It Really Is All About Sex: A Theological Exploration of Those Creatures We Call Human, Their Bodies, and Their Politics (Part, the First)

Blog Signature

I have always thought that those who teach ought to be both experienced and broadly knowledgeable.  I have also long thought that those who teach ought to be exemplary students – humble, curious, and open-minded.  Consequently, when I am challenged (in an honest and fair way) I don’t slink off to lick my wounds.  When I am challenged (by faithful friends) I don’t lash out in anger at having been contradicted.  When I am challenged (especially by students), I pause and retrace my steps, regarding the situation in question; and then I try to re-explain the concept.  I believe I am a humble, curious and open-minded kind of guy – at least, in regard to some things.

So, when I was challenged regarding some questions that I had about the Roman Catholic Church, Contraception, and the Obama Administration’s health care bill, I was relieved to have the help of a friend that could direct my study along the appropriate lines of inquiry.  Based on my exploration of Papal encyclicals, some rather dense philosophical content, and some slightly less dense theological writing, I am not left with much alleviation from my original perplexity.  However, I have a whole hell of lot more questions…of course (If you’re interested, I’ll link to the stuff I have been reading at the end of this post.  It will give you a sense of what I “know” and it may be helpful in guiding your own foray into the topics at hand).

As such, this post constitutes a first attempt to distinguish some important questions.  I still clearly see two issues: one civil and the other theological.  I am not saying that the theological issue has no bearing on the civil issue or vice versa.  I am saying that the theological issue somehow precedes the civil issue for me.  Therefore, I will spend some time doing two things: First, I will sort the theological issue from the civil issue (where possible); Second, I will explore the foundational ideas upon which the theological issue rests.

First, the issue of sorting the civil from the theological – here, I mean that I want to deal with loyalties to God and church without diluting that inquiry by mixing in national or governmental loyalties.  This stems from a personal belief that Christians are called to be loyal to Christ and the Christian community via the Christian ethos of citizenship in a heavenly kingdom ‘before’ or ‘above’ all other loyalties.  Namely, l feel like my faith ought always to be able to critique the State, and that they should not blend into a singular loyalty.  Yet, I have to acknowledge that while I can separate myself from the State, I cannot necessarily separate myself so cleanly from my place within society. 

It is a problem that seems to be addressed in what Andrew Shanks calls a civil religion or “Civil Theology.”  In his words, civil theology is “a ceaseless critical back-and-forth” that juxtaposes citizenship with Christian living in a kind of self-examination where one is “able to criticize one’s given identity as an adherent of that tradition, on the basis of one’s solidarity with one’s fellow citizens – including those of other faiths and of none.”  The ultimate result or goal being that a civil religion that transcends the confessional vocabulary of any single world religion would emerge as the status quo.  So, while I still maintain a certain Christian autonomy from governments past and present, I do acknowledge that there is the difficulty of living the Christian life as the citizen of a government in this present age.  Some might be tempted to quote Jesus here, “be in the world but not of it” or some such thing.  Provocative as Shank’s appeal to a new civil consciousness that utilizes the absolutism or authority of religion without allowing a singular religious confession to ‘rule’ the populace happens to be, I think it represents the very thing I am trying to sift out here.  In my opinion, a ‘civil theology’ must either come after or as an addendum to a theology (proper) of the Christian faith.  A civil theology would expound the ways in which the Christian faith interacts with society at large and the other articulates the actual content of Christian faith. 

And so, in my brain, being precedes doing and these kinds of issues raise questions about the ‘being’ of Christianity.  While I understand that much of the conflict between President Obama’s Administration and the Roman Catholic Church has to do with government interference in religious practice (and I don’t mean to downplay this element in saying so), I am currently more interested in establishing why there is an established and enduring theological position against contraceptives.

Finally, I arrive at the belated and ultimate point of the post.  The foundational theological issue underlying the cognitive dissonance I am having is one of anthropology.  Generally, how does Christian theology inform what we know about being human; and, specifically, how does Christian theology inform what we know about human sexuality?  It really does seem that in our generation, it all boils down to one protracted fight over sex.  I have done my best to read primary sources, to establish foundational systems of thought, and to evaluate arguments in their proper context.  Consequently, I am happy to pause here and hear from our community of readers about where I have gone astray, if anywhere.

