
Spirit has been poured share Jesus’ divine nature and become one
body with him. This dignity obviously is of crucial significance in
considering the goodness of human choices and, in particular, of
sexual choices, as I will show at the conclusion of this essay.

2. THE EXISTENTIAL RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE OF HUMAN ACTS

AS FREELY CHOSEN
Human acts are not merely physical events that come and go,
like the falling of rain or the turning of the leaves, nor do they, as
Karol Wojtyla emphasized in The Acting Person, “happen” to a
person. They are, rather, the outward expression of a person's
choices, for at the core of a human act is a free, self-determining
choice, an act of the will, which as such is something spiritual that
abides within the person, giving him his identity as a moral being.
The Scriptures, particularly the New Testament, are very clear
on this. Jesus taught that it was not what enters a person that defiles
him; rather it is what flows from the person, from his heart, from
the core of his being, from his choice, that does this (cf. Matthew
15:10f; Mark 7:14-23).
Although many human acts have physical, observable
components, they are morally significant because they embody and
carry out free human choices. Because they do, they abide within the
person as dispositions to further choices and actions of the same
-8-
kind, until a contradictory kind of choice is made. Thus I become
an adulterer once I freely adopt by choice the proposal to have sex
with someone other than my wife. I commit adultery in the heart
even before I engage in the outward, observable act. And I remain
an adulterer, disposed to commit adultery again, until I make a
contradictory choice, i.e., until I sincerely repent of my adultery, do
penance, and commit myself to amending my life and being a
faithful husband.
Pope John Paul II emphasizes this in his Encyclical Veritatis
splendor. Reflecting on the question the rich young man asked of
Jesus, “Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?” (Matthew
19:16), the Holy Father says: “For the young man the question is
not so much about rules to be followed, but about the meaning of
life.”7 The rich young man’s question has this significance precisely
because it is in and through the actions we freely choose to do that
we determine ourselves and establish our identity as moral beings.
“It is precisely through his acts,” John Paul II writes, that man
“attains perfection as man, as one who is called to seek his Creator
on his own accord and freely to arrive at full and blessed perfection
by cleaving to him.” Our freely chosen deeds, he continues, “do not
produce a change merely in the affairs outside of man, but, to the
extent that they are deliberate choices, they give moral definition to
the very person who performs them, determining his most profound
spiritual traits.”8 Indeed, each choice involves a “decision about
oneself and a setting of one’s own life for or against the Good, for or
against the Truth, and ultimately, for or against God.”9 Through
our freely chosen acts we give to ourselves our identity as moral
beings, our character, which can be described as “the integral
existential identity of the person—the entire person in all his or her
dimensions as shaped by morally good and bad choices—considered
as a disposition to further choices.”10
-9-
 We are free to choose what we are to do and, by so choosing,
to make ourselves to be the kind of persons we are. But we are not
free to make what we choose to do to be good or evil, right or
wrong. We know this from our own sad experience, for at times we
have freely chosen to do things that we knew, at the very moment
we chose to do them, were morally wrong. We can, in short, choose
badly or well; and if we are to make ourselves to be fully the beings
God wills us to be, we need to choose well, i.e., in accordance with
the truth. To this issue we will now turn.

