The Value and Dignity of Human Sexuality: Christian Anthropological Perspective

By
Ikenga K. E. Oraegbunam

Abstract
This paper examines the meaning of human sexuality. It attempts to discover a
dependable foundation and draw a positive outline for a human expression of sexual
living contrary to certain adumbrated misconceptions which tend to put human sexuality
in a negative light. The study argues in favour of its intrinsic goodness and holiness. It
thus highlights sexuality, when properly expressed, as the driving force of interpersonal
relations, gender difference, physical/erotic attraction, and spiritual growth. The
methodology is psycho-theological and philosophical analysis of the subject matter from
Christian anthropological perspective.

1. Introduction
The theme of ‘human sexuality’ is one of the least discussed even in relevant
disciplinary areas. When at all it is alluded to, many still shy away as if it is taboo to
mention anything sex. This is unfortunately happening in an era that can be described as
that of ‘sexual explosion’ especially as regards pervasions and deviations. For instance,
this is an age when sex and sexuality have so much been abused and depreciated to a
level of commodity even to be exported overseas in the manner of female trafficking.
Ours is an epoch when homosexuality and gay marriages have not only been tolerated
contrary to what obtained hitherto but also given, albeit by legislation, a hearty welcome
and paradoxically approved by some Christian assemblies. We are equally living in a time
when pre-marital and extra-marital sex relations abound in such a way that many feel no
longer bound by any ethos and norms.
Yet notwithstanding the above pervasions and more, it stands to reason that human
sexuality is at the core of being human. Human sexuality means more than its biological
and physiological import. It is through the instrumentality of the body, precisely as
sexual, that man exercises his humanity as an incarnate spirit.
It is therefore the thrust of this paper to make a deeper appraisal of the meaning of
human sexuality. In other words, it attempts to find out a dependable foundation and draw
a positive outline for a human expression of sexual living contrary to certain adumbrated
misconceptions which tend to put human sexuality in a negative light. This paper argues

1
in favour of its intrinsic goodness and holiness. It thus highlights sexuality, when
properly expressed, as the driving force of interpersonal relations, gender difference,
physical / erotic attraction, and spiritual growth.

2. Misconceptions and Negative Views on Human Sexuality

The influence, on Christianity, of some primitive anthropology, especially
Platonism is really very great. Following the Pythagoreans of Orphic religion, Plato in an
intractable dualist view taught, around 388 B. C., that the human soul was imprisoned in
an evil matter, namely the body. In this economy of thought, the greatest aspiration of
human fulfillment was to mortify the flesh, subject all bodily activities to higher spiritual
values and thus seek escape from the bodily-prison. The totality of the human was hence
understood in terms of only the soul. Consequently, the world of body and matter was
undervalued and skepticism about everything bodily like sex arose and human sexuality
in toto was discountenanced.
This thought-world affected Christianity in no mean way. The writings of the first
and second century Christians were replete with ideas suggestive of the body as a sinful
matrix (Rom. 7: 21-23). St. Paul, thus, would condemn the ‘flesh’ and St. John never
talked good of the ‘world’. Gnosticism and Manichaeism, stoicism and Puritanism
constituted a positive response to this anti-bodily world view. Despite the protestation to
the contrary, by Aristotle before the Christian era and later St.Thomas Aquinas , this
thought-pattern permeated deeply into the Christian folk where it was given a theological
footing via the pens of St. Augustine who combined Platonism, Pauline views and the
teachings of Philo of Alexandria. From thence, anything involving bodily contact such as
kissing, embracing, etc even within the marital context became suspect. This
understanding led to the popular talk that the celibate state is nobler than its married
alternative, which idea was partly premised on the suspicion that the sin of Adam and Eve
was about sexual misconduct or at least that sexual libido was privy to the fall of man.
In addition, this mindset was fuelled by the neighbouring ethics of most eastern
religions such as Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism which made matters worse for the
body through the exigencies and rigours of yoga meditation. These religious ethics, no
doubt, regard matter as limitations (ajiva pugdala), burdens (ahamkara), and illusions