Before I leave it to you, however, allow me to trace my thoughts.  I think the initial distinction remains important.  I think the voice of the Church will be a voice that speaks from a perspective not just inspired by the “spirit” of the Christian tradition, but also ‘Inspired’ by the Spirit of the Christian tradition; and this inspiration remains in tension with whatever broader social consciousness Christians all over the world may find as their context for living.  However, and this is important, I think you can expect Christian men and women to have differences of opinion regarding how to discern where that inspiration is leading.

Next, after reading Humanae Vitae, I think it is clear that while human sexuality is ultimately the issue at hand, the method for evaluating the appropriateness of human sexuality (and bodily function by proxy) is St. Aquinas’ robust view of natural law.  In fact, I have read many commentators that dismiss detractors in an out of hand sort of fashion, claiming that one merely has to have a background in Natural Law in order to see the unassailable truthfulness of Humanae Vitae.  I have found this to be a bit irksome, because it seems a bit arrogant to wave off nearly 750 years of development in philosophical and theological thought like it is an uninterrupted string of people who just do not ‘get it.’   As such, one of the initial concerns I have about a Church document like Humanae Vitae amounts to learning just how reliant it is on natural law theory.

I plan future posts in the series to deal with several things which Humanae Vitae involves, including but not limited to: Natural Law Theory, the ‘Majority Report’ received by Paul VI, Human Sexuality, and issues that subsequently seem related.

Here’s that list of some of the things I have been reading:

Humanae Vitae

Civil Society, Civil Religion

A Summa of the Summa

The God of Faith and Reason

What Isn’t Said in Humanae Vitae, Schott Steinkerchner, O.P.

Contraception: A Symposium

An Analysis of the Majority Report “Responsible Parenthood” and its Recommendations on Abortion, Sterilization andContraception



  1. Hey Shawn, if you like, shoot me an email and I’ll send you an old paper that might be useful in your investigation. At the very least it might give you a few more resources in the footnotes.


  2. I look forward to your thoughts. I’ve been taught by the school of theology that is heavily critical of natural theology, any idea of natura pura, or access to self-evident rational truths apart from faith. It is indeed this natural theology that keeps me resistant to much contemporary Roman catholic thought, anti-foundationalist that I am.

    (Among other things, with sex and gender, the impoverished christology of gender hierarchy comes from such natural theology)


  3. What has theology ever had to do with living a truly moral life? Especially when you investigate the disgraceful behavior of senior members of the “catholic” church – including Popes.

    As described in great detail by Tony Bushby in The Criminal History of the Papacy.

    And also by Nigel Cawthorne in The Sex Lives of the Popes.


  4. Plus would you allow your children to be “educated” by people who practice, on a daily basis, what is described here:

    Remembering that Opus Dei and similar right-wing “traditionalist” groups now control the “catholic” church and its various cultural agendas.
    Remembering too, that Ratzinger deliberately engineered the process by which these groups took over.


  5. “the ‘Majority Report’ received by Paul VI, Human Sexuality’

    If you mean that the Pope reviewed the document I agree. If you mean he accepted the document that would not be correct. Having lived during that time, this document was leaked in an attempt to force the pope to agree with its conclusions. Communication access to the media was really in its infancy back then and the church leadership especially in Rome did not understand its reach and effectiveness.

    IMO the heretical bishops in the USA did grasp its potential impact and radical theologians under the guise of “the spirit of vatican II” and what was believed as long term population control issues that never occurred to reduce births.

    I can personally state that Natural family planning brings get benefits to the couple and highly support its efforts.

    I do look forward to your conclusions on Natural law.


  6. So I’m late to this party (I’ve been busy with work lately,) but I can’t wait to read your thinking on this. A Republican political tactic’s ballooned into a societal referendum on the validity of a major philosophical tradition. That doesn’t happen every day.

    Not being Catholic, it’s hard for me to wrap my mind around how big a deal natural law is in Catholic theology. And if that’s true for me, then it’s doubly so for normal, non-theology-reading Americans (which includes most Catholics.) I find the RC Bishops’ stance disagreeable, but for most people it’s just incomprehensible, and the cultural consequences of them pressing the issue this way could be very bad for the RC Church.

    On the other hand, this could finally push them into some of the reforms they’ve been holding off on, so it could still turn out OK.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s