Can One Copulate One's Way to Chastity?

John B. writes,

I'm a regular reader of your blog and I've written very occasionally, but not for a few years.  Here's another comment. 

 

I enjoy your periodic return to the question of whether one can philosophize one's way to a release from philosophy.  But I think that, to split hairs, you're wrong to say that one can't copulate one's way to chastity.  After a manner of speaking, one can.  It's true that one can't copulate one's way to virginity . . . . But isn't "copulating one's way to chastity" at the heart of marriage as the remedium concupiscentiae?  When the Apostle Paul tells his readers that it is better to marry than to burn with lust, he seems to have in mind something like copulating one's way to chastity.

 

Think of a bachelor who has unruly sexual desires, some of which he may act on.  He then falls in love and gets married, agreeing to an exclusive sexual relationship with his wife.  Over the course of his marriage, his inclinations are tamed and re-structured so that, while he may still experience fleeting moments where, sure, he notices that another woman is very pretty, his sexual desire as such is exclusively, or nearly exclusively, for his wife, whom he loves more and more.  Actually having frequent sexual intercourse with his wife is part of this transformation, since having sex with the same partner, in the context of a loving relationship, has powerful psychological effects.  It might be an oversimplification to say that the man in question "copulated his way to chastity," but it would also be an oversimplification to say that he didn't.

 

Take that for whatever it's worth, and keep up the good work.

 

I see your point, John, but if the question is whether one can achieve chastity by sexual intercourse, I would say no.  One cannot copulate one's way to chastity either in marriage or outside of marriage. But if the question is whether being married helps one avoid unchastity, the answer is a resounding yes.  And that, I take it, is the point you succeeded in making.  Marriage channels and directs sexual energy in a licit and productive way even if no procreation results.  It is therefore indeed remedium concupiscentiae. We need the remedy and the mitigation. We are naturally concupiscent from the ground up, and the decadent, sex-saturated society we live in exacerbates the natural tendency,  pouring gasoline on the "fire down below." 

 

The logically prior question is: what is chastity?  "Chastity is the virtue which [either] excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite." (Catholic Encyclopedia, here.) It is a form of temperance, one of the four cardinal virtues. Chastity is either absolute or relative depending on whether it excludes indulgence in the sexual appetite or merely moderates it.  Absolute chastity is called continence and is classed as a "counsel of perfection." As such, it is not morally obligatory but supererogatory. The supererogatory is that which is good but above and beyond what is morally required.  Absolute chastity is not required of those in the marital state; relative chastity is.  So the exercise of the virtue of chastity is compatible with at least some forms of the indulgence of sexual appetite in marriage.

 

Chastity in marriage is extremely difficult to achieve. Who would have the temerity to claim that he has achieved it on a regular basis? It is obviously not enough to refrain from sexual relations with partners other than one's spouse.  Suppose you are having sexual intercourse with your wife while thinking lustful thoughts about your neighbor's wife.  That would count as a violation of chastity in marriage. Am I right about that, John?

 

Moral collapse has proceeded so far that discussions such as the above will strike the majority as quaint and absurd and out of all relation to anything 'real.' When the Pope allows a 'devout Catholic' supporter of abortion on demand for any reason at any stage of fetal development to receive Holy Communion in Rome, then we are fast approaching the end.

 

Related: Abortion and the Wages of Concupiscence Unrestrained

Comments

[John B.]

You're right that fantasizing about an illicit sexual act while having sex with one's spouse would be a sin against chastity.  I basically agree with you that chasity is a difficult virtue to practice consistently, rare to practice perfectly with any consistency.