2
(maya) respectively. They recommend union (yoga) as a means to liberation and access to
superior consciousness (satori or Samadhi). In India, those practicing the traditional
‘yoga’ under strict vows of celibacy are not allowed to sit alone even with their mother,
sister or daughter1. All these surrounding worldviews left a no mean mark on Christianity.
At the end, human sexuality was shunned. If the topic of sexuality was treated at all, it
was done under the heading, ‘The Concupiscence of the flesh’ 2. Hence, in the Theology
of the Manuals, procreation (bonum proles) was seen as the only aim of marriage.
Conjugal love (bonum conjugum) was not given any place. Not much positive theology
was done about marriage and sexuality and such was the idea that church history is
replete with instances of some girls running away from marriage as they would from
being raped.
In the light of this worldview, discussions on sex and sexuality were tabooed.
Hence, some people became awkwardly sensitized as if struck at the excited note just at
the mere mention of sex. Even when nature compels such persons to these basic
experiences in obviously non sinful ways, they scrupulously emerge with hangovers of
destructive guilt feelings and ‘occult shame’. Izunwa observes that “this unwelcome
phenomenon sometimes transcends particular cases to some socially institutionalized
cognitive and behavioural patterns”3. This is such that in some societies, sexual offenders
are consigned to extra-diminutive public image far exceeding those meted to even worse
offenders in allied moral issues. Celibates who default in chastity became, as though with
a fan fare, presented as abominable and derobed of all spiritual powers even to the extent
where no ex opera operato doctrine can salvage. Victims of sexually transmitted diseases
are treated not only with much less sympathy but also with disdain and seen as
stigmatized.
In this dispensation, wrong and diminished views about sexuality filter down and
impress upon the public psyche to wreck havoc. Scarcely was any difference made
between sexuality and genitality. Hence, against the backdrop that all bodily pleasures are
sinful, there became among peoples, a naïve narrowing down of sex to genital inter-
course and love to sinful eros. Perhaps, this mis-emphasis must have been informed by
the fact that these, among others, are the most obvious modes of expressing human
sexuality. And as soon as this reductionist error is committed, all affective propensities

3
erroneously assume the image of path enroute copulation and thus become condemned
with it. Moreover, sex having been identified with mating and love with lustful eros, the
ground was already prepared for most cultures which consider life and its sources as
sacred to propose strict protective ethos against profanation. Thus, all acts immediately or
mediately, directly or indirectly connected with the ‘source of life’ such as sexual
copulation became regarded as too sacred to be religiously secured even with ritual acts
as in sacred prostitution and fertility cults.
Gradually, discussions on sex and sexuality were unconsciously jettisoned from the
ambience of human activities even to most offensive details. As a result, everything from
casual love to copulation became abominable outside the legitimate marital enclave and
sometimes restricted to procreative intentions and no more. A regrettable situation arises
when some parents even use their pedagogical authority and influence at domestic levels
to re-enforce these unwary ideas and attitudes to a disadvantage. This certainly led to
several undesirable consequences even on health grounds. Cases of repression, inter alia,
issue in mental disabilities like frigidity, abnormal sexual preferences, sickness and
nervous breakdown such as schizophrenic conditions. The consequent unbalanced sexual-
personality structure, arguably, becomes responsible for social misfits, incompetence in
assignments and failures in life. Furthermore, the fragile spiritual favour of man is also
broken into and pulverized. Consequently, spirituality is defined in terms of striving for a
life without sex or with sex subdued. Paradoxically, Christianity becomes preoccupied by
sex which constitutes the chief target of moralism. Thomas Moore observes that this
point of view “is nothing but spirituality trying to deny the desires and needs that press
from within and without as though they are merely biological and therefore to be
transcended. Thus, we diminish the role of sex and in so doing make it the biggest thing
in life to a great disadvantage”4.

