In his essay on “The Pleasures of Eating”, the philosopher and farmer Wendell Berry says that after delivering a lecture on the decline of American farming and rural life, someone in the audience would invariably ask what city people can do. “Eat responsibly,” Berry would reply.
by restoring one’s consciousness of what is involved in eating; by reclaiming responsibility for one’s own part in the food economy. One might begin with the illuminating principle of Sir Albert Howard’s The Soil and Health, that we should understand “the whole problem of health in soil, plant, animal, and man as one great subject.” Eaters, that is, must understand that eating takes place inescapably in the world, that it is inescapably an agricultural act, and that how we eat determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used. This is a simple way of describing a relationship that is inexpressibly complex. To eat responsibly is to understand and enact, so far as one can, this complex relationship.
Berry argues that eating is an agrarian act and that something valuable is lost when we subscribe to the industrialized, consumerist view of sustenance. Although his essay is about food, his words could be applied to another method of fulfilling a physical need: sex. In fact, he draws a similar parallel in his discussion of “industrial sex”:
It is odd that simply because of its “sexual freedom” our time should be considered extraordinarily physical. In fact, our “sexual revolution” is mostly an industrial phenomenon, in which the body is used as a idea of pleasure or a pleasure machine with the aim of “freeing” natural pleasure from natural consequence.
Like any other industrial enterprise, industrial sexuality seeks to conquer nature by exploiting it and ignoring the consequences, by denying any connection between nature and spirit or body and soul, and by evading social responsibility. The spiritual, physical, and economic costs of this “freedom” are immense, and are characteristically belittled or ignored. The diseases of sexual irresponsibility are regarded as a technological problem and an affront to liberty.
Industrial sex, characteristically, establishes its freeness and goodness by an industrial accounting, dutifully toting up numbers of sexual partners, orgasms, and so on, with the inevitable industrial implication that the body is somehow a limit on the idea of sex, which will be a great deal more abundant as soon as it can be done by robots.
Berry offers advice on how to recover the pleasures of eating from consumerism. In imitation, I offer the following modest suggestions for how Christians* can recover sex from industrialization:
1. We should continuously point out that the term pre-marital sex is an oxymoron. Because sex and marriage both perform the function of uniting a man and a woman into one-flesh, engaging in sexual relations is ontologically indistinguishable from marriage. Even when the tongue claims otherwise, the body understands the promise being made during intercourse. Saying “I do” with the body may not carry the same consequences as it does in a marriage ceremony, but the effects on the soul are similar.
2. Some people will claim that there is something valuable to be gained by having multiple sexual partners before settling down for lifelong monogamy. These misguided souls completely miss the point. Sex is not a technique to be mastered but a means of communicating. Sexual intercourse is a non-verbal expression of profound commitment, openness, and trust. Having multiple sexual partners as a means of preparing for marriage is like mastering the art of lying in order to become a paragon of honesty.
3. The bookstores are filled with books and magazines that offer tips and advice on maximizing pleasure, providing multiple orgasms, and other ways to have “better” sex. This desire to improve and be more productive is a hallmark of industrialized sex. But there is no objective standard by which sex can be measured against. “Good” sex is not found by following a formula which will lead to the efficient maximization of sexual pleasure. Sex cannot be measured by the number of orgasms per hour (OPH) or any other idealized unit of measure anymore than a good conversation can be measured by the number of words spoken.
4. Although sex is not tied to the Gregorian calendar, it is cyclical, often following the natural rhythms of the female body. The husband’s desire should, therefore, be respectful of the woman’s physical and hormonal cycles. Her body is the means by which God chose to bring forth new life and the vessel he chose to enter the world in physical form. A woman’s body is not a machine for delivering pleasure but a mysterious and precious creation. Husbands should always keep that in mind.
5. Having sex can lead to having children. Industrialized sex views this as a potentially unfortunate hazard that should be avoided. Deciding to have a child is a decision that should be made prayerfully and with God’s guidance. But while family planning is a legitimate activity, sex should never be completely stripped of its conceptive role.
