CATHOLlCISM, HISTORY OF 143

Jerm
nous CATHOLlCISM, HISTORY OF. Christian moral teachings on sexuality evolved
zroy somewhathaphazardly over the centuries, with successive generations appropriating ear-
, Sex
lier positions often based on very different premises. A series of fairly negative accretions,
hy F.
so to speak, were added one upon another until, in the eighteenth century, we arrive at an
000,
(oral absolutelynegative estimation of sexual desire. The teachings, for the most part, reflected
vlore the concems of celibate men who, while pursuing a life of discipleship ("the state of spiri-
Jus- tualperfection"), found sexual desir~s to be obstacles rather than aids in the pursuit of that
~llis, perfection.The impact these teachings had on members of Christian cultures generally and
-69. Catholic cultures in particular remains to be learned. With reason, historian James
, and Brundage has claimed: "The Christian horror of sex has for centuries placed enormous
-43. strainon individual consciences and self-esteem in the Westem world" (9).
~blic Sexual desires were not understood as belonging to, or needing to be included in, a
OS3
broader understanding of human personality. Rather, they were as random and as precipi-
New
tous as they were for anyone who does not have a consolidating concept like "sexuality."
'onal
As arbitrary,powerful feelings, little about their nature lent their being conceptually incor-
lity."
uary
poratedinto an overarching reality. The idea of venereal desires was as unstable as the ex-
New perienced desires themselves. Language, too, hindered understanding sexual desires as
14:1 belongingto a more holistic category. Pierre Payer's remarks on medieval ideas of sexual-
Con- ity apply also to the very beginning of the Christian era:
hics:
,-76. A contemporary writer dealing with medieval ideas of sex faces a peculiar
Ison. problem of language. Treatises entitled "On sex" are nowhere to be found, nor
~om- does one find talk about "sexuality," because medieval Latin had no terms for
HIV the English words "sex" and "sexuality." In the strictest sense, there are no dis-
ophy cussions of sex in the Middle Ages. Whatever one might think of Michel Fou-
~xual
cault's overall thesis about the development of the history of sexuality in the
HS
West, his claim about the relatively late date for the invention of sex and sexu-
la C.
ality is, 1believe, of paramount significance. The concept of sex or sexuality as
\21);
'ress, an integral dimension of human persons, as an object of concem, discourse,
ples. truth, and knowledge, did not emerge until well after the Middle Ages. (14)
'Ise."
,ricia With that caveat, we tum now to the development of Christian teachings, on sexual desires.
alif.: The Judaic tradition believed in the moral rightness of spousal sexual intimacy and pro-
~ndy. creation. It did not commend celibacy for its rabbinical leaders, except for communal
~xual movements like the Essenes, who practiced celibacy. Regarding sexual conduct, the He-
v 2:2 brew Scriptures regularly upheld fidelity and repeatedly prohibited sexuallicentiousness.
V.,in Like their neighboring communities, the Israelites were patriarchal, and women were, in
1alue
effect, considered property.
hics.
In the Gospels, Jesus promoted the primacy of the love commandment and said very lit-
land
tle,about sexuality; an ethics of interiority that privileged the singleness of heart of the dis-
1aca,
Alan ciple was his major concem. Jesus acknowledged that celibacy was "only for those to
Love whom it is given" (Matt. 19: 10-12). Conceming gender, Luke asserted time and again the
'e: A agency of women as supporters and companions of Jesus: on his mission (8:1-3), at his
ams, passion (23:27-31), at his death (23:49), and at his burial (23:54-56). Most notably, at a
:hael time when women's testimony had no legal force, women were the first to announce the
:Oll11. Good News of Jesus's resurrection (24:1-11). Matthew (28:1-10) and John (20:11-18)
privileged the testimony of Mary Magdalene as the first witness and preacher of the Good
144 CATHOLlCISM, HISTORY OF