3. NORMS FOR MAKING TRUE MORAL JUDGMENTS AND GOOD

MORAL CHOICES
Human choices and actions, whether morally good or morally
bad, are intelligible and purposeful. Sinful choices, although
unreasonable and opposed to the order of reason, are not irrational,
meaningless, absurd. All human choice and action is directed to
some end or purpose, and the ends or purposes to which human
choices and actions are ordered are considered as “goods” to be
pursued. The “good” has the meaning of what is perfective of a
being, constitutive of its flourishing or well-being. Thus the
proposition good is to be done and pursued and its opposite, evil, is
to be avoided is a practical proposition to which every human person,
as intelligent, will assent once its meaning is understood.11 This is a
principle or “starting point” for intelligent, purposeful human choice
and action. It is indeed the first principle of natural law.
Moreover, this is not a vacuous or empty principle. It is given
content and specified by identifying the real goods perfective of
human persons, aspects of their flourishing or well-being toward
which they are dynamically ordered by their nature as human
persons. Saint Thomas Aquinas identified a triple-tiered set of such
human goods which, when grasped by our reason as ordered to
action (“practical reason”), serve as first principles or starting points
- 10 -
for practical deliberation—“what am I to do?” Aquinas’ first set
includes being itself, a good that human persons share with other
entities, and since the being of living things is life itself, the basic
human good at this level is that of life itself, including bodily life,
health, and bodily integrity. His second set includes the sexual
union of man and woman and the handing on and educating of
human life, a set of goods human persons share with other sexually
reproducing species but, of course, in a distinctive human way. His
third set includes goods unique to human persons, such as
knowledge of the truth, especially truth about God, fellowship and
friendship with other persons in a human community (friendship
and justice, peace), and the good of being reasonable in making
choices or what can be called the good of practical reasonableness.
The practical principles directing us to these goods are first
principles of natural law rooted in the fundamental principle that
good is to be done and pursued and its opposite avoided.12
The practical principles based on these goods, principles such
as life is a good to be preserved, knowledge of the truth is a good to
be pursued, etc. direct us to the goods perfective of our being as
persons. But they do not, of themselves, help us to discriminate
between possibilities of choice and action that are morally good and
morally bad. Indeed, even sinners appeal to these goods and the
principles directing that they be pursued in order to “justify” or,
better, to “rationalize” their immoral choices. Thus a research
scientist who unethically experiments on human persons, lying to
them about the nature of the experiments because he realizes that
they would never consent to undergo them if they knew the truth
about them, rationalizes his immoral behavior by appealing to the
good of the knowledge to be gained through these experiments and
its potential benefits for the life and health of other persons.
If these principles of practical reason do not help us determine,
before choice, which alternatives of choice are morally good from
- 11 -
those that are morally bad, then what principles enable us to do
this? Let us see what Saint Thomas teaches here. In showing that all
of the moral precepts of the Old Law can be reduced to the ten
precepts of the Decalogue (which he considered to be the proximate
conclusions of the natural law from its first and common principles),
Saint Thomas taught that the commandments that we are to love
God above all things and our neighbor as ourselves, while not listed
among the precepts of the Decalogue, nonetheless pertain to it as
the “first and common precepts of natural law.” Consequently, all
the precepts of the Decalogue must, he concluded, be referred to
these two love commandments as to their “common principles.”13
Thus for Saint Thomas the very first moral principle or normative
truth of the natural law enabling us to discriminate between
morally good and morally bad possibilities of choice can be
articulated in terms of the twofold command of love of God and love
of neighbor. This is hardly surprising, for Saint Thomas was a good
Christian and knew that Jesus himself, when asked, “Teacher, which
is the greatest commandment in the law?,” replied: “You shall love
the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and
with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And
a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these
two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Matthew
22:32-40; cf. Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-28; Romans 13:10).
In short, for Saint Thomas – and the entire Judeo-Christian
tradition – the very first moral principle or normative truth to guide
choices is that we are to love God above everything and our
neighbor as ourselves. Moreover, and this is exceedingly important,
there is an inseparable bond uniting this first moral principle to the
first practical principles noted above that direct us to the goods
perfective of us as human persons. For these goods are gifts from a
loving God that we are to welcome and cherish; and it is obvious
that we can love our neighbor as ourselves only if we are willing to
- 12 -
respect fully the goods perfective of them, the goods that enable
them to become more fully themselves. We can love our neighbor
only by willing that these goods flourish in them, and by being
unwilling intentionally to damage, destroy or impede these goods,
to ignore them or slight them or put them aside because their
continued flourishing keeps us from doing what we please to do
here and now.
Pope John Paul II has well expressed the indissoluble bond
between love for the goods of human existence—the goods to which
we are directed by the first principles of practical reasoning—and
love for our neighbor. Commenting on the precepts of the
Decalogue concerned with our neighbor, he reminds us (as Aquinas
did) that these precepts are rooted in the commandment that we are
to love our neighbor as ourselves, a commandment expressing “the
singular dignity of the human person, ‘the only creature that God
has wanted for its own sake.’”14
After saying this, the Holy Father continues, in a passage of
singular importance, by emphasizing that we can love our neighbor
only and respect his inviolable dignity only by cherishing the real
goods perfective of him and by refusing intentionally to damage,
destroy, impede, ignore, neglect these goods or in any other way
close our hearts to them and to the persons in whom they are meant
to flourish. Appealing to the words of Jesus, he highlights the truth
that “the different commandments of the Decalogue are really only
so many reflections on the one commandment about the good of the
person, at the level of the many different goods which characterize
his identity as a spiritual and bodily being in relationship with God,
with his neighbor, and with the material world…. The
commandments of which Jesus reminds the young man are meant
to safeguard the good of the person, the image of God, by protecting
his goods…. [The negative precepts of the Decalogue]—‘You shall
not kill; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You
- 13 -
shall not bear false witness’ express with particular force the ever
urgent need to protect human life, the communion of persons in
marriage,” and so on.15
In saying this Pope John Paul II is simply articulating once
again the Catholic moral tradition, which centuries ago was
summarized by Saint Thomas Aquinas when he said that “God is
offended by us only because we act contrary to our own good.”16
This fundamental normative truth is further clarified, in my
opinion, in the formula proposed by Germain Grisez, namely, that
“in voluntarily acting for human goods and avoiding what is
opposed to them, one ought to choose and otherwise will those and
only those possibilities whose willing is compatible with integral
human fulfillment,” i.e., with a heart open to every real good meant
to flourish in human persons.17
If we are to choose in accordance with this basic normative
truth, other normative truths help specify its requirements. First of
all, to choose in accord with it we must take into account the real
goods of human persons at stake in specific choices and actions—to
ignore them or disregard them is to manifest a will, a heart, not
seriously concerned with them. Likewise, we are to pursue real
goods of human persons, the intelligible goods grasped by practical
reason, and not substitute for them merely sensible goods such as
pleasure. Moreover, each of these goods requires us that, when we
can do so as easily as not, we avoid acting in ways that inhibit its
realization and prefer ways of acting which contribute to its
realization. In addition, each of these goods requires us to make an
effort on its behalf when its realization in some other person is in
peril and we are in a position to be of help in protecting it. Other
requirements necessary if we are to shape our choices and actions in
accord with this basic norm can be spelled out, for instance, fairness
(the “Golden Rule”). One crucial requirement is that we ought not
- 14 -
choose, with direct intent, to set these goods aside, to destroy,
damage, or impede them either in ourselves or in others. We can be
tempted to do this either out of hostility toward certain goods or
persons or because we arbitrarily prefer some goods to others and the
continued flourishing of some of the real goods of human existence
inhibits our participation, here and now, in some other good that we
prefer.18 In short, we are not to do evil so that good may come about
(Romans 3:8).