6. Sex may be a joy and a sanctuary but it is also a marital duty. It is the primary physical method God provides in order to deepen and strengthen the union of a man and a woman. Forgoing sex for long periods of time can be a form of disobedience. If we are physically able, we should give ourselves to our spouses. We are the sole means by which they are able to properly meet that physical need. Denying our spouse food or sleep would be cruel and unjust. Withholding sex is no different.
7. While it hardly needs to be said, pornography has no place in marriage. Sex is intended to be viewed from the place of a first-person participant, not a third-person observer. One of the reasons pornography becomes addictive is because it leads to the attempt to fulfill an impossible desire. When observing porn, a person shifts from an I-Thou relationship to the place of the Other, forever outside, waiting to be invited in. That invitation never comes, leading to an endlessly frustrating search for fulfillment that can never be met.
8. Most of what gets classified under the category of sex has nothing to do with sex at all. Fetishes, sadomasochism, dominance and submission, etc., are always about something else (usually power) and never about intimacy and communication. Sort out your psychological issues on your counselor’s couch, not in your marriage bed.
9. A last bit of advice for young people: You may foolishly decide that you need to “make your own mistakes” rather than rely on the hard-earned experience of those who have gone before you. You may even be able to avoid most of the more blatantly detrimental aspects of sexual sin. I certainly did. I never suffered from the ravages of a venereal disease or had to deal with the effects of an unexpected pregnancy. I never suffered much of anything from my sin—except for loss. I lost one of the most valuable gifts God gives man: the ability to give myself completely to the person I love enough to spend the rest of my life with.
Anyone who tells you that sex outside of marriage causes no harm is a liar and a fool. You can’t build a fire in your lap and not get burned. And you can’t have multiple sexual partners and not become desensitized to the beauty and intimacy of marital intercourse. With Christ there is redemption and the hope of restoration. But before you make a rash choice, weigh the cost. It is never worth the price of true intimacy.
10. Christian couples are not only joined in union with each other but are united within the body of Christ. We belong not to ourselves but to each other. The church, therefore, must take an interest in the sexual needs of couples just as it would in the other spiritual and physical needs. The community of believers needs to show that the Bride of Christ rejects industrialized sex.
*I address this post to Christians because non-believers and those from other faint traditions may not necessarily share my understanding of the role and nature of sex. While there may be some overlap of agreement, the presuppositional attitude of most non-Christians would be so foreign to my view that it would be impossible to offer suggestions for a general audience.
August 23rd, 2010 | 1:11 am
Thanks very much. Though not mentioned explicitly, 1 Corinthians 6-7 seems, rightly, to loom large here. By the way, ##5 and 9 are intuitive.
August 23rd, 2010 | 1:31 am
What a beautiful reflection. Amen.
Two of your points (#’s 6 & 7), however, compel me to share a deep wound. My wife and I both saved ourselves for marriage, and we entered marriage excited about practicing natural family planning (NFP). Having faithfully followed Catholic teaching, we anticipated that sex would be a source of great joy and fulfillment in our marriage. Much to our dismay and surprise, we discovered sex to be a source of tension and the only major problem in our relationship. Two complicating factors made it so. First, we had physical problems; even being as careful as we could be, sex was painful for my wife. We could not afford going to a therapist at this point but we did pick up a few books written by Christian sex therapists and tried to follow their advice. These attempts to steadily and patiently work through the problem were greatly inhibited though by a second problem: my wife had highly variable cycles and her fertility signs were not clear. This meant that if we wanted to be confident about avoiding pregnancy using NFP we would frequently have to refrain from intercourse for 6 or 8 weeks at a time. We both felt a strong calling from God to the work/schooling we were doing and not to having children at this point. (Not that we could have afforded kids at that point with all of our school loans and our non-profit based income.) The long periods of abstinence were really hurting our relatively young marriage and making it impossible to do the suggested therapies for our sexual problem. After much prayer and discreet consultation of a few trusted spiritual friends, we made the tough decision to begin using contraception. With time, we finally were able to begin to have sex without pain. (The psychological damage of those tension filled first few years of our marriage took even longer to heal.) I am happy to report that after a number of children and a lot of years, sex has begun to really be what it should be in our marriage. But, the truth must be stated: contraception helped save our marriage. As someone who was so gung-ho for NFP, it’s still shocking to hear myself say that, but it is true. And for that reason, I cannot and will not confess our use of contraception as a sin. Contraception gave use us the few years we needed to work through our sexual difficulties and make sex work the way it is supposed to in a marriage. It pains me deeply that in the eyes of the Church my wife and I are unrepentant sinners and should not be receiving communion. I hope and pray for a day when the Church takes a more nuanced view towards contraception. There are certainly dangers involved in contraception and many misuses of it, but our experience has convinced me that it is not an intrinsic evil.