News. For this reason many scholars (especially Cahill; Schiissler Fiorenza) find a nearly humanity ofl
gender egalitarian approach to discipleship. Christians see in Acts of the Apostles, as the Church: "Thf
Church is born, that Mary the mother of Jesus (1:14) had a central role in receiving the gle persona, I
. .~
Holy Spirit with the twelve apostles. Elsewhere, other women are accorded leadership po- pugnaclOus 1]
sitions (e.g., Rom. 16). imitation of {
The Pauline letters express more interest in sexuality than the Gospels. Expecting that vinity and hu
I
the "end times" were coming, Saint Paul (5-64?) commended celibacy for those who became a k~
could wait (1 Cor. 7:39), marriage for those who could not. Marriage was a licit remedy bearing exellj
for sexual desire, while celibacy was preferable for those wishing to be free of anxiety (1 This integjI
Cor. 7:32). Paul's pragmatic view of marriage did not inc1udeprocreation. Paul regarded rate from theI
homosexual activity as an attribute of the idolatrous, who failed to recognize the revelation of the body~
of God in Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:26-27). Many ethicists (Hartwig; Jung and Smith) argue grating the Jj
that Paul's position was not based on any necessary connection between homosexuality tive task, iq
and idolatry but on a mere presumption that anyone who committed homosexual acts wor- discovery o~
shiped a false God. Marion Soards c1aims,however, "We cannot fault Paul's appraisal of a Christian d
homosexual behavior without denying the theological vision that informs his understand- From thisl
ing of God and humanity" (26). ity as a privii,
Paul's anticipation of the imminence of the "end time" proved mistaken, and Christians ing ever acJ
realized that they would have to develop a lifelong identity. This task was affected by the Antiquity," ~
way Christianity esteemed the human body. While sharing with other traditions the belief in mitted to th~
God as Creator and therein the goodness of the created world, Christianity distinguishedit- citizens fron
self by the Incarnation, the enfleshment of God. Hs centralliturgy revolvedaround eating livered the ~
the body and drinking the blood of its Savior; it defined the Church as the "Body of Christ"; preachers e~
and its hope was in the resurrection of the body. Not surprisingly, then, its most heated neutral, ind~
moral arguments were about gender, sexuality, and reproduction. Because Christianity took were subject
the human body seriously, the body became both sign and problem (Meeks, 130-49). ity did not gi
The Scripture scholar Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) wrote that, for Paul, soma ("body" Brown als
in Greek) "belongs inseparably, constitutively, to human existence. . . . The only human Women ben1
existence there is-even in the sphere of the Spirit-is somatic existence" (192). Bultmann c1aims of thl
argues that the body is so integrated into human existence that the human does not have of the Chun
soma but is soma. For this reason, Paul never used soma about a corpse. Soma was used to
combat the individualism of Gnosticism and provided the basis for the metaphysical unity
the benefad
Fathers, ho~
.
of the person and for the possibility of relationships (Jewett, 458). Paul did distinguish dom, it wasl
soma from sarx ("flesh"), which referred to negative desires that keep us from God. activity, lik(
. I
Michel Foucault (1926-1984) ruminated on whether sarx captured in some sense the the true VIr
Christian understanding of sexuality (5). His suggestion helps us comprehend Christian- womb. The
1
ity's esteeming the body while still having a "horror" of sexuality. Arguing, however,that but also sileJ
I
Paul's distinction between soma and sarx was a cause of Christianity's negative view of Still, Paul
sexuality would be difficult. who could i
The appreciation of body (soma) is tied to the early Christian hope in the resurrection. the person?j
Human fulfillment as embodied in the risen Christ is central for understanding the early nence, the Ii
Christians' hopes and moral responsibilities. From the second century, Christians "saw the this reason,!
integrated mortality of body and spirit as an anthropological necessity: only the immortal- under the n:iJ
ity of the whole person can make our present struggle to integrate the body and spirit With the adJ
meaningful" (Daley, 32). Human destiny as defined in the Risen Christ provided the op- was set forl
portunity and the demand for all Christians to find in their own bodies the fullness of the price. Cleni
Spirit of Christ. This task of personal integration was given greater impetus through marriage an
the resolution of the controversy about the identity of Jesus. Integrating the divinity and Stoics that i

L-
 CATHOLlCISM, HISTORYOF 145

ly humanity of Christ was the major theological project and accomplishment of the early
le Church: "The unity of Christ, possessor of two natures but remaining nonetheless one sin-
le gle persona, is . . . the main achievement of centuries of Christological and Trinitarian
)- pugnacious investigatlons" (Stroumsa, 35). This had practical significance in the ascetical
imitation of Christ, which called Christians to seek a unified ~elf:Just as Christ brought di-
at vinity and humanity into one, Christians were to bring body and soul together. Integration
10 became a key task for all early Christians, to "be an entity of body and soul, a Christ-
ly I
bearing exemplar" (Stroumsa, 39-40).
1 I
This integration of body and soul was distinctive. In Greek thought, the self was sepa-
d rate from the body: To know oneself meant to attend to one's soul, often at the exclusion I
n of the body. Thus when Christianity, believing humans are in God's image, made inte- I
le I
grating the body and soul a theological expression of humanity's integrity and a norma- I
y tive task, it proposed to the Western world a new understanding of the person. "The I
[- discovery of the person as a unified composite of soul and body in late antiquity was . . . I
if a Christian discovery" (Stroumsa, 44). I
l- From this task of integration, Peter Brown found that "the Christian doctrine of sexual- I
ity as a privileged symptom of personai transformation was the most consequential render- I
s ing ever achieved of the ancient and Christian yearriing for a single heart" ("Late I
e Antiquity,"300). The singleness of heart is achieved by imitating Jesus Christ, who sub- I
n mittedto the will of God. In Body and Society, Brown relates how Christian doctrine freed I
citizens from Roman control of their bodies (428-47). Christian attitudes to sexuality de- I
g livered the deathblow to the ancient notion of the city as the arbiter of the body. Christian
'.
, preachers endowed the body with intrinsic, inalienable qualities. The body was no longer a
d neutral, indeterminate outcrop of the natural world, whose usefulness and right to exist
k: weresubject predominantly to civic considerations of status and utility. Though Christian-
ity did not give sexuality stability, it did give stability to the body.
Brown also claims that chastity played a decisive role in liberating women from the city.
11 Womenbenefactresses in either a widowed or virginal state freed themselves from the
11 claimsof the city that they reproduce and became instead models of generosity in the life
~ of the Church. For Christians, the paradox of the closed womb was that it was a sign of
) the benefactress's openness to Scripture, Christ, and the poor. Joyce Salisbury in Church
y Fathers,however, is less enthusiastic about the closed womb: Rather than a sign of free-
11 dom,it was another exercise of control. As the woman was to absent herself from sexual
activity,likewise she was to remove herself from all worldly commerce. In particular, for
the true virgin and good Christian woman, a silent mouth was the corollary to the chaste
womb.The Christian community raised women to a privileged position for their chastity
butalso silenced them in return for that privilege.
Still,Paul's recommending sexual abstinence for those who could practice it left those
who could not with needed resolution. How could venereal desires be incorporated into
the person? Instead of seeing marriage, along with Paul, as resolving the fear of inconti-
nence,the lifelong call to integration required a positive purpose for maritai relations. For
thisreason, Christians turned to the Stoics, for whom sexual intercourse could be "brought
undertherule of reason not by subduing it but by giving it a rational purpose, procreation. . . .
Withthe adoption of the Stoic norm for sexual intercourse, the direction of sexual ethics
was set for centuries to come" (Farley, 2367). The Stoic purpose came, however, with a
price.Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215 CE),who maintained the morallegitimacy of
marriageand argued that condemning maritai sex was against the Gospels, held with the
Stoicsthat sex for the sake of pleasure, even in marriage, was contrary to law and reason
146 CATHOLlCISM, HISTORY OF