3. The Real Meaning of Human Sexuality

Part of understanding the universe and our place in it is understanding our sexuality.
As we noted above, many cultures and religions have a very narrow and constricted view
of sex. They believe sex is only about making babies 5. Contrary to the above
misconceptions, there has been an enlightened understanding of human sexuality, thanks

4
to deeper studies in social and behavioural sciences and profound anthropological and
theological researches. This section of our work considers the following features of
human sexuality:
i. Sexuality as the basis of gender difference.
ii. Sexuality as the source of eros.
iii. Sexuality as the force of interpersonal relations.
iv. Sexuality as the ground of Christian spirituality
We take them one by one.

3.1. Sexuality as the Basis of Gender Differences

It is fairly obvious – a truism in fact – that in the human species we just do not
have parsons as such. In Igbo language, for instance, we have two specific words to
signify differences between the two great classes of the human persons –umunwoke
(men) and umunwanyi (women). There are also adjectives associated with these
differences like oke (male) and nwunye (female). These adjectives are, however, also used
of the animal world. But the expressions ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are specifically human6.
We are well aware that there are differences between men and women, but quite
often we are inclined to think of these differences in a purely physical sense. By physical
we mean both the structural differences which are obvious and also their different
biological roles. For instance, women are bearers of children and men are generators of
children. But anyone who would seek to define men and women in terms of their physical
characteristics or in terms of their biological roles and seeks to build up an understanding
of men and women solely on these terms will obviously meet with difficulty. In fact, what
he will have to say about them will be just little more than what he has to say about the
male and female of other animal species. It is by way of sexuality, precisely as human,
that the human gender differences are created. Conversely, any attempt to define the
human person without reference to sexuality can only lead to an imperfect view of human
life.
There is therefore much more to human sexuality than the mere physical aspects
and much more to human personality than its spiritual nature. The human person is sexed
and there is a personal dimension to human sexuality which transcends and transforms

5
the merely physical. Thus, sexuality “touches on the very depths of human nature
creating mental, affective and emotional differences which make for different sorts of
persons”7. Indeed, bodily structural differences which we often regard as superficial
should be seen as epiphanies of more profound personal difference. Apart from the
structural, there are also mental differences. Men tend to regard women as illogical,
unreasonable and irrational maybe because women do not think like them. Being prone to
a superiority complex, men regard this as a defect in women. On the other hand, women
see men as stubborn, pig-headed, over-logical, pedantic, and for this reason also
unreasonable. In fact with these various orientations to mental life, it is clear that men
and women think differently in concrete instances even when they think about the same
thing. In a word, they experience differently.
There are also affective differences. By this we mean that men and women love
differently. This is immediately evident when we observe closely the difference between
how a child is loved by the mother and the father respectively. The mother is more
instinctive and affectionate in the way she loves the child. She loves the child not so
much for what he is but simply because he is her child. The case is different for the
father. The father is much more remote in his way of loving the child. A father’s love is
not given in the unconditional way that a mother’s is; it has to be merited. More
generally, we can say that men and women get involved with other persons in quite a
different way. A man establishes a relationship with a person, while a woman drifts into
it. While men engineer involvement, women tend to accept it. This is not however to
imply any relative imperfection. Rather what we mean is that both genders love
differently.
The other level of difference is the emotional difference which means that women
and men manifest emotions in a different way. They are happy or sad in different ways.
Great moments of emotional crises affect them differently.
These differences of the mental, structural and emotional nature can be a deep
source of conflict between men and women, but they need not be. Rather they should be
seen as the basis of their complementarities. Thus, sexuality is a “sign of incompleteness
as individuals and a means of calling us to inter-relate with other humans, to
communicate and commune with them”8. In fact, neither the man alone nor the woman

6
alone has the complete approach to the truth, and therefore neither can hope to have full
understanding. Together they have complementary approaches, complementary pictures,
and here we find the true notion of complementarity. To be a sexual being, as man is, is to
need the other, and this need is conditioned by one’s sexuality. This is a basic fact about
human nature. To ignore this is to ignore a great area of truth. There is no dichotomy at
all between this assertion and Catholic celibacy as celibacy is but another way of
expressing sexuality in which there is need to recognize the other, both men and women
in order to serve them the way Christ did.