Thank you for this insightful reflection on human sexuality and for the opportunity to share my experience.
August 23rd, 2010 | 1:34 am
Oop. I ended up deleting two items and forgot to renumber the list.
August 23rd, 2010 | 1:15 pm
[...] post today over at the First Things blog. It is odd that simply because of its “sexual freedom” our time should be considered [...]
August 23rd, 2010 | 1:46 pm
Dear Name Withheld:
Thanks for sharing your very personal and no doubt painful recollections. I find your (limited) defense of contraception very compelling. Yet you say “that in the eyes of the Church my wife and I are unrepentant sinners and should not be receiving communion.” Is it really the case that official Catholic teaching on contraception allows no room at all for exceptions, medical or otherwise? I really don’t know but would like to find out. Perhaps someone else has some insight on this question.
August 23rd, 2010 | 3:11 pm
Mr. Carter, fantastic meditation, truly first rate. You articulate the victorious vision that will overcome the sexual apocalypse (a k a “The Sexual Revolution”) that has destroyed two or three generations, including my own.
August 23rd, 2010 | 3:19 pm
Dear “Name Withheld”:
Whatever your calculations about the salvation of your marriage, you are courting the very highest danger in determining for yourself what constitutes sin. Speak frankly with your confessor, he may have solutions that you have not contemplated. Your sin isn’t necessarily in your willful disobedience so much as your refusal, through subjective exculpation, to seek guidance about a difficult subject.
You have refused guidance because you have convinced yourself that church teaching is at odds with your well-being, not because it necessarily is, but because you have pursued solutions independent of her findings out of frustration and conjectural benefit (“the truth must be stated: contraception helped save our marriage”) that is indistinguishable from rationalization. It will remain indistinguishable so long as you willfully cut the church out of your decision making. How can you be sure — gravely sure — that you were forced to choose between mortal sin and sacramental fidelity?
We are with you in your struggle, brother! This is the very purpose of communion, to help each other through our temptations so that the Father might deliver us from evil. Slipping and falling, disobedience and sin are par for the course, subject to our lapses. But do not justify yourself through elaborate rational schema! That is the subtlest temptation, the hardest to defeat, the original sin, the primary sin, the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Reject it and depend on the church.
If you have pursued advice in your parish from clergy and laymen, and that local advice has been inadequate to the task, then consider that perhaps the Lord has led you here for that purpose. And if all else fails: Matthew 5:29-32. Rely on the example and intercessions of St. Joseph.
I sympathize with your plight. I am single and strive to be chaste (not always successfully) through circumstances just as difficult as yours. But I am comforted with the words of our Lord, proclaimed yesterday in the Gospel, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.”
You have my prayers and all of my sympathies.
August 23rd, 2010 | 3:42 pm
Is it really the case that official Catholic teaching on contraception allows no room at all for exceptions, medical or otherwise? — JB in CA
This only seems extraordinary in our culture because we have elevated sex to an idol. Mr. Carter’s observations above are an attempt to restore sex to its proper priority, not anywhere as low as the “Sexual Revolutionaries” claim the church says, but certainly not number one, as our culture would have it.