4. MAJOR ISSUES IN SEXUAL ETHICS

Like all choices, sexual choices must conform to the truth, if
they are to be morally good and enable men and women to give to
themselves the dignity to which they are called from the depths of
their being. This means that sexual choices must respect the
inviolable dignity of human persons as made in God’s image and to
this they must respect the real goods of human persons.

The Goods at Stake in Sexual Choices

What goods are at stake in making sexual choices? What
goods come into focus (or ought to come into focus) when one is
thinking about exercising his or her genital, sexual capacity? They
are the following: (1) the good of life itself in its transmission, or the
procreative good; (2) the good of intimate human friendship; (3) the
good of marriage itself; (4) the good of personal integrity, a good
intimately related to what Pope John Paul II calls the “nuptial
meaning” of the body.
The first two of these goods are obviously at stake when one
considers engaging in genital sex. That the good of life itself in its
generation is “in focus” in the exercise of one’s genital sexual powers
is clearly indicated by the fact that the powers in question are called
“genital.” The act of sexual coition is the sort or kind of act
- 15 -
intrinsically apt for the generation of human life. The practice of
contraception confirms this, for a person does not contracept if he or
she is about to go fishing or read a book or shake hands, etc., for one
realizes that acts of these kinds are not intrinsically apt for
generating human life. One contracepts only when one (a) chooses
the kind of act, genital coition, which one reasonably believes is the
kind of act intrinsically apt for generating life and (b) chooses to
make it to be the sort of act through which human life can not be
given. As is easily seen, (b) is the contraceptive choice.
Contraception makes no sense otherwise. That the good of intimate
human friendship is also at stake in genital coition is evident from
the fact that genital coition is possible only between two persons,
one male, the other female. In short, when one chooses to engage in
genital coition the goods at stake are those identified as the
“unitive” and “procreative” goods of human sexuality. Even if one
chooses to exercise his or her genital sexuality solitarily, as in
masturbation, or in sodomitical or non-coital acts (anally or orally
or what have you), one realizes that one is exercising a personal
sexual power that has inherently both life-giving (procreative) and
person-uniting (unitive) dimensions.
Also at stake in genital choices is the good of marriage itself.
Marriage is truly a basic human good, complex in nature. But it is
an intrinsic good of human persons, inwardly perfective of them and
a component of human flourishing. It is indeed, in the words of the
Second Vatican Council, “an intimate partnership of life and marital
love” (intima communitas vitae et amoris coniugalis), a covenant of love
ordered by its very nature to the procreation and education of
children,19 who are indeed the “crowning glory” and “supreme gift”
(praestantissimum donum) of marriage.20
Another good intimately affected by the choice to have sex is
the good of “personal integrity.” This good, as John Finnis notes,
requires “fundamentally, that one be reaching out with one’s will,
- 16 -
i.e., freely choosing real goods, and that one’s efforts to realize these
goods involves, where appropriate, one’s bodily activity, so that that
activity is as much the constitutive subject of what one does as one’s
act of choice is.”21 The good of personal integrity entails one’s own
bodily integrity, for one’s body is integral to one’s being as a human
person. Hence this good of personal integrity is basically an aspect
of what John Paul II calls the “nuptial meaning” of the body. The
human body is the “sacrament” of the human person, the revelation
of the person. And since the human body is inescapably either male
or female, it is the revelation of a man-person or a woman-person.
Precisely because of their sexual differences, revealed in their bodies,
the man-person and the woman-person can give themselves to one
another bodily in the act of genital coition. The bodily gift of the
man-person to the woman-person and vice versa is the outward sign
of the communion of persons existing between them. The body,
therefore, is the means and sign of the gift of the man-person to the
woman-person. This capacity of the body to express the communion
of persons existing between the man-person and the woman-person
constitutes its nuptial meaning.22
Human choices and actions, including sexual ones, are not
morally good and in conformity with the truth and dignity of the
person if they fail to respect fully the goods perfective of human
persons, goods such as life itself, friendship, marriage, and personal,
bodily integrity. If one acts contrary to any of these human goods,
one violates personal dignity and closes one’s heart to integral
human fulfillment.

