CASE STUDY: NON-MARITAL SEX           James Tomek  Thl 552


Ann and Tom have been dating for six months. They each are twenty-three years old and they have a close relationship, but have no plans to marry. They plan to go to graduate school in separate locations and think they might realistically fall in love with someone else during their studies. They do want to express sexually the love and closeness they have for each other at this time.  Is it appropriate for them?




When considering non-marital sex, we should reflect on why the Church considers marriage and true love as norms for genital sexuality, and then study if there are sufficient moral reasons to still engage in it. The Church believes that it is an objective moral wrong to have sexual relations outside of marriage (Genovesi 177). The gift of genital sexuality is for procreation, including the education/upbringing of children, and the need to express and feel the unity of a love relationship. The social and religious institution of marriage, with its official witnessing, protects children coming from sexual relations, while, at the same time, protecting each partner from entering into a superficial alliance based solely on “eros” love (158). Marriage is a symbol of faithful love just like the words “I love you” are a symbol of the way one person feels and acts with another. Love, at this level, is Christ’s sacramental love for us. True love is the moral norm for having genital sexuality, but the reverse is not true. Genital sexuality is not the primary language of true love. Other affective and sacrificial “texts” come first. Couples need to “read” the language of their love. The level of commitment has to be in harmony with the degree of sexual expression (135). “Giving” love is a deeper stage than “being” in love (142). Pre-marital/pre-ceremonial sexuality might be morally excusable under certain circumstances. Non-marital sexuality is harder to justify. Older couples may need the protection of their single status for benefits. Sexuality may be necessary for the growth of a person’s self-worth. Will children or common good be jeopardized? Will the “sacramental” value of love be compromised? Since Tom and Ann have not yet engaged in heavy sexual activity, they think that sexual expression is an important factor in a relationship. They could be doing a “subjectively immoral act” if they do not feel the total commitment of love.  The anxiety they have is a sign to explore and define their relation before separating. They may have a call not to separate.




  1. Since only a small percent of Catholics (17% - 148) think pre-marital sex is morally wrong, is the Church’s position realistic?
  2. What am I doing when I express physical sexual love? Is it primarily for bodily pleasure? Am I giving love or just being in love?
  3. How would I want my spouse/partner to feel with question 2?
  4. What is the sacramental value of love? Am I risking losing it in pre-marital sex?
  5. Are my sexual desires in conflict with my desires for growth or are they in line with them? Do I need intimate physical sex to feel fulfilled to such an extent that this need overrides the Church’s restriction on non-marital sex?

                CASE STUDY: ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION           James Tomek  Thl 552


            Roger and Cynthia are married and have been attempting to have children for six years. Tests show that the difficulty is with Roger’s physical/biological make-up. With adoption being a lengthy process, along with the scarcity of babies, and with Roger wanting Cynthia to experience biological motherhood, he suggests the possibility of artificial insemination with the sperm from an outside donor, AID. Cynthia wants to think about it.



                        To help make a decision in the above case, this discussion will present the theological, moral, social, psychological and legal issues of artificial insemination, especially AID, and then respond to each category to see if the above couple’s case can warrant a deviation from the Church’s stance against artificial insemination.


                                                The Case Against Artificial Insemination


                        Pius XII, addressing Catholic physicians in 1949, condemned both AIH (homologous artificial insemination – use of semen from the husband of the woman to be inseminated) and AID (heterologous artificial insemination – semen from a donor who is not the husband).  From a theological point of view, artificial insemination is immoral, according to Pius XII, because it depersonalizes the conjugal act, which is a highly personal cooperative act willed and ordained by nature (Avvento 106-7). Gaudium Spes, 1965, has given equal non-separating status to the procreative and unitive or relational aspects of conjugal sexuality. Artificial insemination in any form would be a separation of the two (Genovesi 191-2), and thereby depersonalizing procreation. Further immorality comes in the form of adultery when considering AID, whose anonymous parenthood is what Pius XII is attacking particularly. Artificial insemination  results from masturbation which is  also considered morally suspect. From a social point of view, AID can promote the use of sperm banks and make marriage a biological assembly line. All sorts of financial and biological abuses can occur, especially in areas of the handicapped. In the long range, society can lose much of its humanness. Psychologically, the husband may later feel inadequate, and may take it out on the child. The woman also may have guilt feelings about carrying another person’s child. Legally, AID might be considered adultery if the wife were doing it in the spirit of revenge. The child could be considered illegitimate. These legal concerns are considered invalid by most lawyers, but they could still affect the psychological make-up of the couple (Avvento 107).  In general, the Church’s conservative wing is against both forms of artificial insemination. The middle of the road theologians see that AIH, in certain cases, can be morally justified. The radical wing considers that even AID, in some cases, is not in conflict with the unitive and procreative factors of marriage. How can a couple, wishing children but unable to have them, either through heredity disease on the husband’s part, sterility, impotence, or genital malformation of either spouse, pursue their desires with AID and dissent morally from the Church’s view? They need to inform their consciences in good faith (Genovesi 105) and make a responsible, reasoned judgment (Cenovesi 85).


                                                            Theological Factors


                        Is AID necessarily a breach of the unity and procreation factors? Fidelity is a personal bond more so than a sexual one. Genital sex is not the primary factor in expressing love (Genovesi 150), and it should not be the sole consideration in expressing marital unity. Parenthood is likewise more than a biological tie with children (Avvento 107-8). Real parenthood consists in sharing everyday culture and values with children. What is more, couples who do not consider AID might be guilty of a reverse contraceptive attitude of not wanting to bring new life in the world. If  personalism is more valued than physicalism (Genovesi 168),  the husband in the above case is treating his wife as a total person and not a physical object. While AIH and AID can seem impersonal, they are anything but that in this case.


                                                            Morality Questions


                        Since there is no genital intimacy in AID, lawyers do not consider it adultery. The husband in the above case is acting in the best interest of his wife, and over himself. The intention here is to empower his wife and himself to give new life (Genovesi 369). Genovesi sees stable relationships as the moral norm, especially in homosexual relations (296). In the above case we have a stable relationship, and therefore much leeway as to moral decisions.

                        As to masturbation being an “intrinsic” evil, we can see in this case that the goal is for procreation and not for ipsation (Avvento 108). The goal of this sexual activity is “other” oriented (Genovesi), and thus seems to fit moral standards.                       


            Psychological and Social Factors


                        The couple may have the greatest concern in this area. Social factors to be considered are fostering a lifestyle that could dehumanize the birth process and place a priority on “healthy” and “normal” children. AID and AIH have to be used with discernment.

                        Psychological factors present the strongest discernment in the above case. The greatest gift parents can give their children is the example of their mutual love (Genovesi 205). This gift could be marred if the husband starts to feel sexually inadequate. He may come to resent his spouse and child. The wife may also come to feel guilt that she was carrying the child of another person other than her spouse. They might want to sit with this idea for a while to see if any of the above resentment or guilt should appear.

On the other hand, some couples are psychologically immature and not ready for children. Unwanted babies should be avoided (Genovesi 223). This couple does seem mature. Philip Keane advises couples like Roger and Cynthia to practice discernment, but to also be open to God’s call to the wonder of new life, and to avoid sterilization and birth control. He sees artificial insemination as a possible call from God to respond with generosity and sacrifice to new life (140).




                        Cynthia and Roger seem to have a three-fold committed “faithful” love. They love each other for the other’s sake (agape). They appear to have an intimate friendship love (philia), and they demonstrate a passion or a desire for the one self to be part of the other (eros).  They have the spirit of discernment and are following all the “guides” to sexual conduct presented by Norman Pittenger. Their “married” love is grounded in responsibility and regard for the other. No cruelty or coercion is present. There is no evidence of unpleasant sexual conduct. They demonstrate an openness to new situations of love without fear.

                        I would recommend that they reconsider adoption. The process is not as lengthy as they think, and children resulting from adoption become a psychological and emotional part of their adoptive parents. Their mutual sweat can be as thick as blood. In the meantime they can see if future experiences of resentment and guilt will be met with forgiveness on the part of each one.  As a pastor, I would be inclined to accept their decision.




  1. What constitutes fidelity in marriage? Is sexual fidelity primal? In what ways can one be unfaithful to a spouse other than in sexual areas?
  2. What factors in parenthood are important other than biological?
  3. Theologians are more open to AIH than AID. What factors are the most important when considering AIH? AID?
  4. What are my values and ideals when it comes to having and raising children? What are my desires? Where would I experience hurt and joy?
  5. What are my desires for my children as they relate to my spouse and me?
  6. Do my spouse and I share similar feelings in regard to children? How do we feel about raising children who are not biologically related to us?