The only exceptions would obtain in extraordinary circumstances, and perhaps not even then. Ever was it thus: narrow is the path of righteousness.
Unfortunately, “Name Withheld’s” circumstances are very common, despite his heroic attempts at fidelity, which are uncommon. His rebuke of the church stings the most; it does not derive from ignorance and pique as most rebukes do. It cannot be so easily dismissed, as most can. We must win great souls like his back into full communion.
And we must reorient intelligent and searching souls like yours back to proper conscience. “Is it really the case…?” Yes, for the most part, it really is the case. But why do we choose to be shocked at the doctrines that can deliver us from slavery rather than the slavery itself? It’s because the slavery is so ubiquitous that it has become undetectable. Disordered sexuality is the water to us fishes, everywhere without and within, so dominant that we cannot recognize it, much less counter it.
Thank God that the Catholic Church — now alone in modernity, even among most Christians — has preserved for us this weapon of our liberation. Even though it doesn’t poll very well, even among Catholics.
“Anyone who tells you that sex outside of marriage causes no harm is a liar and a fool. You can’t build a fire in your lap and not get burned.” And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
Despair not, though the gates of hell seem to be prevailing. Catechize! Always catechize.
August 23rd, 2010 | 6:27 pm
I have two very differently-oriented comments:
1. I would offer the thought the the supposed analogy between industrialized eating and industrialized sex overlooks a key and foundational difference: whatever else agriculture is, it is surely an economic pursuit; sex is not, or should not be. If sex becomes an economic exchange it ceases to be itself, as Joe so eloquently points out.
As an economic pursuit, agriculture is rightly a subject of technological improvement–industrialization, if you will. If we grant Wendell Berry his point, that the industrialization of agriculture should be opposed, what shall we take away from today’s scene? Harvest combines? Milking machines? Tractors? Hybrid seeds? Selectively-bred farm animals? Iron implements? Electricity? Wooden implements? Take away the advances of just the past 50 to 100 years, and you end up not being able to feed about 1/3 of the current population. That’s over 2 billion souls that we would not have in the world. There are those who say we’re better off without these people, but I do not.
2. Joe, great “Top 10″ list! But you left out one point, implicit in the 10, but which should be explicit–no contraception. Contraception destroys the essence of the sex act, defeating many of the beautiful aspects of sex which you cite in your essay.
Yes, I read the earlier post and can only offer my own sympathy for the pain expressed. In almost 30 years of teaching NFP, my wife and I have run into similar cases, though none quite so drastic. We could help with most of them. Often such situations can now be improved, and fertility signs clarified, by overcoming subtle nutrition deficiencies; we now have good resources such as “Fertility, Cycles and Nutrition” by Marilyn Shannon. For deeper medical issues a competent reproductive endocrinologist can help. (Sadly, it seems OB/GYNs tend not to be very helpful with many fertility issues.) NaPro Technology is one such practice, and one which has the added advantage of being strictly ethical according to Catholic norms.
August 23rd, 2010 | 9:38 pm
@Joe DeVet:
Your point is taken, in that the analogy between sex and farming is limited. Thank God, I suppose. Food does not have personhood, and the various combinations that make the analogy work are not pleasant to contemplate.
Nonetheless, we need not take an all-or-nothing approach to reforming agriculture. The spirit of what Mr. Carter is talking about is valid for both sex and food. It is “industrialized” in the sense that food becomes just another technology that we interact with. It makes me think of a Chesterton quote to the effect of the following: “Man’s blessings are multiplying so rapidly that he does not even have time to give thanks for them all.”
We can take a more holistic approach to food without living in an ashram and eating just what is produced using natural cultivation methods. We can start a home garden, or supplement our food with a local community-shared agriculture (CSA) share. As many are telling Mr. Withheld, there may be more alternatives than you think.
August 24th, 2010 | 1:18 am
We actually spent quite a bit of time with Marilyn Shannon’s book, revamped our diets, tried dietary supplements, and visited a reproductive endocrinologist all with little result on my wife’s cycles.