3.2 Sexuality as the Source of Eros

Of course the issue of gender difference is not the whole story about human
sexuality. There is also the appetitive side of it. Rooted in physical sexual faculties,
sexuality is entwined with the whole emotive, affective and mental life of the human
person. There is a sense, however, in which it is true to hold that sexuality is an
autonomous appetite which awakens in man at a certain stage in life called puberty. This
is sexuality as eros which, contrary to certain views, is not necessarily evil.
There can be a possible fusion of eros and agape into one dynamic process of
genuine human love. In this provision, the hard elements of eros such as complexion,
physique, texture of skin, carriage, colour of the eyes, etc can be genuinely attractive of a
lover as invitations to a yet-to-come experience of agape. This is perfectly true as human
beings as corporeal creatures are structured to apprehend realities through sensual
receptacles and orifices. Socrates in the Phaedo distinguishes between blind unreasonable
eros and eros guided by reason. In the former, beauty is a means of enkindling sexual
passion and satisfying it. The latter is similarly passionate but is directed more by reason
and passes across particular beauties to the author of beauty, God. Thus, sinful eros
manifests when these initial realities are constituted into, exploited, manipulated and used
as self-gratifying ends in themselves. When this happens human sexuality errs against
chastity as it often does. This is because, in the words of Powers, the strength of the drive
for sexual expression and the nature of sexual attractions though good in themselves
allow opportunity for abuse9.

7
 Be that as it may, this abuse need not remove the use. Eros needs only be
integrated into man’s personhood. In this sense, sex becomes a challenge to the person, a
challenge the nature of which is conditioned both by the sexual nature of the particular
person and by the quality of life of the appetite. The basic need here is control, which is
not given, but can be acquired by constant discipline of thought, desire and action. The
Hindu achieves this discipline by meditation, the Buddhist by detachment from this
‘world of desire’ via ‘thinking-of-nothing’ exercise and the Christian through chastity.
Acquiring this control implies the integration of the appetitive side of sex into the
personal and thus renders it a path to agape. Hence, the fact that there are often some
starting points with some physical attractions does not make Christian love less an
unconditional love. These initial baits are only apparent. They gradually fade away as the
real thing emerges. The biological urges and tendencies must be personalized and it is in
this personalization that the sacredness and the dignity of man’s sexuality lie. It is this
that differentiates human sexuality from the brute’s. The behvioural expression of this
achievement is shown when a man or woman behaves according to the objective moral
norms and standards in matters of sex.

3.3. Sexuality as the Drive for Human Interpersonal Relations

A principal element of human sexuality is the yearning for relations with the
other. This yearning gives rise to human relationship which is about sharing and unity.
According to Thompson, among human persons, the lover and the beloved sculpt each
other mutually in their dialogue of being (diousia). In this way, they become to each other
true sacraments…as they interact in the affinity of their mutual otherness10.
Hence, when God created Adam and Eve, it is for the later to be a helpmate to the
former (cf. Gen. 2: 19), even as they were also blessed to be “fruitful and multiply” (Gen.
1: 28). There are a lot of arguments in favour of this relational character of sexuality.
It has, for instance, been argued that human bonding and relation is more primary
in purpose, with regard to sexuality, than procreation. For if human sex were only
procreational then we would expect that man would become sexually aroused only at
times of fertility, much as happens among the merely animal. This claim may be
vindicated if one realizes immediately that man is spirit though incarnate. And it is the

8
function of this spirit to provide the relating capability of the human, nay, his spiritual
ability11.
It is also interesting to note that it appears it is only in human sexuality that the
species can copulate face-to-face. Thus, the ‘human face’ and ‘the eyes’ are highly
significant in sexual relation and love making. The Igbo rendition for the word ‘love’
brings this to the fore. ‘Ifunanya’ which translates ‘love’ literally means “looking at each
other with the eyes”. This ‘looking’ catches the very essence of human relation. Even for
the blind, and in the case of loving and worshipping a divine spirit, such as God, there is
a basic envisioning with the ‘eyes of faith’, and with the eyes of the spirit. Because man
is also a spirit, he can love the spirits with the eye of the spirits. The ‘eye’ is always in
association with the ‘face’. In the face, there is the smile, the look, the glance, all
disclosing the preconsciousness of the beloved, and bonding spirits. Hence in “the human
face, one encounters the mystery of incarnation, the wonder of the spirit”12. For John Paul
II, “the face reveals the persons”13. This ‘philosophy of the face’ is also found in the Old
Testament: in the Psalms, in the prophets where there is a constant “seeking of God’s
face” (cf. Ps. 26/27). Thus, it is through his face that man speaks and hence relates and
loves 14. This face has a great role in human sexuality. The beloved ones must seek each
other’s face. And it is here that libertines and prostitutes fail since they are not concerned
with the face at all. For this reason too, Verdy observes that “hasty marriages are less
likely to succeed because the partners do not have the time necessary to get to know each
other at a deeper level which is an essential precondition for real love emerging”.15
In human sexuality then, the relationship inherent is that of persons. What happens
in the relationship is not ‘in’ me, or ‘in’ him but in the ‘between’. The relationship is not
one-way, it is mutual. This relationship is entered with the whole of my being, and I relate
to the whole of another’s being. It is a relationship of being, not of seeming. It is of
dialogue and not of monologue. Therefore, it is that of freedom and responsibility, and
not of coercion and mere gratification. This relationship is made possible by the judicial
use of my sexuality16.
All the above arguments are relevant to the extent that they buttress the relational
or dialogical character of human sexuality. It is in this kind of dialogue that the
psychological integrity of individuals is fashioned. Ex hypothesi, asexual person is a

9
contradiction in terms and action. In human beings, sexuality is not so much an activity
or function in which we participate periodically due to physiological factors but rather the
human way of being present to the world and to each other. We always exist, function and
relate as sexual. Thus, sexuality is at the core and center of a human being’s total life-
response. Westley observes that “it is an inescapable ontological determinant of man’s
existence and personality”17. According to this view, sexuality summons man to both
interpersonal and intrapersonal growth. Intrapersonally, sexuality exhorts one to make of
oneself the woman or man one is meant to be. Interpersonally, it urges one to give up
solipsistic individualism and to reach out to the other, to be present to the other, to relate.

3.4 Sexuality as the Ground of Christian Spirituality

Just as human sexuality is the driving force of all human relations, so it is the
ground of Christian spirituality. It is because man is sexual that he can relate with God as
the Wholly Other. According to Westley, “human sexuality at its best, is spirituality” 18.
This is particularly true as Christian spirituality is the ‘spirituality of presence’, and is,
thanks to man’s sexed bodies, that it is readily available to everyone regardless of state or
status. This spiritual import of human sexuality is not without the divine approval as
enunciated in the Christianity’s renewed understanding and theology of sexuality, the
sources of which are the scriptures, the person and the teaching of Christ along side the
glorious college of his witnesses.
In the Bible, sexual attraction is shown as not being a concession to our fallenness
because God himself shaped a complement for Adam to provide for his unique emotional
and physical needs even before they sinned (Gen. 2: 18). The divine mandate; “be fruitful
and multiply” becomes a positive originating statement for total self-giving with a full
array of legitimate sexual expression in marriage. Thus, if Christian spirituality is
expressed in obedience to the commands of God such as the above, how else would man
obey apart from his sexuality? Certainly, the human body was created and fashioned
sexually to enable and empower man to be fully human and do the very work of spirit. It
is perfectly suited to its spiritual vocation. Thus, according to Wright, “genital intercourse
becomes a celebration of love where couples bare themselves to each other, heal each
other and share at the deepest level”19. In the Song of Songs, a tester is given to us of how