Works Cited

Avvento, Gennaro P. STD. Sexuality: A Christian View: Toward Formation of Mature

Values. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1982.


Genovesi, Vincent J. In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality. 2nd Ed.

Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.


Keane, Philip S.  SS. Sexual Morality: A Catholic Perspective. New York: Paulist

Press, 1977.


Pittenger, Norman. Making Sexuality Human.










            Tammy, who is thirteen and mature for her age, falsifies her birth certificate by two years to be married in the Church. She does marry Phil. Several months later she begins to regret the marriage and returns to her priest, admits the forgery, and asks his advice. She would like to get out of the marriage.  Will the Church give her a statement of nullity? What will the civil government do? Can Tammy marry again within the Church? What problems are brought up by this case?



            Because of her age, Tammy’s case will be ruled favorably for her in the civil court with a divorce and in the Church with an annulment, a decree saying that a sacramental marriage did not take place. If we discussed this case more from a “consent” point of view we would see some real dangers of immature people being able to marry. In this discussion I will first respond to the immediate questions of the case study, followed by a definition of Christian marriage. I will look at some reasons for marital breakdown using the concept of indissolubility to help set the ideal of marriage. We will conclude with some comments on annulment as a “resurrectional” act in today’s world for those who have made mistakes, and as an educational process even for those who are preparing for marriage.

                                    The Court, the Church, and Annulment Reasons

            In the Civil Court the minimum age for marriage is seventeen for males and fifteen for females. If under twenty-one, parental attestation of age and approval is sought. If after a reasonable time the parents do not respond, the court will approve the go-ahead for the marriage. Marriages can be annulled if there was no consummation of marriage, or if there was a misrepresentation (eg. pretending to have more wealth than one had) before the consummation. In the case of the above forgery of age, the court will grant a decree of divorce, unless the annulment rules apply. John Williard, a Chancery Court Judge doubts that any legal action against the petitioner would be taken in this case, since there was no criminal intent or action.

            The Church whose minimum age for marriage is sixteen for males and fourteen for females would probably grant a statement of nullity without the case having to go to the Diocesan Tribunal since all that is necessary for evidence would be the Birth and Baptismal certificates of the petitioner. Thomas Lalor, a pastor in a Catholic Parish in Mississippi, sees her as being admitted fully in the Church to receive the sacraments.

            The Church allows annulments in three areas: impediments, form, and consent. Impediments are circumstances that prevent the couple entering into a sacramental marriage. Examples are impotence, disparity of cult (marriage with an unbaptized person), affinity (marrying a relative of a deceased partner), and non-age (Robinson 98-100). Form refers to the wedding ceremony, which has to be public, before an authorized celebrant and two witnesses. Consent is vital since each partner confers the sacrament on each other. Defects in consent, like fear or force, deceit, intentions against fidelity, insanity, lack of due discretion (unaware of the extent of the commitment), and incapacity to fulfill obligations would render a marriage invalid (Robinson 101-103).

            Joseph Zwack reminds us that the Church changed its notion of marriage from a legal contract to a covenant in the 1970s. With emphasis on marriage as a long process of commitment, only mature couples can realize what they are getting into. There are now more psychological causes to approve annulment (39-43). Dick Westley accuses the Church of marrying people first and educating them second (181-6). Using the annulment process as a tool of education both before and after marriage will help.


                                    Marriage defined as Paschal Mystery

            Goeffrey Robinson sees a Creation/Redemption type definition of marriage. True love between the couple is a glimpse of the divine in each other (19). Marriage is their continuing discovery of God or the infinite in each other (19). They share in God’s creative acts by producing children and more love (20). Theodore Mackin reminds us of Edward Schillebeeckx’s argument for indissolubility. Marriage is Christological. God’s love for us is like a married love through Christ. Human marriage is indissoluble when it comes like Christ’s love. The spouses’ consent springs from their baptismal faith. They make their commitment in the power of Christ’s own commitment, and through Christ’s grace. It is not the sacrament that makes their marriage indissoluble. It is the commitment that makes the marriage a sacrament (Mackin 622). Genovesi, in his treatment of sexuality and morality  sees our call as Christians as one to be lovers (ch. 1). With the beauty of love and sharing our sexual appetites we are also in danger of falling away from God when our desires become too egotistical. We also need the redemptive part of married love.  It would be good for people preparing to be married to go through steps studying marriage breakdown as a checkpoint to their own situation. 

                        Internal and External Forces of a Marriage Breakdown

            When we first fall in love, especially at a young age, we have a tendency to cover the loved person with perfections hat do not exist. After a time these perfections fall off and we see the real person. We need to live through this process in order to affirm our love, compatibility, and motives for marriage. Bishop Robinson offers a wide range of questions for couples in his chapter on internal forces of marriage breakdown, including interests, friends, habits, religious ideals, family and ideas on children of each partner. Also included is how the couple shares intimacy, finances and problems (32-58). Many of these questions are handled in the pre-nuptual investigation form, and in workshops offered by the diocese, but the form is really too short and the workshops are prone to the leaders talking. Respondents will have a tendency to inflate their expectations. They really need a longer time to live with the above checkpoints. At this stage, diocesan documents on annulment especially the form that asks the petitioner to describe the previous marriage are helpful. These forms cover in detail all the checkpoints of Bishop Robinson. I would recommend that the couple read the Robinson book on marriage, divorce and annulment, and discuss it with a priest or counselor.

            Robinson’s external forces of marriage breakdown have to do with a sense of alienation caused by the modern industrial age. With nuclear families (parents and children) living separately from their larger family, new problems arise. The young, unmarried, divorced and elderly become alienated from society. There is more pressure on being married as a security measure. There also is little connection with our jobs and our family, religious, and spiritual/mental life ( Robinson 59-63). Eileen Silbermann gives a detailed feminist view of the pressures put on women (13-14). Tammy in the above case could be experiencing these external pressures. Discussing these points will help inquiring couples as well as helping couples whose marriages have broken down. Philip Keane remarks that in our industrial age with longer life spans, we need to have ways of resurrecting from mistakes or be condemned to a long life of alienation (145). Bishop Robinson equates separation with death and the need for time to handle the bereavement (ch. 4). I would add that the inquiring couple could also use an equal amount of time for preparation.

            The concept of indissolubility can be negative if it keeps a person in a life of separation, but it can be positive for society as a creation of an ideal. Robinson says we need it for the greater good and to have an idea of what a real marriage is (87-8). The concept of nullity defines the concept of indissolubility rather than making separation easier ( Robinson 96-7).

                                                Annulment and Divorce        

            Joseph Zwack writes his book to encourage Catholics whose marriages have been irretrievably broken to seek annulment and be able to come back to the sacramental life of the Church. He sees the Church as Christ wanting to welcome back those who are lost. Bishop Robinson agrees adding that annulment is not simply a “Catholic Divorce.” Legal divorces are not put to the same study as Catholic annulments. Robinson sees the process as a superior form of reconciliation that will also help the separated people in the future (96-7). Marriage can be a symbol of God’s love. It achieves this sacramental level when knowing consent is made between two people. We are in constant need of teachers to help us in our decisions so that we can live on a higher level when we are right, and be resurrected when wrong.




  1. What is the difference between annulment and divorce?
  2. Does the increasing availability of annulments weaken the concept of marriage? In what ways does it strengthen the concept of indissolubility?
  3. What is the difference between a contract and a covenant?
  4. If marriage is a covenant, what are major factors to consider when approaching a decision on annulment?
  5. Why should be guilty of fraud be admitted back fully into the Church?





                                                Works Cited


“Explanation of the Tribunal Process for the Petitioner.” 2004. Office of the Tribunal,

Catholic Diocese of Jackson.


Genovesi, Vincent J. In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality. 2nd Ed.


“Guide to Written report on Previous Marriage.” 2004. Office of the Tribunal, Catholic

Diocese of Jackson.


Keane, Philip S. SS. Sexual Morality: A Catholic Perspective. New York: Paulist

Press, 1977.


Lalor, Thomas. Pastor of Our Lady of Victories Parish. Interview.


Lawler, Michael G. Secular Marriage Christian Sacrament. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third

Publications, 1990.


Mackin, Theodore, SJ. The Marital Sacrament. New York: Paulist Press, 1989.