As for seeking the guidance of the Church, I tried a few times to have conversations with priests, but I consistently found that I had a deeper background in moral theology than they did and the conversations brought out nothing new that I hadn’t already considered.
My wife and I did spend a long time with the question of whether all of this meant that we were really being called to have children at that time. But all of our prayer and discernment on that question kept giving us a very clear “no”. Retrospective reflection on that question seems to me now to only confirm that answer. Having children would have meant discontinuing the work and schooling in which we were engaged, and those things have subsequently proven foundational for the vocations to which God called us and in which we are now daily affirmed. Our subsequent experiences with sex and pregnancy have also proven that getting pregnant then would have made it impossible to continue the sexual therapeutic exercises/routines that eventually helped us.
Believe me, this was not a decision undertaken quickly or lightly. It took us a long time to even consider this option. But the deeply positive impact it had on our relationship has subsequently caused me to call into question aspects of the Church’s teaching on contraception. I have no way of reconciling the discrepancy between the truth that I know in my bones (and in “the bone of my bones”) and the truth of Church teaching that I accept on faith other than to understand that there must still be room for development in Church teaching. Just as over time some forms of lending at interest came to be recognized by the Church as not falling under the definition of the sin of usury, my belief is that the Church will one day accept that there are some means of birth regulation other than NFP that do not fall under the definition of the sin of contraception. We were never absolutely closed to new life. Had we gotten pregnant using condoms, we would have gladly welcomed the child just as many couples do who get pregnant in spite of using NFP to try to avoid pregnancy. The question then becomes whether the means we used (a barrier method) of reducing the likelihood of pregnancy is intrinsically evil in its object so that no set of intentions or circumstances could justify it… that it would be worth continuing to strain our marriage. After much further reflection and study I have come to the conclusion that the answer is no.
Yes, Matthew 5:29-32 is the appropriate passage: If the current state of development of Church doctrine causes you to sin, cut it off. Idols come in many forms and sometimes in the most unnerving of disguises.
August 24th, 2010 | 8:11 am
Dear “Name”:
I sympathize with the plight of people in your situation having difficulty finding priests who make moral sense on this subject. Part of the lack of proper catechesis on the teachings against birth control is the misfeasance of priests and others who ignore or misrepresent the teachings and often cannot apply relevant moral principles in other areas as well.
My wife and I also took a “detour” from the teachings, after the rhythm system failed twice in a row in our case–NFP not being readily available or well-known in the 60′s when we married. (The system failed, but we won. As a result, we now have a little one who miscarried praying for us before the throne of God, and one wonderful daughter without whom life is now unimaginable.) We used contraception for several years before we repented and found NFP. After switching to NFP, our eyes were opened to the problems that contraception had caused in our relationship. The relevant passage is “What God has joined together, no man must put asunder”, which is Mt 19-something, I think.
I do believe that you are profoundly mistaken about the nature (and future) of this true and beautiful teaching, which as John Paul II pointed out is not incidental to the sacrament of marriage, but integral.
August 24th, 2010 | 12:48 pm
I disagree about the industrialization of agriculture being justifiable because it is an economic pursuit. This is exactly what sex has become. “Sex” is used to sell *everything* in our modern industrial society.
And eating is not economic any more than sex is. It is the nourishment of our bodies, which are then to be used in service to God.
More is not always better. Modern agriculture makes more food, but not better (more nourishing) food. And which came first the food or the people? Production of people has become industrialized and an economic exchange as well . . .
August 24th, 2010 | 9:37 pm
No hard feelings to Name Withheld, but good sex is not a right, and a marriage can survive bad sex. Pain on the wife’s part is really rotten and borders on devastating, but it’s not uncommon (both before and after childbirth). “Feeling a strong calling from God” to other things–even good things–does not negate the concrete calling of married persons to parenthood (barring God’s closing of the womb). The whole rationale is based on personal feeling and an assumption of certain entitlements. It assumes the very thing the article takes apart: viewing sex as necessarily pleasurable and children as essentially optional. Contraception did not save the marriage. It relieved it of the cross-bearing which even sex can be in this broken world.