Evaluating Specific Kinds of Sexual Acts

I will now consider (1) marriage and the marital act; (2)
contraception, whether by the married or the nonmarried; (3)
heterosexual coition outside of marriage; (4) solitary genital activity
(masturbation) and sodomitical intercourse (anal and oral sex) with
- 17 -
another person, whether of the same sex (homosexual activity) or of
the opposite sex.

1. Marriage and the Marital Act

Marriage comes into being when a man and a woman,
forswearing all others, through “an act of irrevocable personal
consent”23 freely give themselves to one another as husband and
wife. At the heart of the act establishing marriage is a free, self-
determining choice through which the man and the woman give
themselves a new and lasting identity. The man becomes this
particular woman’s husband, and she becomes this particular man’s
wife, and together they become spouses. Prior to this act of
irrevocable personal consent, the man and the woman are separate
individuals, replaceable and substitutable in each other’s lives. But
in and through this act they make each other irreplaceable and
nonsubstitutable persons.24
By their choice to give themselves to one another in marriage
husbands and wives capacitate themselves to do things that non-
married persons simply cannot do. First of all, they capacitate
themselves to give one another conjugal or marital love, a love
universally regarded as utterly distinctive and exclusive.25
Husbands and wives, moreover, capacitate themselves to engage in
the marital or conjugal act, an act exclusive and proper to them. It
is absolutely imperative to recognize that a marital act is not simply
a genital act between persons who “happen” to be married.
Husbands and wives have the capacity to engage in genital acts
because they have genitals. Unmarried men and women have the
same capacity. But husbands and wives have the capacity (and the
right) to engage in the marital act only because they are married.
Precisely as marital, the marital act inwardly participates in the
goods of their marital union, their one-flesh unity, one open to the
gift of children. The marital act, in other words, inwardly
- 18 -
participates in the different goods or “blessings” which go to make
up the marital good itself, i.e., the good of steadfast marital fidelity
(the mutual self-giving, the unitive good of marriage) and the good
of children (the procreative good of marriage).
The marital act is unitive, i.e., a communion of persons. In it
husband and wife come to “know” each other in a unique and
unforgettable way, revealing themselves to each other as unique and
irreplaceable persons of different but complementary sex.26 In this
act they “give” themselves to one another in a way that concretely
expresses their sexual complementarity, for the husband gives
himself to his wife in a receiving sort of way while she in turn
receives him in a giving sort of way. The “nuptial significance” of
the husband’s body, which expresses his person as a male, enables
him personally to give himself to his wife by entering her body-
person and doing so in a receiving sort of way, while the “nuptial
meaning” of the wife’s body, which expresses her person as a female,
enables her to “receive him” personally into herself and in doing so
to “give” herself to him.27
The marital act is also a procreative kind of act. In giving
themselves to each other in this act, husband and wife become, as it
were, one complete organism capable of generating human life.
Even if they happen to be infertile, their marital union is the sort or
kind of act intrinsically apt for receiving the gift of new human life
should conditions be favorable.28 Moreover, and this is crucially
important, husbands and wives, precisely because they are married,
have capacitated themselves, as nonmarried persons have not, to
cooperate with God in bringing new human persons into existence
in a way that responds to their dignity as persons. Marriage itself has
capacitated husbands and wives to “welcome life lovingly, nourish it
humanely, and educate it in the love and service of God and
neighbor,”29 to give this life the “home” it needs and merits in order
to grow and develop.
- 19 -
 In short, the marital act is open to the good of human life in
its transmission (the procreative good), to the good of marital
friendship, and to the good of personal, bodily integrity, for in this
act the bodily activity of husband and wife is as much the
constitutive subject of the act as is their choice to engage in it. This
act thus also respects the nuptial meaning of the body, for in it the
man-person gives himself to his wife in a receiving sort of way,
while the woman-person, in turn, receives her husband into herself
in a giving sort of way. Thus the marital act fully respects the good
of marriage itself considered as a complex whole. In choosing to
engage in the marital act, husbands and wives commit themselves
to the pursuit of real human goods, executing this commitment by
an interpersonal bodily act of communication and cooperation. The
marital act actualizes and allows the spouses to experience their real
common good—their marriage itself, with the other goods of
procreation and friendship and personal bodily integrity which are
the parts of marriage’s wholeness as an intelligible common good
even if, independently of the spouses’ will, their capacity for
parenthood will not be fulfilled in a given marital act. The marital
act is, consequently, a morally good kind of act.