Prenuptual Investigation.” 2004. Diocese of Natchez-Jackson.


Robinson, Geoffrey. Marriage, Divorce and Nullity: A Guide to the

Annulment Process in the Catholic Church. Collegeville,MN: The

Liturgical Press. 2000.


Silbermann, Eileen Zieget. The Savage Sacrament: A Theology of Marriage After

American Feminism. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1983.


Westley, Dick. Morality and its Beyond. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1985.


Willard, John. Judge of the Chancery Court, Bolivar County, Mississippi. Interview.


Zwack, Joseph P. Annulment: Your Chance to Remarry Within the Catholic Church.

Cambridge: Harper and Row, 1983.












Genovesi, Vincent J. In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human

Sexuality. 2nd Ed.  Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.



9 – We study our external behavior with what is in line with our hearts.  – Moral theology is a mind/heart thing

Big LAW – Love one another as God loved us (John 15:12)

10 We are to live as LOVERS – our CALL-  11- Christianity is a way of living

Theology vs the Magisterium




15 – Morality is the act of living a life of love   Ethics is the systematic reflection

Goal is eschatological – building God’s Kingdom



            (1) Meaning of Ethics

17 – Moral acting like a full authentic human being

 - We learn from Jesus (18) In our freedom we choose to live otherwise = immoral

            (2) Locating Human Ethics

                        In Christ from God – Christ is redeemer and lover

18- There is always a struggle between our Baptism and Temptations (Like Jesus in the Gospels) (19). We learn from Jesus that the will of the Father is Service (20). Baptism is the pouring out of love that needs to counter our less human desires.




21 – VOCATION – we are called by God to be lovers – Physical laws are for our bodies but the LAW of LOVE is for our total person Mind and Body (he just says SPIRIT). Bernard Haring is cited. (22)


(1.)  Jesus and The Commands to Love

24 – We can only love God to the extent we love our neighbor- BIG LAW of LOVE

25 – This love is self-sacrificing – agape

            (2) The Experience of True Love

SINCE LOVE is key to being human and Christian we need to LEARN the many faces of it. (25)

Self-interest love (La Rochefoucauld) is “bad faith” love – doing stuff that we think is love but it is only done to make us feel good (Helas!).

28 There is risk in love – DANGER OF BROKEN HEART

29- Can we really love authentically – meaning that our motive is outside ourself?????

This love is powerful and can transform (transfigure) others’ faults. We have to practice this kind of love even if we have to “fake” it at times. We can see it maybe with children and our spouse, but we have to transfer it to others too. Real hard.

            (3) Love’s demands for Christian Social Living

31 – Love needs JUSTICE

32- Social sins of “omission” (no one person is to blame)

33 – we need to identify with the poor like Ignatius

Moral Liturgy – helping people through prayer as a sign to where the real work needs to be done


C. CHRISTIAN LIFE AS EUCHARISTIC  (expressions of thanks)

37- We don’t earn God’s love but give thanks for it (grace)  - (covenant)



40-2 we are co-creators with God of the “Kingdom

41- Fundamental MORAL PRINCIPLE – do good and avoid evil

teleological – human effort

apocalyptic – God’s effort alone

prophetic – cooperation of God and Humans



42 Big agon of Apocalyptic notion  of faith alone (Luther) working with teleological notion of good works (Pelagius). It is not the reward of good works and faith that is heaven – but the result of them.????

            (1) Scriptural data on Faith and Good Works

agon        grace alone (Eph2:4-9 vs. Faith without works is dead James 2:17-21

            (2) Living Faith is the Gift we need  - the compromise

Our Faith(love) in God is seen in our love of neighbor. (44-6)

            (3) Trent

Intrinsic justification – We receive God’s love thru faith and it transforms us to do good works

Luther – extrinsic  (47) good works are in gratitude and not the cause of salvation

48 – Apocaplyptic (God) Teleological (human works)  and Prophetic (compromise – God +human works

            (4) A Call to Faith – Conversion

49-50  - Conversion is Penance where we change from love of self to love of God. Good faith is gratitude of God’s love and not fear of punishment. It is not God who punishes . We separate ourselves from love or God and that is its own punishment.



(free from external law of Moses – Gal5:13)


(1.)  Paul’s View of Mosaic Law (Gamaliel)

52 – New Law of Grace (Rom 6:14)

Pedagogue leads students to school and law.  Law tells us what is sinful but not what is good.

            (2) New Law of Love (grace not law)

OT – Jeremiah and Ezekiel written on our heart //Aquinas Law of Love//Holy Spirit

            (3) Law of Moses vs Law of Spirit (free from law not responsibilities)54

            (4) Meaning of Christian Liberty 

55-7 doing good out of love – not fear of punishment.  Laws are for the unjust – spirit of law vs letter of law

            (5) Implications of Christian Morality – (we must resist threats to love)

Legalism vs Subjectivism – both are extremes – what I think is right and if I follow the law I am ok – (59) We must walk the middle ground of the spirit of the law. This is going to show up in the confrontation of objective moral wrong and subjective moral wrong.



Prism – light of love of God – call to love in many ways we have a Vocation to love and need to find our own paths



65 – 2 guides for us to recognize our call as lovers



66-6 Bishops and Pope and Theologians protect the gospels

Authentic and authoritative but not nec. Always true – it can change

(1)   The Extraordinary and Ordinary Teaching Authority

Extra – Pope ex cathedra or Pope and Bishops in Ecumenical Council

Ordinary – Pope’s encyclicals, letters or Bishops’ meetings (non – ecumenical)67

(2)   Teaching Infallibly and fallibly

70- Lumen Gentium   69 – 4 conditions for infallibility – not magic HS guides

71 – We are all responsible  (Dulles)

(3)   Magisterium’s Teachings in Morality

Immaculate Conception and Assumption

72-3 – never infallible on specific moral issues but we should give internal moral assent

(4)    Rel. Docility and Dissent

Docile – have an accepting tolerant  mentality

Dissent is imp too

The Church works with dissent and authority. We need checks and balances between authority and the conscience informed theologians who disagree. Gaudium et Spes encourages all faithful to use their conscience.



80 – tells us if A DEED IS GOOD OR EVIL

(1)   from Superego to Conscience

81-2 Superego – wants to be loved etc.

            Conscience is moving beyond wanting to do good for its own sake

(2)   Conscience and its Levels of Meaning 84-8

85- Authentic guilt is a prelude to action and growth – Guilt like anxiety can be a good sign pointing us to positive choices and actions.

3 Cases of Conscience – responsibility – reasoning – and judging 88 – we are not sinning if we go thru these steps


C. CONCLUSION – act open and docile – responsible dissent – watch danger of self-interest – Conscience must be well-informed – need community backing (law of love) – if not morally wrong but still wrong we have an obligation to fix it 91




A. SINS AND SINFULNESS (state of sin more important than individual sins)

Bernard Haring 94 – human laws can’t be imposed under pain of mortal sin

Mass – missing it  may not always be serious – we have to know the inner state of the person to see if missing Mass is an intent to separate from the community

95 – sins are offenses agst others if we are living in self-love we are in a state of separation of God



Christian life is love of neighbor – sin is a breaking off of this (97)

98 – self-interest vs. self-giving


C. LIFE IN GRACE, LIFE IN SIN 98-9 actions are imp. Peripheral actions can take us away from deepest self



Obj. moral wrong hinders growth of love for others

100-1 – to be morally subjectively wrong we have to do evil with an informed conscience, but objective moral wrong is still evil

103 – many factors to ignorance – life style, culture, feelings like anger etc

104-5 Pre-moral evil or ontic evil – evil action done under extenuating circumstances – even if we are justified we still have an obligation to fix. Also we have a duty to self-inform our consciences. We can be guilty of BAD FAITH if we don’t honestly inform our conscience and act on it. Ontic evil is not at the stage of being objectively morally wrong. It is like over eating. It is an action that is not good for you and can lead to more serious sinful states.



108 – 110 -we can judge if an act is objectively morally wrong.


F. CONCLUSION – mortal sin breaks our covenant with God

109 – Sin is relational  - it happens between people

112 – reciprocal – priest pulls in strength

Priest needs help too.





114 – Sexuality talk avoided for other reasons than religious

Psy. Talks of what is going on. Bio. Talks about how to do it  Rel. tells you not to do it!

115 Living in Sin is associated with sex and not other moral wrongs like greed and racism etc.

Irony – sexuality is a prime area where we meet ourselves and our desires yet we don’t desire sexually everybody we see. ??? Or is this not true? Are all people, esp. the gender of your attraction, potential objects of sexual desire???

BAUDELAIRE – sadism and masochism – every sexual act has an aggressor and victim – true of all our relationships. An uncontrollable desire to dominate and do violence along with a desire to be dominated and confess sins. A creature of contradictions.



(1)   Augustine – body bad and spirit good . This dualism affects morality for many centuries and still does.


117 – sexuality tolerated as means for procreation. Passion and sex not the first order of creation. Our body is up agst reason 118 At the FALL lust and concupiscense uncontrollable

(2)   Aquinas 1274  118 – Embodied spirit is a compromise of Manicheanism


119 – Natural Law is for procreation.

Sins agst nature – masturbation, sodomy etc

Sins according to nature – adultery, fornication etc.

120 Sexuality is for 1. procreation and the  2. education of children. – teaching them about love

17th Century – Sperm discovered – union of sperm and ovum make both partners


Charles Curran –too much focus of sex on physical and not psy. And affective

-         physical sex and natural law isolates sex

-         sexuality and procreation alone is not healthy

(3)   Dualism of Spiritualism and Sexism – get in the way of phys. Sex -

122 – Manicheism – soul good and body evil (conflict – how can God create evil in sex and body?

Women are too emotional? Then how can they steer men to evil etc.?

Women as pleasure machines, sex as a path to romance, sex as a social tool, and the body as evil all hinder us looking at positive aspects of phys. Love

(4)   Human Sexuality as Language (Bernard Haring)

125 – Sexuality more than procreation and the education of children

Sex as a symbol of love – it is a language – we have to learn it by making mistakes

SYMBOL – language is a system of signs which have signifiers (makers of meaning) and signifieds (meanings). We have to fight the guilt feelings to get at the proper use of sex to express love (127)


127 – Vulnerability is the essence of being intimate. Therefore to violate that vulnerability with force of any kind is evil.




130 – penis vs phallus (erected state – violent language for it)

Violence is used here and all thru society –“Making a killing” etc. Men are taught to use their “weapon” etc



132-3 SYMBOL of genitals is too much focus on physical – we need to “READ” affective emotional aspects of intimacy too. This will raise both aspects to a higher level – like cross reading – interdisciplinary readings deepen the overall reading of a text.



135 Chastity is the honesty a couple has in the degree their sex life is in accord with their overall commitment (136). Me – Chastity is alsoa discipline of education, To be “chastised” is to be punished or educated in a more positive term.

137 Playboy Philosophy of sex as an “entertainment” can be very exploitative, coercive etc. In the 1800 novel Adolphe by Benjamin Constant – the hero wants sex with his partner because it causes her so little discomfort and him so much pleasure.

Of course the point of the novel is how much pain and anxiety is caused a physical plunging into sex.

138 – Playboy philosophy has no commitment and with no commitment is no love.


G. TRUE LOVE OR ILLUSION (sex/love/intimacy)

139 – love of self important

140 – falling in love not the same as loving someone

142 – signs of infatuation (passion, nearness need funny feelings)

142-3 Being in love has to be nurtured to “giving” love  - this involves choice

144-5 True love is love for others and human sexuality has to be in harmony with true love



146 – sex education on rise – talk to teenagers about contraception and abstinence

147 high % of teens (13-5) have sex – few use condums? Most think it normal to have sex

148 STATS – 17% of Catholics think pre-marital sex is wrong

How can the Church be taken seriously on its position that sex should only be for procreation and that pre-marital sex is wrong?? What do we do with age group from 14 to 24 who have strong sexual desires? Can we realistically say sex is only for procreation and in marriage??



150  - true love as norm? Yes, but really with a total commitment to each other

- sex is a covenant of the commitmentt151 – physical sex is not the only expression of love. Genital sex is not the PRIMARY LANGUAGE of Love. Caring and self-sacrifice are (151), but true love is a necessary primary condition of

151- sometimes is inappropriate (financial problems for children etc?)



(1)   The Meaning of Sexual Intercourse

Hylomorphism – Aristotle body and soul joined but separate but are so together you can’t affect one without the other.

153 – sex as a gift not a loan – should mean “I will take care of you”

154 Reflexivity – Sex is so complete it gives new life. 155 – Sex shouldn’t be the first need in a reflexive relation. You need to see creative things in each other first. No such thing as “test” marriage” – Can be counterfeit. Trial marriages not statistically better.

            (2) Morality, Humanity, Social Sensitivity

157-8 Intercourse – to be morally acceptable has to be the embodiment of a “social sensitivity” meaning it must take place in a “social institution” that safeguards agst immaturity , self-centeredness and other abuses of love ?????????

158 – Eros sex is fleeting – unless supported by a covenant - marriage protects us from wandering spirit

(3)   Reflecting God’s creative and reflective love

159- Marriage reflects God’s love \

a.      Procreative like God’s love for us         

b.      God is faithful to us  like we should be in unity - Unitive with spouse

160-IN Principle  acts of procreation – very legal – if I have a child it will be with you in these acts of intercourse. I don’t necessarily have to have the goal of childbirth in every sex act.

(4)   Marriage as a Sacrament –

162- special moment when we share God’s life in love

Prophets had Israel married to God  ,  Christ and the Church

Marriage is a symbol of faithful love – This sacramental love is filled with grace to keep us on a faithful loving track (163)

This love will spread to the community (164)

166-7 – Chastity – sex is at level of personal commitment

therefore – try to avoid pre-marital love

Will you love each other MORE? Later??? Maybe not more but love will grow –grace

A Sacrament id a SIGN of Christ’s love to all people.

Sacrament is a SIGN_EVENT – a Social thing. It has to be witnessed by society – so that all society can e reminded of this love of Christ(167).

Some theologians think pre-ceremonial sex  might be ok or at least in good faith. Genovesi disagrees – he thinks that the sacramental value of the love is compromised if the couple don’t first profess their love in front of witnesses.



Personalism vs. Physicalism – 168 – the sex act is biological and personal

Law of conscience – some morally wrong acts might be “pre-moral” or “ontic” meaning ok under certain circumstances

170 Natural Law (Aquinas) sex for procreation and education of children – this means that the children need to be protected in marriage so they will be provided for)

171 – the degree of personal commitment between two people may be great enuf so that the child is not jeopardized  170 nor is the common good jeopardize (Dedek)

171- Genovesi distinguishes between “pre-marital” and “non-marital” sex – the later is in danger of love dissolving (disloving – dissolving)


D. THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION on Pre-Maital/non-marital sex

172-3 Objective morally wrong

            Subjectively evil

            Pre-moral or onticevil – may be ok in certain circumstances

174-5 too far -- Phillip Keane

eg. Couple with no intention to marry  - it is sinful to engage in pre-marital sex

            but older couple – to protect soc. Sec. Benefits

            younger couple financially not ready?

It is harder for a younger couple to qualify for the pre-moral evil, but they still might not be guilty of “subjective sin. (176-7_

178 – chastity and honesty

you can be an unchaste virgin with petting etc.

“going too far” used in physical sex but it can apply to other areas Eg. Once a relationship is dominated by physical sex, the couple have gone too far even if married.

E. CONCLUSION – marriage ideal place for sexual love – society protects – God’s love is there – the sacrificial honest love is there (phys. Wrongs – abortion, aids) 179-80.



182 – Traditional view of goal of procreation

19th Century – at least we shouldn’t rule out pro-creation goal

20th C. “rhythm  ok to avoid (183) in natural cycle of infertility “In Principle” theory



(1)   Pius XI  Casti Connubi (On Chaste Marriage) 1930

184-6 – procreative and also relationallove imp.

            Condemns onanism (coitis interruptus and other means of impeding birth)

(2)   Pius XII – to Italian Mid-wives (1951) oks rhythm method if.. 186-7

(3)   Vatican II on Marriage and the family – Gaudium Spes   1965  (187)

-sex beautiful

some sex independent of procreation

still goal is procreation and educ of children

added to the above is the fostering of love

raise kids resposably – obey Church

188- 189 –parental responsibility not to augment family if they can’t afford it

sex act is more than physical

(4)   Humanae Vitae and its background 1968

190 – commission – is contraception an “intrinsic” evil?

191 – Pope Paul – difficult to impose moral laws unless one knows God’s will

Unitive and procreative aspects given equal status (191-2) Can’t SEPARATE them

Contraception view same – agst artificial Birth inducement

AID – artificial insemination by donor

AIH -                                           husband

IVF – In vitro fertilization



(1)   Are the Two Meanings of Conjugal Sex Inseparable? Procreative and Unitive

194 - McCormick – If God willed and made periods of non-fertility, then God intended for genital sex acts to be unitive and procreative and that they need not be together. If God made rhythm possible , then you could have sex w/o intention of birth some of the time. SEPARATION OF UNITIVE AND CREATIVE IN NON-Adrian Hastings – Nature has made intercourse open to birth and also open to non-birth. In marriage this supplies birth on one case and positive unity in the other (good family togetherness). (195) Hastings says that it is OK to help contraception in non-fertile period then it is ok to use it in fertile period. Genovesi is not sure.

196 – AGON – if we can use sex in non-fertile period, why can’t we use contraception in fertile period?  Church seems (197) sees sex as simply a “Nonprocreative act” in non-fertile period. They should refrain from sex if they don’t want a child.

(2)   Is Periodic Abstinence Natural?

197 – LICIT

198- anti-creative vs noncreative – LAWYER TALK – sounds like double talk


Church says rhythm is good for discipline too

199 – Burtchaell – natural and artificial family planning – he says rhythm method seems to pay attention to only the biological part of sexual intimacy ignoring the psychological , affective and emotional aspects of the act – INTERDISCIPLINARITY heightens the “reading” of the sexual acts between partners. – all levels psy. intimate, bio.,

Rhythm can be unnatural here. Eg. too mechanical

Real evil is selfishness Are we trying to avoid kids for reasons of $ etc.? (200)



201 – HV if rhythm is ok, what about other means to avoid pregnancy

Is it always a moral evil to eliminate the procreative factor in sexual intercourse?

202 – Phillip Keane sees exceptions in medical, economic and psy. Cases

Wright –  this goal of procreation presents couple with an obligatory ideal that will help them question life. They may not be able to live up to it in certain circumstances, but confronted with it, will make them do good decisions

4 obligatory ideals (love God, do good and love neighbor, be faithful ??(203)

204 – if couple is not ready to educate a child beyond birth, they may be morally excused

205 HV agst “dishonest” behavior

Robinson – Bad Faith if wee play good of children agst good for the spouses


Stats show 75% use artificial contraception but this doesn’t make it morally right



(1)   Sterilization Procedures207-9 Direct and Indirect Sterilization

207 – Direct S. = goal to prevent birth – it is undesired (pop control)

208 – Indirect Sterilization – in case of health danger to mother (Church oks)

Annulment granted if spouse doesn’t tell husband of previous sterilization

(2)   Coitus Interruptus – can cause all sorts of psy. and phys. Disintegrities (209) – egoism and fears

(3)   210 - Hormonal Methods (progestogen – etc.)

(a)    Oral contraceptives (the pill)

Inhibiting ovulation

But also these hormones will alter cervical mucus (which increases difficulty of sperm to enter uterus) and alter the endometrium (which reduces likelihood of implantation)

Some stop ovulation   - contraceptive

Some stop fertilization - abortifacient

Anovulants – (211) Suppress ovulation

212 Contraceptive -

            abortifacient (fertilization of egg by sperm) 213 –  cause breakdown of endometrial  lining of uterus so that implantation of fertilized ovum is interrupted

            contraceptive – prevents sperm migration into uterus (thicken cervical mucus)

(b)   Norplant 1990

216 – slow (5 yrs) – implanted – more abortifacient than contraceptive

morally problematic after 1st year

                        © Depo-Provera 216 – 17 injected  - contraceptive but could be abortifacient and therefore morally problematic

                        (d)RU486  and Ovral – emergency post coital interventions“morning after”pill   - causes uterus to reject – used for rapes etc. (219)


(4)   Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) are abortifacient -  they stop fertilization process of a “potential” human being (221)

(5)   Barrier Methods – Condums and diaphragms and cervical caps

222- least morally problematic – contraceptive (223) little side effects + contraceptive

(6)   Contraceptives and  the Unmarried

223 unwanted babies should be avoided

224 STD (sexual transmitted diseases AIDS, HIV) condums not 100% safe

225 “safe sex” not condoned by bishops

226 – BIG REALISTIC WORLD PROBLEM of disease and overpopulation

227 Can we marry with HIV knowing we can’t do the procreative part in sex? Ok

(7)   Natural Family Planning (230 – Genovesi is for it)

“Unsafe” period

229 Billings Method mucus after menstruation = 6 days of ovulation ???reread!!!

He likes this method – both spouses participate – the woman is not degraded – and the period of abstinence required is good for exploring other methods of intimacy and love (231)



232- Magisterium, in specific areas of morality have never expressed their teachings in an infallible way. Cannot put “moral” and “infallible” together.

SCDE (Sacred Congress of Doctrine of Faith) – cannot put moral and infallible together

235 3 ways of infallible !Pope ex cathedra or ecumenical council or “ordinary universal magisterium” in Lumen Gentium if bishops are in agreement universally it can be considered “infallible

Ford and Grisez say contraception is a part of “OUM”

236 – therefore says Genovesi – Contraception is part of “Fallible “ teaching and there can be DISSENT (238)

237 – Sullivan’s arguments deal with a “POWERFUL” God not permitting the Church to err. What if we are dealing with a weaker evolutionary type God??

US Bishops (239) Contraception is an Objective Moral Evil and not a “Pre-moral”one. However If the Couple act in good conscience  the Church will not condemn or judge them. But the spouses still have to do Penance ????

240 – Genovesi – why confess if not a subjective/objective moral wrong (sin)

Bishops can 1. accept, 2. mitigate or 3. doubt nonifallible teachings (239)

241-2 Other nations’ bishops react to HV by saying to act in “Good Faith”



242 – oral/anal sex – if orgasm is not the goal – ok

            Is oral/anal sex contraceptive??  Ok for wife to achieve orgasm after sex



244- commitment to love is more imp. Than giving birth alone

commitment  - agape – love for the other’s sake

intimacy -        philia – love as a friendship

passion            eros  - is it a desire for self or to be part of the other

 245 – all go together

246 – you can have genital infidelity during sex if greedy – only thinking of self

            dull and routine can be an infidelity

247 – need to be “creative” in all areas of marriage

Marriage is a long conversation (sex can’t make a marriage good as much as a good marriage can make good sex)

Marriage is a long sentence where we have many paradigms. Emotions and affections and touches of all sorts and not just physical sex. Feeling loved will make one want to give love. A reflexive situation where both spouse have to talk to each other in long sentences. The love will be in the inbetween area.

248- All this “sentence talk will be spiritual (body and mind) and lead to God’s love OR WILL GOD”S LOVE BE PRESENT in the in betweens???




250-2 Homophobia –   one in twenty are homosexual

Irony/tragedy – the pressure on gays to remain invisible also permit various stereotypes to continue250) and society’s intolerant reaction induces homosexuals to stay invisible (251) 252 – BUT people who know homosexuals as friends realize how very human they are with the same fears, hopes etc. goal- to know  (connaitre) (253)

Gays fear coming out of the closet – a stigma


253 – def – of homosexuality is a chronic adult attraction seeking sexual desire towards and wanting to receive same from members of own sex. Also they are attracted in other ways to members of their sex – affection wise. They may feel indifferent, uncomfortable

or weak with members of opposite sex.

(1)   Sexual Orintation vs. Genital Activity  (Fate vs free will) 255

256 – SCDF’s Views

-         2 types – those “falsly” taught” and those whose Homosexuality is “in bred” like a disease!!!!!!!! They see it as an objective moral disorder – very selfish

-         Reactions agst this – sex orientation is more than just genital

-         Agst using “disordered” to condemn a person at the start

Nugent and McCormick – homosexuality has to do with all intimated needs from same sex. McCormick – if disorder is associated with sexual appetite then all people ar disordered (258).

MORAL INTERPRETATION comes, whether homo or hetero when we consider individual ACTS  and see if they are appropriate or not. It is not ACTS vs. STATE.  HOMOSEXUALITY in itself that should be judged “MORALLY” wrong. BUT DON”T WE DO THIS???   

            (1) Pseudo- Homosexuality – persons not oriented but who do acts like in prison or military!!



260 – homosexual should be an adjective and not a noun – a person is more than just one’s sexual orientation. This is true for other nouns as well like American, Catholic ??

(1)   Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder?

262 – Freud didn’t call it “illness” but did say it was case of “inadequate development.

263 irony – the need for Psychologists for homosexuals is mostly because of social, rel., and person opproprium and not the homosexuality itself.

1974 – APA stops calling it “disorder” – goal of psy. no longer to change

(2)   Attempts to Explain Homosexual Orientation

264-5  Nature or nurture

more homosexuals are in therapy, but no real “patterns” of behavior



(scriptural and natural law [procreation vs frustrated acts])

(1)   Scriptural Prohibitions  (different in this time)

268-9 didn’t accept or reject

270-1 Sodom – not just homosexual acts but all wrongs were condemned

Leviticus Code – Death Penalty for many acts (including homosexuality)

273 – Pro-creation imp. For Israel – needed folks to fight enemies.

NT –274 – Malako -- Arsokoitor – all sexual perverts   “illicit acts”

275 – Greco-roman – pederasty (boys)  276 – not true homosexuals

277- author condemns all forced sexuality on unequals but not nec. Homosexual activity with consenting adults. Therefore – 278 – don’t be over zealous in condemning it, but don’t dismiss it either.

(2)   The Natural Law Argument


280-1 – only for procreation  essential vs. accidental procreation

insemination acts – if in older people eg. it is “accidental

Essential means that you have no intention to procreate?????

(3)   Homogenital Activities and Human Frustration

283 some see it as incomplete and frustrating (lacks permanence – never goes beyond itself   Genovesi questions this.

God marries Church therefore homosexual love not right

285 – celibacy would be moral norm for homosexuals

homosexuals may not be subjectively morally wrong, but their acts are objectively morally wrong or “pre-morally” ontically wrong (286) or neutral



(1)   Official Roman Catholic teaching

286  - agst natural law   287 – homosexual acts are objectively morally wrong

phys.psy.  spiritual needs are complimentary in a hetero relation not in homosexual

(2)   Quaker View  - acts are morally neutral???but agst any exploitative sex acts either way

(3)   Roman Catholic Theological Opinions

289 – Traditional – Genesis – human is completed in hetero relation

Revisionist  View – all not capable of this

290 – Annulment if marriage partner has homo orientation

Cahill – homo acts are “pre-moral” and justified in exceptional cases

292 Curran – homogential acts can be “morally good” in stable mature relationships

293 – Theology of Compromise-goal for all to find a satisfying degree of humanity

“Sin of the world” some are born in a different position and need consideration

294- McCormick – if not chosen then not free – and then homogen. Act might be best expression of growth (but still “pre-moral” evil for him

295 – Genovesi then questions NORM – if not freely chosen then it is not a moral wrong. Is it a “pre-moral or ontic evil??? Can we judge this?

(4)   Sum of Revisionist

296 – a pre-moral evil if done in a stable mature relationship

only 10%/28% of homosexuals are in a stable relationship

most homo acts are objectively morally wrong

298 – an extra-homosexual affair would change the act from pree-moral to objectively morally wrong



Psy,ethical and theo data support hetero as normative, but we have to safeguard rights of homosexuals 299

(1)   The Magisterium’s Call for respect and Tolerance

SCDF “s letter 299-300 – condemns ridicule etc., but their language assumes homosexuals are promiscuous and they more than hetero people are in da

nger of being w/o Christ/s love – DECONSTRUCTION – Church is not tolerant

(2)   Decriminalizing Private Sex Acts – 300 – these do more harm than good

(3)   Anti-Discrimination Legislation

301 – SCDF afraid these will condone homo activity rather then defend their rights

(eg. Affirmative Action casee where youwill have to hire homosexual

SCDF wants to protect family values

303-5 Military



            Adoption  306 Keane – should be case by case just like for heteros

(4)   Focusing the Debate

306-8 – needs more study

307 flaw – same sex relations are not stable and you do nothing to help them

don’t ask-don’t tell is wrong – wrong to live in fear of being discovered

308 – H tolerate is a bad word

Do homosexuals forced to stay invisible which feeds on the homophobia

“outing” by homosexuals bad too – forcing others to come out



309 – avoid idées reçues  eg. “all homos are like kids”

310-11 Obj moral wrong – subjective moral wrong – pre-moral evil

Confessors –casuists

312 Revisionists unrealistic goal for homosexuals to stop – therefore we need compromise morality to help and keep homosexuals in our community of faith.

313 – Pastoral do case by case  - always promote procreation but…





314-5 60s – guilt, a concern in confession

now less guilt little concern – seen as relief, or bad or psy.



Kennedy – 315  - 1972 Is it harmful or not to worry

Bad if self-centered   - do Psy. First before questioning morality

317 Tensions of adolescent (bored, girls/guys/ self image)

Goergen – healthy when thinking of intercourse, bad if not

318 – not intrinsically immoral

goal of sex – “other” oriented love 319 – celibate vs married



319- Scripture – agst unchaste stuff but not specific about Masturbation

320 Magisterium 1975 – sex for procreation and unity therefore M. is wrong

- not wasted sperm or temptation agst sex though

321 – 4 arguments

            obj. serious sin

            diminished freedom of person doing it (not subj. sinful

            fundamental option (not subj. sin)

            OK part of growing up

322 CCC- says it is a sin

Objective moral evil   -   subjective m e or pre-moral evil

324 – many cases

326 Timmerman

women   vs men ? OK for self-esteem for women who show ownership of their bodies

or in men if respecting women and not doing sex with them all the time to dominate etc.

327 Premoral cases –

Dedek  - guilt (Baudelaire) in sex  act is immoral if for itself

328 danger if it becomes routine or egotistical

329 – Cocteau – artist

Mast. For those who haven’t found intimacy

330 fantasy

331 Curran – does it impede growth? If not, no sin



331 – goal always is growth in heterosexual interpersonal relation

332 Mortal Sin ??? don’t aggravate the situation of penitent

333 – Pattern of behavior is more important than the acts themselves

            (1) Sexual Integrity

Cope with sex temptation 334

            1. work on affective side of sex – not just genital area


Watch things we read

Make good friends



Get involved with good works

337 Balance obscenity with other evils like soc. Injustice





-soc. Legal, emotional and moral issue 338

338 – Basic Law – love one another as I have loved you

            sacredness of life and duty to care

human life basically inviolable   but not at all costs

(war, cap. Punishment, self-defense)

340 – Murder malicious unwarranted unjust killing of another human being

Abortion – let’s not start with the conclusion tat it is murder!!!

341 – it is murder only if it takes a person’s life unjustly



            - fertilization

            - uterine implantation

            - felt brain waves

            fetus is vioable

            birth      - socialization

342 – grave sin to risk murder  - in doubt of facts follow safer route

In doubt of law follow best sense 343

Human organism with genetic make-up – not nec. A person

344 – Immediate humanization at fertilization  - 1st theory

Developmental Theory – immediate animation but soul animation is later –2nd theory

 Therefore – “Mediate Animation” theory vs. immediate animation

Aquinas – hylomorphism – matter and form (identified with soul

            The soul only comes in when the body is formed

347 – Aquinas with DNA today would go for immediate animation

Brain dead?

348 – signs of death

Establishment of Organic Individuality 349 – 3d theory –when  developing Fetus is no longer capable of slitting into twins – we may have a person  ??not sure?

Delayed or mediate humanization here 349-50

352 – personhood usually 14 days after fertilization when twinning is no longer possible  - most theologians for this mediate delayed animation theory. PERSONIFICATION – once we accept the symbol of the embryo as a person we can no longer terminate its life. The key here is when does embryo become human.

Still the “pre-embryo” should be respected


(1)   Treating Victims of Sexual Assault

353 – 2 weeks given for human life to begin  (1958- quicker)

354 – with rape – ok to prevent conception/fertilization, but once fertilization has started  - no

subjective 356  D and C  “Double effect  (Dilation and Curettage)

                                                prevent fertilization  of ovum by sperm - contraceptive

                                                prevent implantation of ovum in  - abortifacient

357 after ovulation it is abortifacient

358 – Hormonal Post-Coitum Contraception

359 Ovral is abortifacient

361  D and C (after rape_ only 10 days after  thwarts only “potential” of life   ok

goal is not to treat “pre-embryo” stage cavalierly



362- health of mother

            unjust aggressor

                        formal – fully conscious of what he is doing

                        material (drunk deranged etc.?)

Direct/indirect abortion

            (1) Principle of Double Effect  (one action has 2 effects: good and bad, but the good is intended. 364-5 (eg bombing a plant in war)

(2)   Direct vs Indirect Abortion

365 – cancerous uterus

366 Ectopic – it can be direct if you only remove embryo and not the tube

368 – therapy abortions are direct

369Intention is the key. Is your intent to remove the embryo or to preserve the health of the mother. 370 – If intention is to remove the embryo then the embryo is lethally touched.

(3)   Moral Physicalism

The physical structure of the act may not have the same moral structure

Physical structure of the act has diverse moral and human meanings

Eg. 371 murder, self-defense, justice or murder

What is intention of the mother

(4)   The Principle of Proportionality and Beyond (more flexible than indirect abortion) 374

(5)   Treating the fetus as an aggressor  // Just War Theory

(a)    Competent authority

Supreme Court protects well-being of mother376 (emotional, psy., age)

Civil Authority – Roe vs Wade 377life begins in 3d trimester

1st – State can’t stop   2nd state can approve   3d – only if health of mother

377 fetus has no rights    378 Voice

378-9 Pennsyl. Law permits but discourages

(b)   Just Cause of Proportionate reason for Abortion379

Civil Law –most Americans approve if mother’s health is in danger

But most cases f abortion don’t have this  380

Prime reason is psychologically immature of financially not able

381 Med. Reasons are few

382 Church is agst – better 2 deaths than 1 murder! Eg. in removing fetus from tube

383-4 Jaring for the doctor to remove fetus from tube

385-6 But if you are removing fetus to ease another organ ike the heart – that is a no-no

386 – save the life that can be saved

387 Psy Trauma – may be  there – therefore help mother

388 – removing a deformed fetus might be morally ok

                        © Last resort

Society is sick 388-9?? If desperation is the last cause – we should do something as a society to prevent people from wanting abortions  389-92

394 Sterilization allowed I various health cases by state

But not by Church395-6



Abortion always tragic, but tragedy of abortion not always immoral 396

397 - 90% of aborts are non-health danger

398 – do we fight for laws or to change public opinion?

399 Caesar vs God   Moral vs Soc.Pol. (Cuomo)

400 – agst Cuomo – abortion is wrong. How can you be “pro-choice but still be against abortion – seems absurd – The Law’s moral implication are immoral

John Courtney Murray and Aquinas -- LAW is only to safe guard evils – It can’t stop moral decisions

403 – McCormick – mother’s life – fetus, rape

404 – still these measures are “last resort”

405 we should at least work on restricting abortion

406 Law vs heart

respect for life – empower people to live – not condemn to death in all areas – health, Cap. Punishment, nuclear arms etc.


CONCLUSION  - labor for dignity -- suffering thru birth to avoid abortion is a Christ way of acting/suffering






















GAUDIUM ET SPES (Excerpt from pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) Dec. 7, 1965


Ch 1. Dignity of the Human Person    

            What is man made in God’s image  - little less than the angels

            Created in a community – not solitary


13. abuse of liberty of “holiness”

            struggle of good and evil

Pascal – The Call of Grandeur along with the depths of Misery

14. Body and Soul     heart

15. Dignity is in Mind  intellect and wisdom

16 – Sanctuary of the Conscience which does err

17 Need freedom from pulls of passion

18 Riddle of death thru Christ we are freed fom the fear and “end” of death


45. Church’s role – help God’s Kingdom come

The Lord is the Goal of History   Alpha and Omega


Part II  Some Problems of Special Urgency


46. Urgent needs of man – marriage, family, human culture (eco, soc,and pol)to live in peace


Ch. 1 Fostering the Nobility of Marriage and the Family


47. Marriage and family in the Modern World

Marriage is for well being of Christian Soc. An

Ills – polygamy, divorce, free love and self-love profane married love


48. The Sanctity of Marriage and the Family

A covenant relationship   God is the author

Goal – procreation and the education of children

Christ/Church is model

Married love // Divine Love

All members of family contribute in making each other holy  - Reflexivity


49. Conjugal Love

The Lord gives this love --gifts of healing, perfecting, and exalting gifts of grace and charity

Erotic love alone will fade

Conjugal love is an outstanding witness to the community of the kind of love it needs.

50. The Fruitfulness of Marriage

Goal – procreation and education of children

Extension of their love from family to church and society

Procreation is imp.but they should not over populate their family beyond their means

Marriage is an imp. Manner of relational love too.


51. Harmonizing Conjugal Love with respect for Human Life

Size of family

Take means not to regulate in “unworthy manners”

Agst abortion


52. All must promote the Good Estate of Marriage and Family

The family is a school of deeper humanity

Education to show children their VOCATION

Christians should promote values of marriage and family

With all vocations of society (bio, soc, psy and med)

Engage in study groups to promote education on marriage etc


































JOURNAL THL 552 Human Sexuality/Marriage       James Tomek


Robinson, Geoffrey. Marriage, Divorce and Nullity: A Guide to the

Annulment Process in the Catholic Church. Collegeville,MN: The

Liturgical Press. 2000.


Preface 11-13 Book is for those whose marriages have broken down and for all Catholics to understand more about marriage and to be open to Church tribunals and nullity decisions.


Ch. 1    God’s Plan for Marriage


What is marriage? (15)


I. CREATION  - marriage meant for all times to all peoples?


1.      Bible accord  Gen. 2  man fashioned from dust  - “help-mate” – “EZER”  - a powerful term not weak (16)

p. 17 – named things = power over them, but man not named

Ish = man and “ish sha” the feminine for man or being (17)

Rib is “ti” or “life” (18)

Definition - 19 – intuitive love is the glimpse of the divine in each other – sexuality is the ability to relate – we are the images of God because we receive God’s spirit not his “body.”  Marriage is the voyage of discovery of our infiniteness. Marriage helps us see the “image” of God in ourselves and others through the interrelations and workings of love.


Failures to love – enthusiasm means “God within” – sometimes we fail to see this. A LOT of times we fail to see goodness and right things. We are also selfish creatures. Therefore we need help and equal love when things go wrong.

Be Fruitful Gen 1:28 – together they are to be fruitful and “conquer” the earth


2.      3 Qualities of marriage (21)

a.       One man – one woman – needed for long process of discovery. Infidelity keeps us from studying.

b.      Forever – commitment important

c.       Produce new life (23)


3.      SIN (ch3 Genesis– failure to connect – lost sight of divine in each other)


II. REDEMPTION – needed for failures so we can get back in touch to the ideal (25)


  1. New Commandment – “love one another” in John – we can learn to love the way Christ loved on the Cross – Paul Claudel talks of this love and the need to experience the hurts in love so that you can love in spite of them. When this happens you have arrived at a Christ-like love. (26)
  2. Trinity type love – 2 (3)persons are distinct and yet one at the same time – this is like the advaita Hindu love. (27)
  3. Sacrament – 28-9 – the “matter” in the sacrament is the man and woman. The Ministers are the spouses themselves . Grace is there especially in their power to forgive each other.

John’s gospel opens at Cana  and ends on the Cross with Christ telling us to be a family to each other.  (29-30)




Love and reality

31 – Crystalization – young people usually don’t see the big picture. They crystalize the loved one with perfections that don’t exist. Time is needed so they see each other more clearly when the “perfect” crystals start falling off.  Then, they can decide to accept the real person with  faults as well as the true virtues.


  1. Interests, activities, friends, politics,  (32-4) am I prepared for this new life?
  2. Roles in marriage  (34-6) we follow traditional roles sometimes. Is my partner open to new roles?
  3. Choice of partner  (37-8) how are his/her work habits, habits, cloths, attitude etc.
  4. Reverse it – how does partner see me? (37-8)
  5. Religion and Philosophy – What are (40-2) my ideals? Rel. children. Work?
  6. Motives – desires for getting married (status?, rebound? Romantic notion?)
  7. Expectations – unresolved problems
  8. Communication (46-7) can you talk? (without words too) – need to express anger, hurt, fear. Are you a friend? Are there questions you can’t talk about? Do you have outside help?
  9. Emotional Intimacy/Communication (48-50) – need to be close to each other – vulnerability – both good and a danger if violated
  10. Finances and Home management -  (50-1) Budget priorities
  11. In-laws 52-3 – Am I marrying a family? Are they more important to him than me?
  12. Sexuality (54-6) how affection is shown
  13. Children (56-7) agreement to have or not and to the roles you will play
  14. Different cultures


Happiness  - serious business – joy is necessary. But so is seriousness in preparing.




A. Nuclear Family (59-60) Rural big families vs. Industrial Age city families

Nuclear family is the family in an industrial society  - man – woman and children living separately from rest of family (rural type)

4 groups have new problems in the Industrial Age of the nuclear family

            young  - alienated left out

            single - -

            married – new problems – separated by jobs

            elderly – abandoned a lot

Parents have more important role in nuclear family

60-1 – Marriage breaks down more in an industrial society


B. Alienation – the gap between our work and our control over it

            The gap between our ideals and reality- modern malaise (ill at ease) is a complicated feeling of separation from something(?) (61-2) -- our town, family, home. Dangers arise if we see marriage as a “savior.”


C. Rebellion of the 1960s agst the Malaise (630

            Good – attempts at social justice

Bad – (63-4) attacking Church, Government and Family and social order and parents instead of the causes of poverty, social injustice and malaise.

            Also – the ME GENERATION and greediness


D. EFFECTS on MARRIAGE  (65) good and bad


65 – immature attitude if you see marriage itself as a cure for alienation

Satisfaction with home life is important

Dissatisfaction can lead to self-protective counters which can cause problems

66- Escapism

Cult of the “here and now’

Emotional problems seem to be a bigger cause than maliciousness

67- Ideals in Marriage are:


            self-giving (more important)

Individual vs. group values – more imp.   For dignity is group stuff – we need to see ourselves and others as members of a group so that we can all respect each other.




68-9 desert ile vs. society  - more freedoms in society – laws needed to protect rights and sense of responsibility is needed – marriage is an ideal relation – it is risky but risk can make it stronger





Separation is like death (71) – need for a resurrection



Stages – shock-denial-guilt (imp. If healthy) –grief (cleansing)- anger-depression


TIME is important. Others can help, but we need time – the big consoler

(73) – Voltaire talked about this. We see the need to make decisions, but to also take enough time so that they can mature.


B. LEARNING TO LIVE AGAIN – the final stage of bereavement

73- new home, $use, job, =new problems – feeling like a stranger

74- Divorce is easy   - the LEGAL stuff is harder

Stigma of divorcee – society rejects the single mother, widow, divorced person, single person over 30 yrs. Old.   - 75 – it’s a COUPLE-Oriented society – people feel comfortable with couples and are prone to give moral judgments

76 – GROUP THERAPY is important – need for acceptance there first

Long term acceptance by society is harder

Learning to trust again and to be there for those in need.


C. CHILDREN of separated people

-ridiculed by peers

teachers don’t understand (eg. parents fight over the kids and the kids refuse to perform in school). 78 their idols (the parents of the kids) have been marred




79-80 only those who put nothing in to marriage will be unscarred.

-         some learn things – eg. how to be better parents and be more tolerant  and be more self-sufficient – there are RESURRECTIONS



80- divorced have tendencies to divorce again

motives for second marriage can be selfish

81- no fault and blame PASCAL – it is hard to be alone and face your condition – easier to blame and not think. 82 – Death and bereavement is like separation. Therefore don’t rush the process. Take time to think of the causes.



If something happens and we have to separate because of cruelty, or our sanity or our children, can I be free to marry again



(84) Matt 19  - 2 laws

                                    Hillel – wider divorce laws

                                    Shammai – divorce only thru adultery

Jesus presents the IDEAL, but we also need a way of life if those ideals fall short (Fred Gunti)

(85) Bonds

            emotional – love

            moral – law

            spiritual – God

            legal – community

            personal- all the above

(86) Separations



            Spiritual- God – only death can separate this bond


B. BELIEFS AND LAWS    (laws can change but not beliefs – eg. belief in Jesus’s ideal) (86-7)



87-8 – does it help to have the belief of indissolubility ?? The belief is needed for the greater good of society and our well being, but we need GRACE to understand the mind of Christ – we don’t want easy divorces, but we also don’t want a vicious circle of hatreds etc.



89- don’t judge morally – use grounds like desertion or cruelty  (1857 – divorce becomes legal). Jesus’s reasons for indissolubility are deep



s- yes

d- yes for sanity, security, property protection

remarriage – Church doesn’t allow unless the unbreakable bond never existed (90-1)





Claudel and Communion of Saints   and Mystery – this is not a “world of our own” thing. Marriage is a statement to society that the family unit and married life is a sacred important thing. We need a balance to love each other. Witnesses are important because they represent society and the mutual love and responsibility we all should have to each other.




95-6  Divorce if a marriage took place

            Decree of nullity if tribunal judges no marriage bond ever existed

            Eg. Samaritan woman at the well



96-7 Nullity weakens idea of indissolubility says some Catholics

            Indissolubility means that it is important to define the content of a true marriage.

Nullity also is harder to get than a divorce.



Tribunal makes judgment on laws and not a moral judgment on who is guilty

98 Tribunal looks at three things

            1.Impediments 2. Form of marriage ceremony 3.Consent/vows of the couple


E. IMPEDIMENTS  98-100  to see if couple were free to marry in the first place


1.      Non-age (16/14)

  1. Impotence – consummation
  2. Previous bond has to be nullified
  3. Difference of cult - - non-baptized
  4. Sacred Orders )deacon, priest, bishop
  5. Vows of religious brother or sister unless dispensed
  6. Abduction
  7. Crime (a crime committed to clear the way)
  8. Consanguinity (same blood)
  9. Affinity (relative of a deceased spouse’s parent or child)
  10. De facto relatives
  11. Adopted children

F. FORM 100-1 in front of community(public) with witnesses and authorized minister as witness

G. CONSENT (priest is witness and not the conferer. Therefore consent is important

            1.-no force

            2-no deceit








5-Lack of (due) canonical discretion – a gap between consenting at the time of vows and not knowing the reality of what you were consenting to (103). This seems to be a big cause and it is at the discretion of the tribunal to judge.

            6-Incapacity – to fulfill the promises they are making.

YET – immaturity and incompatibility are words that the tribunal does not like to use.

all form and consent qualities have to be at the time of the ceremony vows (not after)







105 – judicial system tojudge if God sealed the bond

Bond vs Marriage

2 types of proofs

            documents – marriage contract, birth certificate,


Questions if Witness proof is required

1.      Is it threatening or good to know what a marriage lacked? (106-7)

2.      Good to face the past – bad to”let go”

3.      nulls are more frequent but not easier to get

4.      % of “no”s not the imp. ?

5.      Time – not too quick after break-up and not too long

6.      1st step – see Pastor

7.      functionaries

a.       Judges

b.      Advocates

c.       Defenders of the bond

d.      Notaries

8.      3 judges in charge

9.      advocates advise petitioner

10.  defenders of bond – really check to see all isuncvered

11.  notaries keep records

12.  no formal hearings

13.  no cross exams

14.  Story of before and after is important

15.  Former partner will be contacted

16.  if he refuses case goes on

17.  serious effort needed to find him

18.  no confrontations of partners (110)

19.  but better if partner is interviewed

20.  Tribunal is not judging the morality of the two people

21.  .

22.  If partner opposes decree he has to go thru the same process (111)

23.  but he can’t stop the case

24.  even if he wants to just hurt the partner

25.  He will be informed of the judgement of nullity and why

26.  a few but perceptive witnesses are needed

27.  witnesses (112)

28.  witnesss from afar

29.  witnesses represent community

30.  seeker of decree secures witnesses

31.  advise witness to tell truth

32.  get civil divorce and settlement first if you can

33.  Tribunal is a judgment and not an investigation

34.  get marriage and divorce certificates (114-5)

35.  get priest advisor

36.  be patient – try not to phone

37.  time depends

38.  time of case

39.  time of case

40.  don’t remarry civilly while case is on (but still it wont be stopped)

41.  only the “married”person can bring the case up (not the unmarried person who wants to marry the nullified one

42.  a non-catholic can apply

43.  non catholic

44.  Church has the right to judge if a non-catholic marriage is valid o null (116)

45.  Children are still legitimate

46.  Moral and

47.  legal problems and obligations still exist

48.  Cost varies and doesn’t affect case

49.  Rich people receive celebrity status and not extra privilege

50.  secrecy vs. confidentiality

51.  always informedof why

52.    .

53.  Right to appeal (same process)

54.   n

55.  Free to remarry but should get counseling

56.   j

57.  Can’t be sure Tribunal will say yesl

58.  Be sensitive to all who seek nullity

59.  Grace of God needed

60.  Nullity decree is worth seeking


Stages of the process 122