(2.10.92). The "Alexandrian rule" about pursuing sex for pleasure would vex Christians for
centuries.
The first time that sexual norms were developed was at the Council of Elvira in the early
fourth century (300-303?), which dedicated nearly half of its eighty canons to sexual con-
duct. "The Elvira canons seem to represent an attempt to define a Christian self-identity.
What made a Christian different from a pagan? Part of the answer, according to the Elvira
canons, was that Christianity observed a strict code of sexual ethics" (Brundage, 70).
Though it seems that nearly all clergy of the third century (whose maritai status was
known) were in fact married, Elvira was the first attempt to prohibit clerical marriage. In
the fourth century, sexual ethics underwent further development as Church Fathers began
writing specifically about venereal desires. Furthermore, Christianity, when it became the
state religion in the fourth century, took on institutional control of the population in much
the way pagan Rome had earlier controlled citizens' bodies. Finally, because integration or
single-heartedness remained the moral imperative, many Fathers fashioned a normative
framework from their personai experiences. In short, Christian sexual theology grew out of
the struggles of major figures whose ascetical programs for integration encountered the
impasse of their own sexual urges. This is most evident in the lasting impression SaintAu-
gustine (354-430) made on Christianity.
Three broad strokes paint Augustine's vision of sexuality. First, against Manichaeism
Augustine defended the moral rightness of marriage and of intercourse when engaged in
for procreation. He believed that intercourse for any other reason was morally wrong,
though not necessarily mortally sinfu!' Still, he believed that sexual desires were disor-
dered but could be restored to a rational order by submitting them to the purpose of pro-
creation. Second, in his later writings against Pelagianism, which rejected the necessity of
redemption by Christ, Augustine developed a theology of original sin. He located the
greatest effect of the sin in the basic disorder of sexual desire and placed the transmission
of sin in the act of intercourse. Thus sex became inextricably and irreversibly contami-
nated with sin in Christian theology. Still, Augustine held that if a married couple had in-
tercourse solely for procreation, they did not sin. If for mutual pleasure, they sinned,
though only slightly. But if they intended to avoid procreation, they sinned mortally. Third,
Augustine's troubling understanding of women and sexuality reflects the fact that theology
was being shaped by men, for men, and based on men's ,self-understanding. Since many
Fathers were hermits or monks, not only was their sexuality dispensable as they pursued
integration, but their relationships with women as persons were also dispensable. Augus-
tine "could not for the life of hirn think of any reason why woman should have been given
to man than for the procreation of children" (Mahoney, 66).
A second look at Augustine, however, highlights other features. Augustine upheld the
primacy of love in the moral tradition. He recognized the legitimacy of maritai claims, par-
ticularly the conjugal debt, that is, that a spouse had a right to sexual relations. And as dark
as his sexual views were, he was neither Manichaean nor Gnostic. Nor was he St. Jerome
(340-420), for whom it was best for men to have as little relations with women as possible,
whether as wife, concubine, or prostitute.
The Fathers' focus on procreation led to judgments about specific sex acts. If married
persons must not intend contracepted sex, they also must not engage in anal or oral inter-
course. In 342, the emperors Constantius and Constans outlawed such sexual activity as
deviant. This same edict also prohibited homosexual activity and was incorporated into
Theodosius's law in 390 and into the Theodosian Code in 438 (Crompton, 133-36). Social
tolerance of homosexuality was thwarted by civillaws that specifically opposed it on the

Jo.
 CATHOLlCISM, HISTORYOF 147

Dr belief that effeminacy weakened the state. Hence the death penalty was imposed on any
male who engaged in passive sexual activity. The Emperor Justinian (527-565), in imple-
ly menting the edict of 342, expanded the death penalty to inc1ude all males involved in any
n- homo sexual activity.
y. At the same time, virginity became a significant Christian practice in a communal con-
ra text. Sexual renunciation allowed women a freedom and a social role that marriage did not.
). Free of the real dangers of pregnancy, childbirth, and patriarchal dominance, these women
as could explore with other women a life with Christ in a setting largely ignored by the Fa-
[n thers. Their communities, along with men's religious communities, were a case of Chris-
m tianity's promoting a certain equality. The communities of the Benedictines are notable
1e reminders of the development of the institutional environments in which Christian virgin-
:h ity fiourished. Yet as monastic communities were developing, the sexuallives of monks
or came underscrutiny, especially with regard to the "vices" of the solitary life: masturbation,
ve sexual fantasy, even nocturnal emission. Both John Cassian (365-433) and Caesarius of
af Arles (470-543) wrote extensively on the need to subdue all infiuence of sexuality in the
h.e growth toward spiritual perfection. There were no writings against masturbation prior to
11- Cassian. I! was simply not considered a sexual offense (Brundage, 83, 103, 109-10; Cap-
pelli,77-132).
m The positions of the Fathers and early Councils and the later laws of the Roman Empire
m were constitutive elements in the formation of Christian moral teaching on sexual activity.
g, At the end of the sixth century, another format for moral teaching appeared, handbooks for
Ir- confession. At first, these were an attempt to establish fair penances for the monastic prac-
0- tice of confessing sins and receiving absolution. These "penitentials" were developed from
of the sixth to the twelfth century by abbots throughout Britain and continental Europe. By
h.e considering the seriousness of the sin, the attending circumstances, and the spiritual matu-
)n rity of the sinner, they sought to offer standard penances for the same type of action by the
11- same type of agent. Since most of those who assumed the practice of confessing were monks,
n- sexual sins were predominantly about solitary and same-sex activity. In the penitentials,
:d, these topics received great attention and, through them, monks were taught to be preoccu-
.d, pied with fears of same-sex desire, masturbation, other "impure thoughts," and nocturnal
gy emission. When one compares the penance of one abbot's penitential with another, a cer-
1Y tain appreciation of context arises. Most were concerned with the "dignity" of the male and
ed were considerably harsher on passive anal or oral intercourse, more grievous activities than
lS- taking another man's wife. In the pursuit of spiritual perfection, the issue of single-
en heartedness or_purity was paramount. Penitentials also considered the activities of nuns,
though they considered lesbian relations less seriously sinful. In rural communities the sins
he af bestiality were considered in detail.
lr- In the early thirteenth century, Pope Innocent III imposed on the entire Church the Easter
rk duty. For the first time, every Christian was required to confess her or his sinfulness at least
ne once annually. Henry Charles Lea, the great Protestant historian, called this the most signif-
te, icant legislation in the history of the Church (1:230). Prior to Innocent III's edict, most
Christians did not confess particular acts as sinful. That practice was reserved for those pur-
ed suing a life of spiritual perfection. But by the thirteenth century, being absolved of one's
~r- sinfulness was the key to salvation, and specific acts finally became the focus of ordinary
as Christians trying to understand whether they were among the sayed. So the penitentials
ItO were replaced by more comprehensive and sophisticated "confessional" manuals.
ial The penitentials were designed mostly for abbots and others hearing the confessions of
he monks and nuns, but the confessional manuals of the thirteenth century were, for the
148 CATHOLlCISM, HISTORY OF

Church, universal. The injunctions that once felI against monks and nuns pursuing spiritual inter1
perfection were now applied to the laity, and although confessional penances considered not~
not only the sin but also the rank of the sinner (clergy, nobility, serf, etc.), certain sins were acts i
still distinguished solely by their matter as grave. Masturbation, for instance, which was vari~
never a serious matter in the first four centuries, was now considered gravely sinfu!' The fro~
original genesis of that judgment depended precisely on the vocational choice of the monk vide:
who abandoned his sexuality for the sake of the asceticallife, yet what was a sin for an as- The)
cetic of forty years in the eighth century became a sin of the same gravity for a boy of is oft
twelve in the thirteenth. Similarly, whatever concern the empire may have had about ho- ploye
I
mosexual behavior and whatever policing it might have done about it, now, through the an- Noonan alsI
nual confession, the Church could police and socialIy control the behavior of those with
same-sex attractions-not only in the monastery but anywhere. The Church was now able the sin agat
Peraldus (d
to put "the fear of God" in everyone. In short, whatever sexual teachings prompted anxiety
Teachin~.
in monks and nuns as they pursued spiritual perfection became sources of anxiety inthe
ture. Thoug
laity. The difference, of course, was that there was no context of the pursuit of spiritual violated th~
perfection for most of the laity. Whereas the monk might fear damnation because he did . I
agamst nati
not strive adequately to realize his vocational choice, the layman of fifty now feared
Damian (1~ .1
damnation because he masturbated or had impure thoughts.
Just as penitentials before Innocent III were littIe concerned with women's solitary vices son wh0 Sl\
or same-sex attractions, the confessional manuals after Innocent III were just as disinter- Fourl
ested, if the women were not affecting the welI-being of menoNonetheless, caution is re- fort tl
quired about the self-understanding of persons regarding their sexual desires. Joyce withl
Salisbury argues that we are only beginning to learn the testimonies of women, particularly mastu
religious, and are finding that their read on sexuality and women is quite positive and nally~
hardly like that of the Fathers, abbots, and canonists ("Gendered Sexuality"). Similarly, cend~
Jacqueline Murray admonishes against presuming that the available writings give us any more:
accurate idea of even the "average" male's self-understanding. Historical research, having Darnian's CI
been dominated by these sin manuals, has not yet yielded adequate access to the common
57-66). I
person's ideas.
The penitential and confessional manuals eventualIy made their way into the canonical What w~
varied. ROD
manuals. The eleventh century marks the beginning of early canonical colIections that i
to a person,
would serve as the foundation for later canon law, and the twelfth century marks their sig-
cest, the sin
nificant development. These texts considered, for the most part, the penalties to be applied ~
Peter of POJ I
against clergy who were not sexualIy continent. But they also condemned anYsexual activ-
ity that was not procreative or did not take place in marriage. Gratian's Decretum (ca. 1140) mas~urbati~
bears witness to this (Brundage, 235-42; Noonan, 196-97, citing Decretum 2.32.2.1-3). sex
and mterco~
New Te
At this time there spawned a prominent conceptual category, "sins against nature." Ivo "contradictJ
(1040-1116) defined in his Decretum unnatural intercourse as "the use of a member not What liJ
granted for this" (9.110). Fusing Augustine's On Marriage and Concupiscence (2.20) with
Against the Second Answer af Julian (5.17), Ivo declared: "To act against nature is always its fit vessej
the male pel
unlawful and beyond doubt more flagrant and shameful than to sin by a natural use in for-
Aquinas (1!
nication or adultery" (9.106). John Noonan comments that Ivo's work is a milestone in the I
development of Church teaching in part because Ivo brings Augustine's texts into focus to Thesj
establish the gravity of sins against nature (172-73). About sins against nature, Noonan
writes:
neces~
excre~
.
eInissi
In the theological development of. the thirteenth century, anal intercourse, oral this is
intercourse, coitus interruptus, and departure from the assumed position in to be

.
 CATHOLlCISM, HISTORYOF 149

itual intercourse were all analyzed as instances of the maritai sin against nature. 1do
lered not believe it anachronistic to assume that the twelfth-century writers had such
were acts as referents for their catch-all phrase. In many of the later writers, too, the
was variety of sins comprehended by the "sin against nature" can only be inferred
The from a study of common theological usage. There is never any attempt to pro-
10nk vide a biologicaldescription of the acts condemned.Medical terms are eschewed.
n as- The vagina is usually described as "the vessel" or "the fit vessel." Ejaculation
IYof is often described as "pollution." The term "coitus interruptus" is never em-
t ho- ployed, but the usual description is "outside the fit vessel." (224)
~an-
with Noonan also notes that "sodomy and coitus interruptus are often treated as two varieties of
able the sin against nature" (226). As examples of those who wrote about both, he cites William
Peraldus (d. ca. 1274), Jean Gerson (1363-1429), andAntoninus (1389-1459).
I(iety
1 the Teachings on same-sex relationships were treated particularly under the sin against na-
'itua! ture. Though Augustine earlier had mentioned (ca. 397) that those citizens of Sodom who
~did violated the "male" angels acted against nature (Confessions 3.8.15), the notion of sinning
:ared against nature received its first extended discussion in The Book of Gomorrah by Peter
Damian (1007-1072). Damian devoted a section to the topic of the different types of per-
vices son who sin against nature.
nter- Four types of this form of criminal wickedness can be distinguished in an ef-
is re- fort to show you the totality of the whole matter in an orderly way: some sin
loyce with themselves alone [masturbation]; some by the hands of others [mutual
lady masturbation]; others between the thighs [interfemoral intercourse]; and fi-
: and nally, others commit the complete act against nature [anal intercourse]. The as-
lady, cending gradation among these is such that the last mentioned are judged to be
; any more serious that the preceding. (29)
lvmg
lffion Damian's concern is specifically with fellow monks committing these sins (Jordan, Sodomy,
57-66). .
nical What was defined as nature, and why one sin was understood as graver than another,
. that varied. Robert of Sorbonne (1201-1274), for instance, wrote that the c1oserone is related
r sig- to a person, the more seriously one sinned; because masturbation is the worst form of in-
plied cest, the sin of masturbation is the gravest (Glorieux, 54-57; Jordan, Ethics, 101). Later,
ictiv- Peter of Poitiers (1130-1205) agreed and dedicated a lengthy passage to the "monster of
140) masturbation" (Jordan, Sodomy, 105). Albert the Great (1206-1280) bestowed on same-
3). sexlntercourse a triple condemnation: It was a sin against grace, as condemned in the Old
" Ivo and New Testaments; it was a sin against reason; and it was a sin against nature, because it
:r not "contradicts the natural impulse to species continuity" (Jordan, Sodomy, 126).
with What links these sins together as unnatural was that the semen went elsewhere than into
ways its fit vessel; that is what constituted their unnaturalness. Further, semen did not pertain to
1 for- the male per se but more appropriately to the future of the species. Thus Saint Thomas
Inthe Aquinas (1224/25-1274) wrote in Summa contra gentiles:
:us to The seed, although superfluous as to the conservation of the individual, is yet
lonan necessary to the propagation of the species, while other superfluities, such as
excrement, sweat, urine, and the like, are necessary for nothing. Hence the
emission of the latter concerns only the good of the individual. But not only
this is required in the emission of the seed; it is also required that it be emitted
to be of use in generation, to which coitus is ordained. . . . The disordered
150 CATHOLlCISM, HISTORY OF
,a

emission of seed is contrary to the good of nature, which is the conservation of

the species. (bk. III, chap. 122)

Thomas elaborated this view in his later work, the Summa theologiae, in which he stated
that venereal use "is highly necessary to the common good, which is the conservationofthe
human race" (ILII.153.3). Here Thomas developed the natural teleology of (the male)re-
productive organ as belonging to the common good and laid the groundwork for supposing
that our reproductive organs existed not for ourselves but for the propagation of the species
(see Noonan, 244ff.; and on semen, Lutterbach). (

The sin against nature became a c1earmarker in the "moral" manuals of the sixteenthto t
the twentieth centuries that follow the confessional manuals of the twelfth to the sixteenth f
(Kosnick et aI., 43-44). From Albert and Thomas until the twentieth century, the moral 1
treatises distinguished between sexual sins "in accordance with nature" and those "con- s
trary to nature." The former sins inc1udedheterosexual fornication, adultery, incest, rape, t
and abduction; the latter sins (bestiality, masturbation, contracepted coitus, anal and oral t
intercourse) were, in general, more grievous, in virtue of the "common good" valuethe r
tradition placed on semen.
Sins against nature received further treatment by being coupled with two other concepts: c
intrinsic evil and "parvity of matter." Intrinsic evil was a fourteenth-century conceptthat t
characterized particular actions as absolutely, always wrong, regardless of circumstances, c
an a priori evaluation that removed from consideration any question of their morallegiti- 1
macy. Actions were put into this category either because they were against nature and/or t
because the agent had no right to the exercise of the activity (see Ugorji). CIassic examples t
of the latter inc1udedlying or the direct killing of the innocent. Instances of unnaturalacts n
satisfied both criteria, since in performing an unnatural act one exercised a forbiddenac- tl
tivity. The category of intrinsic evil, then, c1osed debate about the licitness of any sexual d
act in which a man's semen was emitted elsewhere than in his wife's vagina. tl
Nonetheless, the issue of the degree of the sinfulness was still open. The question arose 1
whether any sin of lust could be considered a light matter or had what the manualistscalled v
"parvity of matter." Since Aquinas, sins of lust were considered always mortally sinfuL d
Subsequent to the scholastics, fifteenth- and sixteenth-century casuists, influenced'bynom- 0
inalism and therefore not inc1ined to the concept of intrinsically evil actions, entertained
specific cases and varying circumstances. On their account, if actions were not to involve E
the illicit emission of semen and if the pleasure felt in the action was constitutive of thein- C
tention to engage licitly in conjugal relations, then such actions could be considered light (J
or venially sinful or, in some cases, not sinful at all. Likewise, kisses, or passing fantasies A
that did not linger or become a delectatio morosa, were also, in some instances, not con-
R
sidered mortal sins. Martin the Master (1432-1482), Jean Mair (1467-1550), Martin of
A
Azplicueta (1495-1586), and Thomas Sanchez (1550-1610) were among the major casu-
p
ists who could imagine that these fairly marginal sexual actions were morally light or per-
A
mitted (see Vereecke).
C
Though the Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) did not enter the discussion of \i
these more specific issues, it presented marriage among the seven sacraments and defined H
its three goods as "mutual assistance," "procreation," and "an antidote to avoid the sins k
of lust." For the most part, the Catechism attended to"the indissolubility of marriage R
(338-55). It addressed venereal desires specifically in its treatment of the Sixth Com- L
mandment, where it began with the observation: "The bond between man and wife is one P'
of the c1osest,and nothing can be more gratifying to both than to know that they are objects zj
 CATHOLlCISM, HISTORY OF 151

of mutual and special affection." However, it immediately wamed the pastor not to go into
too much detail when explaining the sins of the commandment, lest he "inflame corrupt
passion."The Catechism also recommended purity for all and dedicated almost all its com-
ment (without detail) to the filthy sin of impurity (431-39).
Among theologians writing in the moral manuals, the question of "parvity of matter"
continued unabated. In 1612 the Superior General of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) con-
demned the position that excused from mortal sin some slight pleasure in deliberately
soughtvenereal desires. Not only did he bind Jesuits to obey the teaching under pain of ex-
communication, but he imposed on them the obligation to expose the Jesuits who violated
even the spirit of the decree (Boyle, 14-16). These and other sanctions dissuaded moralists
from entertaining the lightness or licitness of circumstantial exceptions, as earlier casuists
had done. By 1750 the moral manualists locked into place the teaching that all sexual de-
sires and subsequent activity were always mortally sinful unless they were the conjugal ac-
tion of spouses that was in itself left open to procreation. Therein they assimilated into the
tradition the c1aimsthat sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments had no parvity of
matter. It is striking that this position did not apply to the other commandments.
"Parvity of matter," "intrinsic evil," and the absolute wrongness of "sins against nature"
combinedto isolate venereal desires. Moreover, the teleology of the reproductive organs as
belonging to the common good, the right of the spouse to c1aim the maritaI debt, and the
denial of the right of the agent to use his or her sexual organs for anything other than mar-
ital procreation isolated even the sexual organs-especially from the human person. Just as
the monk in the first millennium sought through ascetical practices to integraty himself
body and soul, but at the cost of dispensing with his sexual desires, so, too, in the second
millennium after the imposition of the Easter duty, celibate Church theologians deprived
the laity of the idea that sexual pleasure could be legitimate and any sense that their sexual
desires could ever lead to anything good. The theologians replaced the natural inc1ination
to satisfy those desires with a mortal fear of them and a moral pathology of sexuality itself.
The Gospel summons to love and the early Church's call to be one in mind and body de-
velopedwell throughout the centuries, but they never touched in any way on human sexual
desire.To the contrary, as Christianity advanced, it achieved a virtual moral quarantining
of sex.
See also Abortion; Abstinence; Augustine (Saint); Bestiality; Bible, Sex and the; Boswell, John;
Buddhism; Catholicism, Twentieth- and Twenty-First Century; Desire, Sexual; Foucault, Michel;
Gnosticism;Homosexuality, Ethics of; Judaism, History of; Marriage; Masturbation; Natural Law
(New);Paul (Saint); Perversion, Sexual; Protestantism, History of; Roman Sexuality and Philosophy,
Ancient;Social Constructionism; Thomas Aquinas (Saint)
REFERENCES

Augustine. Opera Omnia. Ed. Comelius Mayer. Charlottesville, N.C.: InteLex, 1997; Boyle, Patrick.
Parvitas Materiae in Sexto in Contemporary Catho/ic Thought. Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America, 1987; Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early
Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988; Brown, Peter. "Late Antiquity." In Paul
Veyne, ed., A History of Private Life, voI. 1: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1987,235-311; Brundage, James A. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in
Medieval Europe. Chicago, Dl.: University of Chicago Press, 1987; Bultrnann, Rudolf. "Soma." In
Rudolf Bultmann, ed., Theology of the New Testament, voI. 1. London: SCM, 1952, 192-203; Cahill,
Lisa Sowle. Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996; Cap-
peIli, Giovanni. Autoerotismo: Un problema morale nei primi seco/i cristiani? Bologna, ltaly: Edi-
zioni Dehoniano, 1986; Catechism of the Counci/ of Trent for Parish Priests Issued by Order of Pope
152 CATHOLlClSM, HISTORY OF

Pius V. Trans. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan. New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1934; Clement l1
of Alexandria. (ca. 190) Christ the Educator [Paidagogus].Trans. Simon P. Wood. New York:Fa- 1
thers of the Church, 1954; Crompton, Louis. Homosexuality and Civilization. Cambridge,Mass.: 'J
Harvard University Press, 2003; Daley, Brian. "The Ripening of Salvation." Communio 17 (Spring Z
1990),27-49; Damian, Peter. The Book of Gomorrah. Ed. Pierre Payer.Waterloo, Can.: Wilfrid Lau- ~
rier University Press, 1982; Farley, Margaret. "Sexual Ethics." In Warren Reich, ed., Encyclopediaaf a
Bioethics, rev. ed., voI. 5. New York: Simon Schuster Macmillan, 1995,2363-75; Foucault, Michel. e,
The History of Sexuality, voI. 2: The Use of Pleasure. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon, S
1985; Glorieux, PaIemon. Aux origins de la Sorbonne, voI. 1: Robert de Sorbon. [Etudes de philoso- E
phie medievale, LIII.] Paris: J. Vrin, 1965; Hartwig, Michael. The Poetics of lntimacy and the Prob- R
lem of Sexual Abstinence. New York: Peter Lang, 2000; Ivo. Opera Omnia. Paris: Laurentium A-
Cottereau, 1647; Jewett, Robert. Paul's Anthropological Terms. Leiden: Brill, 1971; Jordan, MarkD. E
The Ethics of Sex. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, 2002; Jordan, Mark D. The lnvention of Sodomy in 1
Christian Theology. Chicago, III.: University of Chicago Press, 1997; Jung, PatriCia Beattie, and n
Ralph F. Smith. Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge. Albany: State University of New York Press, L
1993; Kosnick, Anthony, William Carroll, Agnes Cunni~gham, Ronald Modras, and James Schulte. I\
Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought. New York: Paulist Press, 1977; V
Lea, Henry Charles. The History of Auricular Confession and lndulgences in the Latin Church, C
3 vols. Philadelphia, Pa.: Lea Brothers, 1896. Reprint, Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1968; B
Lutterbach, Hubertus. "Die Sexualtabus in den Bussbtichern." Saeculum 46:2 (1995), 216-48; Ma- V
honey, lohn. The Making of Moral Theology: A Study of the Roman Catholic Tradition. New York: E
Oxford University Press, 1987; Meeks, Wayne A. The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two 1
Centuries. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993; Murray, Jacqueline. "Hiding Behindthe ]:
Universal Man: Male Sexuality in the Middle Ages." In Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, E
eds., Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. New York: Garland, 1996, 123-52; Noonan, John T., Jr. Con- 1
traception:A History of lts Treatmentby the Catholic Theologians and Canonists. Cambridge, Mass.: F
Harvard University Press, 1965; Payer, Pierre J. The Bridling of Desire: Viewsof Sex in the LaterMid- 1
dle Ages. Toronto, Can.: University of Toronto Press, 1993; Peter of Poitiers. Summa de Confessione: t(
Compilatiopraesens. Ed. Jean Longere. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1980; Salisbury,Joyce. Church 1
Fathers,lndependent Virgins.London: Verso, 1991; Salisbury,Joyce. "Gendered Sexuality."In VernL. A
Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds., Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. New York: Garland, 1996, f/
81-102; Schtissler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. ln Memory of Her: A Feminist TheologicalReconstructionaf I\
Christian Origins. NewYork: Continuum, 1983; Soards, Marion. Scripture and Homosexuality:Bibli- E
cal Authority and the Church Today. Louisville, Ky.: Westminister John Knox, 1995; Stroumsa, C
Gedaliahu. "Caro salutis cardo: Shaping the Person in Early Christian Thought." History of Religions Jc
30 (August 1990), 25-50; Thomas Aquinas. Opera Omnia. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, C
1989; Ugorji, Lucius Iwejuru. The Principle of Double Effect: A CriticalAppraisal of lts Traditional E
Understanding and lts Modern Reinterpretation. Frankfurt am Main, Ger.: Peter Lang, 1985; iI
Vereecke, Louis. De Guillaume d'Ockham a Saint Alphonse de Liguori: Etudes d'histoire de Za S
theologie morale moderne, 1300-1787. Rome, Italy: Alfonsianum University, 1986. rt
L
James F.Keenan E
g
ADDITIONAL READING l1
S
Aries, Philippe. "St. Paul and the Flesh." In Philippe Aries and Andre Bejin, eds., Western Sexuality:
a
Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times. Trans. Anthony Forster. New York: Blackwell, 1985,
V
36-39; Baldwin, John W. "Consent and the MaritaI Debt: Five Discourses in Northem France around
I\
1200." In Angeliki E. Laiou, ed., Consent and Coercion to Sex and Marriage inAncient and MedievaZ
Societies. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1993,257-70; Benko, Stephen. Pagan Rome and the
Early Christians. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984; Brown, Peter. (1967) Augustine af
Hippo: A Biography, rev. ed. London: Faber and Faber, 2000; Brundage, James A. "Sex and Canon (
Law." In Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds., Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. New York: ti
Garland, 1996, 33-50; Bullough, Vern L. "Christianity and Sexuality." In Ronald M. Green, ed., tl
 CATHOLlCISM, TWENTIETH- AND TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY 153

Religion and Sexual Health: Ethical, Theological, and Clinical Perspectives. Boston, Mass.: Kluwer,
1992,3-16; Bullough, Vem L., and James A. Brundage, eds. Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. New
York: Garland, 1996; Burrus, Virginia. (1979) Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends: Essays and Trans-
lations, 2nd ed. New York: Mellen Press, 1982; BUITUS, Virginia. The Sex Lives of Saints: An Erotics
of Ancient Hagiography. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004; Clark, Elizabeth A.,
and Herbert Richardson, eds. Womenand Religion: A Feminist Sourcebook of Christian Thought, 1st
ed. NewYork: Harper and Row, 1977. Revised and expanded ed., Womenand Religion: The Original
Sourcebook of Women in Christian Thought. San Francisco, Calif.: HarperCollins, 1996; Daley,
Brian. The Hope of the Early Church. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Edwards,
RobertR., and StephenSpector,eds.The OldeDaunce:Love,Friendship,Sex,andMarriagein the
Medieval World. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991; Farley, Margaret A. "Sexual
Ethics." In Warren Reich, ed., Encyclopedia of Bioethics, voI. 4. New York: Free Press, 1978,
1575-89; Farley, Margaret A. "Sexual Ethics." In Warren Reich, ed., Encyclopedia of Bioethics,
rev. ed., voI. 5. New York: Simon Schuster Macmillan, 1995,2363-75; Fuchs, Eric. (1979) Sexual
Desire and Love: Origins and History of the Christian Ethic of Sexuality and Marriage. Trans.
Marsha Daigle. New York: Seabury Press, 1983; Grisez, Germain, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis,
William E. May, and John C. Ford. The Teaching of "Humanae Vitae": A Defense. San Francisco,
Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1988; Harrington, Daniel, and James F. Keenan. Jesus and Virtue Ethics:
Building Bridges between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology. Lanham, Md.: Sheed and
Ward, 2002; Hawkes, Gail. Sex and Pleasure in Western Culture. MaIden, Mass.: Polity, 2004;
Keenan, James F. "The Casuistry of John Mair." In James F. Keenan and Thomas A. Shannon, eds.,
The Context of Casuistry. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1995,85-102; Keenan,
James F. "Christian Perspectives on the Human Body." Theological Studies 55:2 (1994), 330-46;
Keenan, James F. "The Open Debate: Moral Theology and the Lives of Gay and Lesbian Persons."
Theological Studies 64: 1 (2003), 127-50; Keenan, James F., ed. Catholic Ethicists on H/V/AIDS
Prevention: Thirty-seven Theologians from around the World Show How Roman Catholic Moral
Traditions Can Mediate the Clash of Values in H/V Prevention. New York: Continuum, 2000; Lut-
terbach, Hubertus. Sexualität im Mittelalter: Eine Kulturstudie anhand von Bussbiichern des 6. bis
12. Jahrhunderts. Cologne, Ger.: Böhlau Verlag, 1999; MeNeilI, John T., and Helena M. Gamer.
Medieval Handbooks of Penance:A Translation of the Principal Ubri Poenitentiales and Selections
from Related Documents. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938; Murray, Jacqueline. "Twice
Marginal and Twice Invisible: Lesbians in the Middle Ages." In Vern L. Bullough and James A.
Brundage, eds., Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. New York: Garland, 1996, 191-222; Nolan, John
Gavin. Jerome and Jovinian. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1956; Noonan,
John T., Jr. (1965) iContraception: A History of /ts Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and
Canonists, enlarged ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986; Pagels, Elaine. Adam,
Eve, and the Sqpent. New York: Vintage, 1988; Payer, Pierre J. "Confession and the Study of Sex
in the Middle Ages." In Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds., Handbook of Medieval
Sexuality. New York: Garland, 1996,3-32; Payer, Pierre J. Sex and the Penitentials: The Develop-
ment ofp Sexual Code, 550-/ / 50. Toronto, Can.: University of Toronto Press, 1984; Porter, Jean.
Divine and Natural Law: Reclaiming the Tradition for Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1999; Portmann, John. Sex and Heaven: Catholics in Bed and Prayer. New York: Pal-
grave Macmillan, 2003; Ranke-Heinemann, Uta. (1988) Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven:
Women, Sexuality, and the Catholic Church. Trans. Peter Heinegg. New York: Penguin, 1990;
Stone, Lawrence. "Sex in the West." The New Republic (8 July 1985),25-37; Tentler, Thomas. Sin
and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977;
Westermarck, Edward. Christianity and Morals. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner; New York:
Macmillan, 1939.

CATHOLlCISM,TWENTIETH- AND TWENTY-FIRST--CENTURY. Twen-

tieth-century Roman Catholic treatment of sexuality involved both major changes in atti-
tude and few, but significant, developments in official teaching. The principal issues