August 25th, 2010 | 2:27 pm
It is clear that “Name Withheld” is on a mission of rationalization, all the more disturbing for the quality of his reasoning and the sobriety of his demeanor. Perhaps it is true that the local clergy he encountered did not possess “a deeper background in moral theology” than he, perhaps he has a greater understanding of the issues than even Joseph Ratzinger. All beside the point. What should alert him and us to the danger of self-theology is his recourse to pronouncing church doctrine not simply inadequate to his particular purposes but, through his comparison with Matthew 5:29-32, a source of evil that causes him and others to sin.
Such are the temptations of those blessed with an elevated reasoning capacity. “A deeper background in moral theology” is a wonderful blessing, but it is fraught with danger by allowing a person to reorder doctrine to questionable and selfish purposes.
“Spend[ing] a long time” considering an issue and avoiding decisions “undertaken quickly or lightly” are important methods of discernment but not a complete method. They are still less a substitute for even the most provincial country-bumpkin pastor’s advice. We must trust the Spirit will not lead us astray through his clergy as military NCO’s trust an oft misguided officer class for purposes greater than the needs or desires of any single element of the unit. Going rogue may be justified in the particular, but there is serious damage being done in the general that seems to be no part of the freelancer’s calculations.
Liberal democracy has little to say about the virtue of obedience, and that makes “Name Withheld’s” renouncement appear unremarkable. The church isn’t a cafeteria, much as one may dislike lima beans on the prescribed menu every day, even if one possesses a theory that has convinced him the lima beans are secretly bad for you or poisonous.
Some 20,000 Christian sects have splintered from Christ’s church, and here we see rebellion in its embryonic stage. If a doctrine inconveniences a man of refined reasoning and taste, he is tempted to seize control of the doctrine and redefine it so that he might wipe the conscience clean of sin — all to avoid staring complicity in its face. Is it a coincidence that the doctrinal reform targeted for overturning happens to make the would-be reformer’s life easier and more pleasant?
Love is sacrifice. Walk the Via Dolorosa with your Lord, and contemplate the blood of the Cross. “Name Withheld,” do your duty, suck it up, seek better guidance. And, Lord, have mercy.
August 26th, 2010 | 12:39 am
Dear King, et al,
I am aware of the dangers of cafeteria Catholicism. There is a deep risk of hubris in thinking that any of us in our short lifetimes has somehow exceeded the moral wisdom of 2000 years of holy men and women guided by the Holy Spirit.
But this argument can also be overstated. First of all, it forgets that it is in fact a violation of Church teaching to ignore the dictate of one’s conscience, especially when one has striven to properly form one’s conscience through intensive study of Church teaching, seeking out spiritual counsel, and sustained prayer. Now, some would say that anytime one’s conscience runs contrary to Church teaching that one’s conscience is ipso facto malformed and ought not to be heeded. This is merely legalism, which itself is an error of conscience. It assiduously refuses to recognize the second point I would like to make: the long and well documented history of the legitimate development of Church doctrine has often been driven precisely by conscientious Christians who refused to submit to the present state of Church teaching when their consciences told them otherwise. From St. Paul and his ministry to gentiles in the first century to John Courtney Murray’s defense of religious liberty in the 20th, this has been one of the primary vehicles for the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in rightly understanding God’s commandments.
I do not claim to be the unmediated voice of the Spirit speaking to the Church. I know quite well that I am a sinner and I have many failings. Were it merely my private experience, I would be even more skeptical of myself, knowing what a sinner I am. But I have become more and more aware of the extent to which there are many conscientious Catholics whose experiences form a counter-narrative to aspects of what the Church teaches about contraception. I think it would behoove us all to listen.
August 26th, 2010 | 1:14 am
[...] Joe Carter has some great thoughts on sex and Wendell Berry, most of which I agree with. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact