So I don't think this works. I agree with the takeaway but not the argument. Start here:
"we need to respect the natural character of sex itself, which is fundamentally reproductive..."
Why? What does that even mean? And if it is accepted, do the rules at all map onto traditional Christian sexual morality?
Should a married couple who know that they're infertile have sex? How can that be reconciled with the principle?
What if a couple has sex before getting married in order to find out whether they're fertile, so that a lifetime of sexual activity won't be in vain? Such a couple is certainly treating sex as reproductive!
Sex can be for pleasure, bonding or the strengthening of affection. Those would seem to be sufficient motives apart from reproduction. As a parallel, when I drive a car, I'm usually trying to get somewhere, but sometimes I just want to see the scenery pass by. Nothing wrong with that.
I think there is a compelling case for chastity, but it doesn't look like this. It's absolutely indispensable to start from the differentiation of the sexes, and the different meaning that sex has for the two sexes. If you try to steer a politically correct course that doesn't treat men and women differently, and then you can't make a case for chastity that's at all persuasive.
Women shouldn't degrade themselves through promiscuous sex. Men shouldn't exploit women through promiscuous sex. It's asymmetric. That's the key.
When I say that sex is fundamentally reproductive, I'm not making a claim about motives. What fundamentally *is* sex? It's how sexually dimorphic creatures breed. How they mate. Because human beings are rational the biological fuses in deep ways with the rational and moral, but on some level we're still doing what squirrels are doing: mating. Perpetuating the species.
Every sexual act need not make a baby, just as (to use Anscombe's example) not every acorn will become an oak. But an acorn is still "an oak in potency" even if it never gets there. And human sex is still "the baby-making thing" even if, for circumstantial reasons, you don't expect to make an actual baby and perhaps don't wish to. You have to respect the fundamental character of the act.
This is far more fundamental than any asymmetries between sexes. Indeed, I don't see how you can make much sense of the differentiation of sexes *unless* you begin with "sex as a baby-making thing" because that's really at the core of those asymmetries.
Driving isn't necessarily a helpful example because it's more artificial, involving technology and potentially (properly!) utilitarian goals. Driving is far less organic and not (by nature) nearly so morally weighty. (It can intersect with morally weighty matters of course, but need not; it isn't morally weighty as such.) To take a less weighty but still more closely analogous case, consider eating. Eating is fundamentally (biologically!) the act of ingesting nutrients. That's what it is; we need energy and that's why our bodies are equipped to eat. But of course it doesn't follow that we either can or should only eat for utilitarian purposes. We're rational and loving beings, and eating potentially (and properly!) takes on lots of other dimensions, and sometimes we eat calories we don't need (and that aren't even good for us) for other reasons: for pleasure, social benefit etc. That's not necessarily wrong. (Though, it can be wrong; gluttony is also a sin.) But eating for pleasure and vomiting it back up (as bulimics do) is messed up. And proper eating should at least be broadly consonant with the body's real needs; we don't have to absolutely optimize but the foundational character of eating as "a nutrient-absorbing activity" should be respected. Otherwise we'll be unhealthy, and undermine our own human powers. Respect the body and its natural rhythms.
"Testing" a potential marriage through fornication is wrong, but probably not because it fails to respect the organic, reproduction-oriented character of sex. It far more obviously violates the other of my two planks: the valuing of persons. That's the beauty (and challenge) of the traditional view: it requires us to preserve the organic character of sex *while also loving like men.*
So I don't think this works. I agree with the takeaway but not the argument. Start here:
"we need to respect the natural character of sex itself, which is fundamentally reproductive..."
Why? What does that even mean? And if it is accepted, do the rules at all map onto traditional Christian sexual morality?
Should a married couple who know that they're infertile have sex? How can that be reconciled with the principle?
What if a couple has sex before getting married in order to find out whether they're fertile, so that a lifetime of sexual activity won't be in vain? Such a couple is certainly treating sex as reproductive!
Sex can be for pleasure, bonding or the strengthening of affection. Those would seem to be sufficient motives apart from reproduction. As a parallel, when I drive a car, I'm usually trying to get somewhere, but sometimes I just want to see the scenery pass by. Nothing wrong with that.
I think there is a compelling case for chastity, but it doesn't look like this. It's absolutely indispensable to start from the differentiation of the sexes, and the different meaning that sex has for the two sexes. If you try to steer a politically correct course that doesn't treat men and women differently, and then you can't make a case for chastity that's at all persuasive.
Women shouldn't degrade themselves through promiscuous sex. Men shouldn't exploit women through promiscuous sex. It's asymmetric. That's the key.
When I say that sex is fundamentally reproductive, I'm not making a claim about motives. What fundamentally *is* sex? It's how sexually dimorphic creatures breed. How they mate. Because human beings are rational the biological fuses in deep ways with the rational and moral, but on some level we're still doing what squirrels are doing: mating. Perpetuating the species.
Every sexual act need not make a baby, just as (to use Anscombe's example) not every acorn will become an oak. But an acorn is still "an oak in potency" even if it never gets there. And human sex is still "the baby-making thing" even if, for circumstantial reasons, you don't expect to make an actual baby and perhaps don't wish to. You have to respect the fundamental character of the act.
This is far more fundamental than any asymmetries between sexes. Indeed, I don't see how you can make much sense of the differentiation of sexes *unless* you begin with "sex as a baby-making thing" because that's really at the core of those asymmetries.
Driving isn't necessarily a helpful example because it's more artificial, involving technology and potentially (properly!) utilitarian goals. Driving is far less organic and not (by nature) nearly so morally weighty. (It can intersect with morally weighty matters of course, but need not; it isn't morally weighty as such.) To take a less weighty but still more closely analogous case, consider eating. Eating is fundamentally (biologically!) the act of ingesting nutrients. That's what it is; we need energy and that's why our bodies are equipped to eat. But of course it doesn't follow that we either can or should only eat for utilitarian purposes. We're rational and loving beings, and eating potentially (and properly!) takes on lots of other dimensions, and sometimes we eat calories we don't need (and that aren't even good for us) for other reasons: for pleasure, social benefit etc. That's not necessarily wrong. (Though, it can be wrong; gluttony is also a sin.) But eating for pleasure and vomiting it back up (as bulimics do) is messed up. And proper eating should at least be broadly consonant with the body's real needs; we don't have to absolutely optimize but the foundational character of eating as "a nutrient-absorbing activity" should be respected. Otherwise we'll be unhealthy, and undermine our own human powers. Respect the body and its natural rhythms.
"Testing" a potential marriage through fornication is wrong, but probably not because it fails to respect the organic, reproduction-oriented character of sex. It far more obviously violates the other of my two planks: the valuing of persons. That's the beauty (and challenge) of the traditional view: it requires us to preserve the organic character of sex *while also loving like men.*