Reflection on "Human Sexuality: 'Wonderful Gift' and 'Awesome Responsibility'" (by Richard Sparks, C.S.P.)

     It was interesting to me that during the 1990's U.S. Catholic Bishops went out of their way to reshape the negative aura that the church seemingly cast around sex. Also, I was surprised that they included homosexuals in a paragraph about "wisely handling ones purity." However, the age old familiar words of "chastity and virtue are wonderful gifts" etc. etc. are abundantly present. Not to say that I disagree, of course, it's just I'm not sure I like the style in which the messages are expressed. It's almost as if some of the paragraphs were written by an extremely conservative person who is trying to spin his or her argument so that is sounds more appealing to people with more centralist views.

      I generally liked the way the passage talks about the "unitive dimension" of sex, and of course I was not surprised at all by what I found in the "procreative dimension" section. That is a theme I recognized because of it's current prominence in the media and it's central importance to church beliefs, especially now in our society.

     This anti-contraception theme is continued in the paragraphs about marriage. I was surprised, although I suppose I shouldn't have been, by the extreme rigidity of the Church's stance. "Regarding other birth control methods, the Catholic Church teaches that 'a couple may never, by direct means (i.e., contraceptives), suppress the procreative possibility of sexual intercourse'." While I knew that was the case, I guess I'd never focused on it enough to actually see the teaching spelled out so clearly in writing. Honestly, it seems as if the church is being somewhat unreasonable. I think their expectations of people are set much too high, in that they are so adamantly opposed to both contraception and abortion. I understand that the two beliefs go hand in hand, and to condone one and not the other would be contradictory.  But what about being realistic?  This is 2012.  According to Church teachings, if you have sex, you have to be ready and willing to become pregnant.  Otherwise, abstinence is your only preventative option.  Clearly for a great many people, both Catholic and not, alternative forms of birth control are much more appealing and make much more sense.  Additionally, as the article goes on to discuss in the section about "single life" and "homosexual orientation", only a married man and a woman should engage in sexual intercourse. That excludes a large number of people.  Again, this is entirely unrealistic.  The fact that these two central beliefs of Catholicism are so widely ignored undermines the Church's authority.

     The theme of confining sex to marriage utterly permeates the article.  However, one theme, I thought, was not.  Love.  Can't sex purely be an act of love, whether that love is defined by marriage or not?  It is possible for deep, meaningful, romantic connections to exist outside marriage.  Shouldn't that be what is important?  The Church's view is clear, and certainly valid.  They say the act of sex is a privilege of committing oneself to marriage, and it is an act that should always be done with openness to procreation.  But the Church is fighting a losing battle, perhaps even one that is already lost. However, I don't anticipate its surrender anytime soon.

Article referenced: http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0892.asp