2. Contraception, Whether Marital or Nonmarital

Pope Paul VI provided a clear description of it. He identified
it as any act intended, either as end or as means, to impede
procreation, whether done in anticipation of intercourse, during it,
or while it is having its natural consequences.30 When persons
engaging in coition contracept they execute two choices. First (1),
they choose to engage in sexual coition, an act that they reasonably
believe is the kind of act through which human life can be given.
But because they want to engage in this act of coition but do not
want new human life to come to be through it, they then choose,
secondly (2) to do something prior to, during, or subsequent to their
- 20 -
freely chosen act of sexual coition precisely to impede the beginning
of the new life that they reasonably believe could begin otherwise.
Choice (2) is the choice to contracept.
Although persons engaging in genital sex may have good
reasons to avoid causing a pregnancy (e.g., the health of the woman,
the fact that the sexual partners are not married, etc.), and although
they may appeal to these good reasons to rationalize their behavior,
their present intention is precisely to impede the beginning of a new
human life. They do not want that life to be, and thus do something
in order to prevent it from being. In other words, the precise object
of their choice31 is to prevent new human life from beginning.
Contraception is, therefore, an anti-life kind of an act, as a long
Christian tradition, extending to the Fathers of the Church, has
taught.32 In choosing to contracept, therefore, one is choosing to
violate a basic human good: human life in its transmission.33
Moreover, should new life come to be despite one’s efforts to impede
it, that life will come to be as an unwanted child. This does not, of
course, mean that all those who contracept will be willing to abort
the life conceived despite the efforts to prevent its conception, but
this temptation will be present, and it is for this reason that
contraception can be regarded as the “gateway to abortion.”34
Contraception is not only anti-life, it is also anti-love, and for
this reason it has an added malice when married couples choose to
contracept. When they do so, their freely chosen genital union can
no longer be considered truly a marital act, which, as we have seen,
is open to the goods of marriage, including the good of human life
in its transmission. When spouses contracept, “they ‘manipulate’
and degrade human sexuality – and with it themselves and their
married partner – by altering its value of ‘total’ self-giving.” As
John Paul II says, “the innate language that expresses the total
reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through
contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely,
- 21 -
that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to
a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the
inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in
personal totality.”35

3. Heterosexual Coition Outside of Marriage

When nonmarried men and women choose to have sexual
coition, their choice is immoral because it violates the goods of
human life in its transmission, of marriage and human friendship,
and of personal integrity and the nuptial meaning of the body.
Nonmarital sexual coition (fornication or adultery) violates the
good of human life in its transmission precisely because this life has
a right to a home where it can grow and develop. But nonmarried
persons simply cannot give new life this home precisely because
they have not capacitated themselves, as married couples have, to
“welcome life lovingly, nourish it humanely, and educate it in the
love and service of God.” Practically all civilized societies, until
recently, rightly regarded it irresponsible for unattached men and
women to generate new life through their acts of fornication, and it
is a sign of a new barbarism, completely opposed to the “civilization
of love,” that many today assert the “right” of “live-in lovers” and of
single men and women to have children, whether the fruit of their
coupling or the “product” of new “reproductive” technologies.
Fornicators can – and usually do – attempt to avoid generating life
by contracepting, but, as we have already seen, by doing so they add
to the immorality of fornication the immorality of contraception.
Fornicators and adulterers also act contrary to the good of
friendship and of marriage. Although they may whisper to each
other, “I love you,” as they engage in fornication or adultery, their
chosen act of coition is not and cannot be a true act of love. It cannot
be such precisely because they have refused to “give themselves” to
- 22 -
one another in marriage, to make each other irreplaceable and
nonsubstitutable. Their genital act, far from uniting two
irreplaceable and nonsubstitutable persons, in reality merely joins
two individuals who remain, in principle, replaceable,
substitutable, and disposable. The partners may have some deep
feelings of tenderness and affection for one another, but such
feelings are far different from authentic human love, which takes
such feelings, the “raw material of love” as Karol Wojtyla calls
them, and integrates them into an intelligent commitment to the
personhood of the other.36 The genital union of the nonmarried
cannot be the sign and expression of a full personal giving. Rather,
it merely simulates this sign and falsifies it. It is, in short, a “lie.”37
Not only does nonmarital sexual coition violate the goods of
human life, marriage and marital friendship; it also violates the
good of personal integrity insofar as those choosing this act are not
reaching out with their wills and bodies to participate in authentic
goods of human existence. They are rather using their bodies to
participate in the sensibly experienced pleasure of genital orgasm
separated, precisely because of their free choice, from the intelligible
goods (those of human life itself, marital friendship) into which this
pleasure is to be integrated.
Finally, if one of the parties to nonmarital coition is married to
another, adultery is committed, an utterly unjust act insofar as it is
specified by the choice to put into the marriage bed someone other
than the one whom one had made nonsubstitutable by one’s free
choice to marry.

4. Masturbation and Sodomy

Masturbation. Masturbatory sex does not directly violate the
goods of human life in its transmission and of marriage and marital
friendship, although it is definitely a choice that scorns these goods.
- 23 -
But masturbation directly attacks personal integrity and the body’s
capacity for self-giving, its “nuptial meaning.”
The immediate intention of the masturbator is to have a
sentient and emotional experience: the sensation of orgasm and the
accompanying emotional satisfaction. Masturbation is the choice to
have the sentient and emotional experience of sexual orgasm by the
manipulation of one’s own sexual capacity. But, as Grisez says in a
very perceptive passage:
In choosing to actuate one’s sexual capacity precisely in
order to have the conscious experience of the process and
its culmination, one chooses to use one’s body as an
instrument to bring about that experience in the
conscious self. Thus the body becomes an instrument
used and the conscious self its user. This is done when
one works and plays, and also when one communicates,
using the tongue to speak…the genitals to engage in
marital intercourse. In such cases, the body functions as
part of oneself, serving the whole and sharing in the
resulting benefits [in short, in such cases the body is
integrated fully into “personal integrity”]. By contrast,
in choosing to masturbate, one does not choose to act for
a goal which fulfills oneself as a unified bodily person.
The only immediate goal is satisfaction for the conscious
self; and so the body, not being part of the whole for
whose sake the act is done, serves only as an extrinsic
instrument. Thus, in choosing to masturbate one chooses
to alienate one’s body from one’s conscious subjectivity.38
Such self-alienation amounts to an existential dualism between
the consciously experiencing subject and his/her body, i.e., a
division between body and conscious self. Masturbation damages
the unity of the acting person as conscious subject and sexually
- 24 -
functioning body. But “this specific aspect of self-integration
is…precisely the aspect necessary so that the bodily union of sexual
intercourse will be a communion of persons, as marital intercourse
is. Therefore, masturbation damages the body’s capacity for the
marital act [its “nuptial meaning”] as an act of self-giving which
constitutes a communion of bodily persons.”39 Because it does this,
masturbation violates the good of marital communion insofar as
such communion can only be realized by the bodily gift of self.
Masturbation is therefore intrinsically evil.
Sodomy. Sodomitical acts, e.g., anal sex, oral sex, can be either
heterosexual (done by persons of the opposite sex) or homosexual
(done by persons of the same sex). Such acts are in many ways similar
to acts of masturbation insofar as sodomites choose to use their own
and each other’s bodies as a mere means of providing consciously
experienced satisfactions. They thus choose in a way that violates the
good of personal integrity as bodily persons insofar as they treat their
own and each other’s bodies as mere instruments of the consciously
experiencing subject. They thus violate the nuptial meaning of the
body and thus the body’s capacity for the marital act, and in this way
they violate the good of marriage itself.40
Today many claim that individuals who find that their
homosexual disposition cannot satisfy their sexual urges and natural
inclination toward intimate communion save by establishing a more
or less permanent and exclusive relationship, including genital
intimacy, with a person of the same sex, are morally justified insofar
as their relationship can be regarded as marital. Indeed, some today
claim that homosexually inclined persons have a right to marry and
that their sexual unions ought to be legally recognized as marital.
This apologia for homosexual sodomy is specious. We can
grant that homosexual partners can share a committed relationship
with sincere mutual affection, with a desire to express their
- 25 -
friendship in appropriate ways. But their bodily coupling does not
in truth unite them so that they form, as do husbands and wives,
one complete reproductive couple. Their acts of sodomy do not
contribute to their common good as friends or to the goods specific
of marriage. The intimacy they experience is private and
incommunicable and is no more a common good than the
experience of sexual arousal and orgasm. It can only provide the
illusion of a communion of persons in one-flesh. As Finnis has
pointed out:
[T]heir activation of one or even each of their procreative
organs cannot be an actualizing and experiencing of the
marital good – as marital intercourse (intercourse
between spouses in a marital way) can be, even between
spouses who happen to be sterile – it can do no more than
provide each partner with an individual gratification. For
want of a common good that could be actualized and
experienced by and in this bodily union, that conduct
involves the partners in treating their bodies as
instruments to be used in the service of their consciously
experiencing selves; their choice to engage in such
conduct thus disintegrates each of them precisely as
acting persons…. Sexual acts cannot in reality be self-
giving unless they are acts by which a man and a woman
actualize and experience sexually the real giving of
themselves to each other – in biological, affective, and
volitional union in mutual commitment, both open
ended and exclusive – which…we call marriage.41

CONCLUSION
Here I want to show how our dignity as God’s very own
children, members of the divine family, brothers and sisters of
Christ and members of his body, requires us to honor the goods of
- 26 -
human sexuality and human persons. Through baptism we have
become one body with Christ. Saint Paul spells out the meaning of
this for sexual ethics when he writes:
Do you not see that your bodies are members of Christ?
Would you have me take Christ’s members and make
them members of a prostitute? God forbid! Can you not
see that the man who is joined to a prostitute becomes
one body with her? Scripture says: ‘The two shall become
one flesh.’ But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes
one spirit with him. Shun lewd conduct. Every other sin
a man commits is outside his body, but the fornicator
sins against his own body. You must know that your
body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is within—
the Spirit you have received from God. You are not your
own. You have been purchased, and at a price. So glorify
God in your body (1 Corinthians 6:15-20).42
Marriage is good – it is a gift from God (cf. Genesis 1-2) – and
marital union is good. Moreover, the marriages of baptized persons,
of those who are already indissolubly united to Jesus Christ, are
sacraments of his life-giving, love-giving, grace-giving bridal union
with his spouse the Church, not only pointing to this great reality
but efficaciously making it present in the world here and now so long
as the spouses put no obstacles in the way. But any kind of
nonmarital sex is for the Christian a sacrilege. In the text from 1
Corinthians Saint Paul specifies the sacrilegious character of sex with
a prostitute – porneia in that sense. But in that letter and elsewhere
he and other New Testament writers used the Greek term porneia,
translated above as “lewd conduct,” broadly, to include not only
prostitution and fornication but also other non-marital genital acts.43
Those who have become one body with Christ realize that they
can give glory to God in their bodies, as Saint Paul admonishes
- 27 -
them, only by respecting the good of marriage, the nuptial meaning
of the body, their own personal integrity, and the great gift of
human life which God himself wills to come into being through the
love-giving union of husband and wife in the marital act. They
realize, too, that they cannot be faithful to Christ, who said to his
disciples, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder
them” (Matthew 19:14) if they deliberately set out to impede the
beginning of these children’s lives by contracepting. They know,
too, that one dishonors the goods at stake in sexual choices not only
by outwardly observable acts, but also by inwardly hankering for
them in their desires and aspirations. Their prayer is that God may
create in them a pure and loving heart.

- 28 -
 ENDNOTES

1
Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, trans. H. Willetts (New York: Farrar,
Straus, Giroux, 1981), p. 41. This is Wojtyla’s famous “personalistic norm.”
2
A baby, pre-born or born, does not, of course, have the developed capacity for
deliberating and choosing freely, but he has the natural or radical capacity to
do so because he is human and personal in nature.
3
Vatican Council II, Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis humanae, n. 3.
4
Ibid.
5
Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern
World Gaudium et spes, n. 16; emphasis added.
6
Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, The Acting Person, trans. A. Potocki
(Dordrecht/Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1979), pp. 198-199.
7
Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis splendor, n. 7.
8
Ibid., n. 71.
9
Ibid. n. 65. See n. 71, where the Pope cites a remarkable passage from St.
Gregory of Nyssa’s De Vita Moysis where he says “we are in a certain way our
own parents, creating ourselves as we will, by our decisions.”
10
Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 1, Christian Moral Principles
(Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1983), p. 59.
11
See St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 1-2, q. 94, a. 2; see also Germain
Grisez, “The First Principle of Practical Reason: A Commentary on the Summa
Theologiae, 1-2, Question 94, Article 2,” Natural Law Forum 10 (1965) 168-
201; see also Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, pp. 178-182.
12
See St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 1-2, q. 94, a. 2. See a. 3 of the
same question for the good of practical reasonableness.
- 29 -
13
Ibid., 1-2, q. 100, 3 and ad 1.
14
Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis splendor, n. 13; the internal citation is
from Vatican Council II Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern
World Gaudium et spes, n. 22.
15
Ibid., n. 13.
16
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, 3.122.
17
Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, p. 184.
18
For a fuller discussion of these moral truths see Grisez, Christian Moral
Principles, pp. 205-225; John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1980), chapter 3; Finnis, Fundamentals of Ethics
(Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1984), pp. 74-78; William E.
May, An Introduction to Moral Theology (rev. ed.: Huntington, IN: Our Sunday
Visitor, 1994), pp. 77-80.
19
Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern
World Gaudium et spes, n. 48.
20
Ibid., nn. 48, 50. In his Encyclical Veritatis splendor Pope John Paul II
explicitly includes “the communion of persons in marriage,” violated by
adultery, among the goods of human persons (n. 13; see also nn. 48, 50, 67,
78, 79). On marriage as a fundamental good of human persons, intrinsically
good, see Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2, Living a Christian
Life (Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1993), pp. 555-584.
21
John Finnis, “Personal Integrity, Sexual Morality, and Responsible
Parenthood,” Anthropos: Rivista di studi sulla persona e la famiglia 1 (1985) 46,
emphasis added. Anthropos is now called Anthropotes.
22
The “nuptial meaning of the body” is developed by Pope John Paul II in
many of his addresses on the “theology of the body” given at his Wednesday
audiences, in particular those given between September 5, 1979 and May 6,
1981. These addresses are found in Pope John Paul II, The Theology of the Body:
- 30 -
Human Love in the Divine Plan (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1997). See
in particular, “The Nuptial Meaning of the Body” (General Audience of
January 9, 1980), pp. 60-63; “The Human Person Becomes a Gift in the
Freedom of Love” (General Audience of January 16, 1980), pp. 63-66; and
“The Mystery of Man’s Original Innocence” (General Audience of January 30,
1980), pp. 66-69.
23
Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern
World Gaudium et spes, n. 48; see also Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn.
1627-1628; Code of Canon Law, can. 1057.
24
Here the words of the late German Protestant theologian Helmut Thielicke
are most significant. He wrote: “Not uniqueness establishes the marriage, but
the marriage establishes the uniqueness.” The Ethics of Sex (New York: Harper
& Row, 1963), p. 108.
25
On the distinctive characteristics of conjugal love see Vatican Council II,
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et spes, n.
48; Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae vitae, n. 9.
26
On this see Pope John Paul II, “Analysis of Knowledge and Procreation”
(General Audience of March 5, 1980), The Theology of the Body, pp. 77-80. In
the marital act husbands and wives, the Pope says, “reveal themselves to each
other, with that specific depth of their own human ‘self,’ which, precisely, is
revealed also by means of their sex, their masculinity and femininity….[T]he
reality of the conjugal union…contains a new and, in a way, a definitive
discovery of the meaning of the human body in its masculinity and
femininity.”
27
The ideas briefly set forth here are developed by me at more length in
Marriage: The Rock on Which the Family Is Built (San Francisco: Ignatius Press,
1995), chap. 2, “Marriage and the Complementarity of Male and Female.” See