But I think I would go a little further than the point that you concede: I would say that it's not just being married that helps one avoid unchastity, but having sexual relations with one's spouse that helps one avoid unchastity.  And I so I would go even further and say having sexual relations with one's spouse is, for many people, an important part of becoming more chaste.  Maybe it's right to say that one can't "copulate one's way to chastity" because (A) so few people "achieve" chastity, i. e., are perfect or very nearly perfect in this virtue, (so we should not say "...to chastity") and (B) because one shouldn't give the impression that just having a lot of sex with one's spouse is going to solve one's problems (so we shouldn't say "copulate one's way...".  If we are thinking in Catholic terms, I think there are very many who are helped by having sexual relations with their spouse to (A) consistently and habitually avoid mortal sins against chastity and (B) to find joy in a life that includes these good habits. What I have in mind is that marital relations are not just a "safety valve" for sexual desire--rather, marital intercourse can help restructure the desires of those engaged in it in a positive way.

There is another issue perhaps lurking behind this, which is that concupisence can be meant in two ways.  Philosophers often use it to mean simply the desire for or love of sensible goods.  Taken in this sense, concupiscence is not bad, and in fact it is good for us.  Theologians often use it to mean a disordered desire for or attachment to sensible goods, in which case it is a bad thing.  (There are similar equivocations by English speakers about the word 'politics'--sometimes we use it to mean something that is good for us according to our nature, sometimes we use it to mean a disordered version of that same thing). So we can equivocate on remedium concupiscentiae--does it remedy, that is heal and make good, concupiscence? Or does it help to heal us of this disease called concupiscence?  That depends on which meaning of concupiscence we are thinking of.

[John Doran]

To be "chaste" is simply to engage in only morally licit sexual behaviour; if you have a voracious sexual appetite, but only indulge it with your wife, then, by the lights of the Church, anyway, and ceteris paribus, you are chaste.

"Concupiscence" is just the inclination to engage in illicit (sexual) behaviour.

One cannot copulate oneself into chastity: St. Paul's point is that one can marry oneself into chastity.

[BV]

John writes,

>>I would say that it's not just being married that helps one avoid unchastity, but having sexual relations with one's spouse that helps one avoid unchastity.<<

I agree. What I said above is consistent with your point.

>>And I so I would go even further and say having sexual relations with one's spouse is, for many people, an important part of becoming more chaste.<<

If you mean the more sex, the more chaste, then I disagree. I refer you to Dietrich von Hildebrand, In Defense of Purity, Part III, Ch. 1, "The Intrinsic Dangers of Sex."

[BV]

John D writes,

>>"Concupiscence" is just the inclination to engage in illicit (sexual) behaviour.<<

This definition is too narrow. Cath.Encycl: "in its strict and specific acceptation, [concupiscence is a] desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason."

[John B.]

I agree with BV, concupiscence concerns the sensible appetites generally, and only the sensible appetites. An inclination to over-indulge in cheeseburgers and beer would be an example of concupiscence as the word is used by Catholic theologians, something we might all do well to remember tomorrow. But as I understand it, a disordered inclination to pop one's neighbor on the nose or to proclaim one's greatness would not be concupiscence, as these do not concern sensible appetites. It is the clause "contrary to reason" that distinguishes the Catholic theological definition from a somewhat more broad one that I have seen elsewhere.

More generally, what I think both BF and John D seem to underrate is the way that sexual activity within a healthy marriage can restructure one's sexual desires in a positive way. Marriage doesn't merely provide a safety valve where one can satisfy one's nearly static and fairly generic desire to "get off", but in a licit way. The married man will often find over time that desires for disordered kinds of sexual activity decrease, or even come to seem unappealing, as a result of his sexual relationship with his beloved wife. It's not just that he is getting enough action, in the crude parlance of our times, that he doesn't need any more, but that he is even mildly repulsed by the idea of a one-night stand, an indulgence in pornography, or various other degradations toward which he might once have been drawn. And note that this may well persist even during a period when he cannot have intercourse with his wife, for whatever reason that might me. But having sexual relations with his wife is part of this transformation.

But of course it is not so simple as "more sex, more chastity".

[John Doran]

Hi Bill,

I used the parenthetical "sexual" simply to capture the topic the current conversation, not to circumscribe or limit the definition of "concupiscence".