also Robert Joyce, Human Sexual Ecology: A Philosophy of Man and Woman
(Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1980), pp. 35-50.
28
On this see Robert George and Gerard V. Bradley, “Marriage and the Liberal
Imagination,” The Georgetown Law Review 84 (1995) 301-320.
- 31 -
29
See St. Augustine, De genesi ad literam, 9, 7 (PL 34.397).
30
Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae vitae, n. 14.
31
On this see Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis splendor, n. 78. See also
the excellent essay of Martin Rhonheimer clarifying this passage,
“Intrinsically Evil Acts and the Moral Viewpoint: Clarifying a Central
Teaching of Veritatis splendor,” in Veritatis Splendor and the Renewal of Moral
Theology, eds. J. A. DiNoia, O.P., and Romanus Cesssario, O.P. (Chicago:
Midwest Theological Forum, 1999), pp. 161-194.
32
See, for instance, the following: (1) St. John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on the
Epistle to the Romans, PG 60.626-627; (2) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra
gentiles, 3.122; (3) the “Si aliquis” canon into the canon law of the Church in
the Decretum Greg. IX, lib. V, tit. 1, cap. V and part of the Church’s canon law
from the mid-thirteenth century until 1917; text in Corpus iuris canonici, ed.
A. L. Richter and A. Friefburg (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1881), 2.794; (4) the
Roman Catechism, Part II, chap. 7, no. 13. See also John Calvin, Commentaries on
the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, ch. 38:9,10; this text, in which Calvin
likens contraception to homicide (as do sources 1-4), is cited by Charles D.
Provan, The Bible and Birth Control (Monongahela,, PA: Zimmer Printing,
1989), p. 15. Provan notes that this passage is omitted by the editor of the
“unabridged” series of Calvin’s Commentaries, published by Baker Book
House.
33
The argument that contraception is anti-life is developed at length by
Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William E. May, “‘Every
Marital Act Ought To Be Open to New Life’: Toward a Clearer
Understanding,” The Thomist 52 (1988) 365-426.
34
On this, see Chapter Four, “Contraception and Respect for Human Life,” in
my book Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life (Huntington, IN: Our
Sunday Visitor Press, 2000).
35
Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation on The Role of the Family in the
Modern World Familiaris consortio, n. 32.
36
See Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, pp. 73-84.
- 32 -
37
Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation The Role of the Christian Family
in the Modern World Familiaris consortio, n. 11.
38
Grisez, Living a Christian Life, p. 650.
39
Ibid.
40
See ibid., pp. 653-654.
41
John Finnis, “Law, Morality, and ‘Sexual Orientation,’” Notre Dame Law
Review 69 (1994) 1066-1067. See also Robert P. George and Gerard V.
Bradley, “Marriage and the Liberal Imagination,” Georgetown Law Journal 84
(1995) 301-320; Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, “What Sex Can Be: Self-
alienation, Illusion, or One-Flesh Union,” American Journal of Jurisprudence 42
(1997) 135-157.
42
The Council of Trent appealed to this text of St. Paul, when, in opposing
Luther, it solemnly defined that nonbelief is not the only mortal sin (see DS
1577/837). Trent showed this by pointing out that, according to Paul, divine
law also excludes from the kingdom “those with faith who are fornicators,
adulterers, effeminate (molles), sodomites, thieves, covetous, drunkards, evil-
tongued, greedy (see 1 Cor 6:9-10) and all others who commit mortal sins”
(DS 1544/808).
43
On this see the excellent studies by Silverio Zedda, S.J., Relativo e assoluto
nella morale di San Paolo (Brescia: Paideia, 1984), chap. 5, pp. 63-85 and O.
Larry Yarborough, Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of St. Paul
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985).

- 33 -
 A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

William E. May is the Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral

Theology at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and
Family at The Catholic University in Washington, D.C., where he has
been teaching since 1991.

Professor May received his doctorate in philosophy from Marquette

University in 1968 with a study of the metaphysics of Henri Bergson.
He is the author of more than a dozen books.

Pope John Paul II appointed Professor May to serve on the

International Theological Commission from 1986 through 1997. Pope
John Paul also appointed him a “peritus” for the 1987 Synod of
Bishops on the vocation and mission of the lay faithful in the Church
and in the world. In September 2003 the Pope appointed him a
consultor to the Congregation on the Clergy.

Dr. May serves as Visiting Professor of Moral Theology at the Institute

for the Psychological Sciences, Crystal City, VA, the Notre Dame
Graduate School of Christendom College Alexandria, VA; from 1991-
2004 he was Visiting Professor of Moral Theology at the Università
della Santa Croce, Rome, Italy, he has also served as Visiting Professor
at the School of Bioethics of the Ateneo Pontificio Regina
Apostolorum, Rome, Italy.

Since 1958 he has been married to Patricia Keck May. They are the
parents of seven children, and are now the grandparents of fourteen
grandchildren. For more information: www.christendom-awake.org.

- 34 -