10
the bible celebrates love and sex: “your lips cover me with kisses, your love is better than
wine… be my king, take me to your room…” (1:2-4). In shades and shadows, authentic
expressions of human sexuality and genuine love prefigure the experience of fulfillment
to come in the eschatological realm.
More still, although Christ did not devote any didactic theme on how man should
express his sexuality, the general texture of his mission and life, and the heroic witnesses
of his ‘saints’ provide us with invaluable terms of reference. Christ, Mary, the saints and
martyrs are not asexual beings. Christ’s option for celibacy and Mary’s virginity cannot
be used as demonstration against sexuality nor do they preclude sexual life. Surely, if
sexuality is seen beyond its biological and literal meaning, then the monks, Buddha,
Jesus, and many other spiritual figures may be presented as fully sexual beings and the
life of the spirit is in full accord with sexuality 20. Again, biblical scholars have tried to
show that in consistently using ‘sarx’ (flesh as depraved human reality) instead of ‘soma’
(body) whenever he wants to talk of sin, St. Paul would be unfairly and wrongly
interpreted as having denigrated the value of the sexual body. It goes without saying that
far from being a hindrance to the life of the spirit, the body is man’s unique and special
means of reaching spiritual perfection. Soul and body are joined in so intimate a union
within the human person that Aquinas observes that the human soul does not only make
the body live, but also makes the body live by soul’s own spiritual life. Thus, the role of
21
the human body is to enable the human spirit to do the work of the spirit, namely
knowing and loving. Precisely as incarnate spirits, man’s knowing and loving even in
relation to God can only be done humano modo, albeit, physically, incarnately,
enfleshedly. And all these are informed by the fact of human sexuality.
Furthermore, by the process of the three great soteriological events, namely,
creation, incarnation and resurrection, the material body became quickened by the spirit
of God and finally given a pledge of immortality and incorruptibility. The body thus be
come holy and wholesome, a sacrament of God imbued with supernatural grace, raised to
an office beyond the ‘pristine holiness’ of man and made capable of and productive of
acts of righteousness. The consequence of this is that all theories about evil-packed body
and all its acts as sinful become permanently unacceptable. A fortiori, sex and love

11
should no longer be seen in the old categorical framework as depraved but should be
regarded as possible centers of the sacred.
Besides, the official catholic teaching reveals that God directly intervenes at human
fertilization for the purpose of animation. Hence, in sexual intercourse whether within or
outside the marital context, man conspires with God and becomes an instrumental cause,
a co-creator with him. Even in so great mystical traditions, the ‘orgasmic’ and ‘erotic’
experiences are seen as routes to the infinite. Studies in Christian mysticism, for instance,
reveal that figures like St Theresa of Avilla and St John of the Cross sometime resorted to
nuptial and even to sexual metaphor in order to describe the nature of soul’s authentic
union with God22. Such is equally applicable in tantra yoga systems of oriental religious
mysticism. In as much as these may not be easily defensible, they at least give credence
to the possibility of a positive view of sexuality.

4. Detractions from the Dignity of Human Sexuality

The sixth commandment of God covers the entire detraction or derogations from
genuine exercise of human sexuality. These pervasions include homosexuality,
masturbation, fornication, prostitution, rape, use of contraceptives, free unions, adultery,
polygamy, etc. (cf. Eph 5: 19-21; Col. 3. 5-6; Mtt. 5: 28).
Sexuality is “the manner by which humans experience and express both the
incompleteness of their individualities as well as their relatedness to each other as male
and female”23. This relatedness as male and female has in the beginning of times been
willed by God (Gen. 1:27) and which is the ground for the idea of complementarity and
partnership in human sexuality; and it is this partnership of man and woman that
“constitutes the first form of communion between persons” 24. It goes without saying that
homosexuality becomes an antithesis to this divine intention. Homosexuality is the erotic,
sexual attraction of a person towards members of the same sex and, more often than not,
the absence of attraction towards members of the opposite sex. In more recent times,
society seems to be more willing to tolerate and even accept homosexuals than
previously25. Yet, the Church condemns homosexuality. Apart from being unnatural and
thus contrary to the natural law, the church regards homosexuality as antithetical to the

12
injunction given to man to procreate. It is sinful as it is a misuse and abuse of sexuality.
Hence the contemporary ‘gospel’ of the Gay Movement should be discouraged.
This same argument holds for masturbation. By masturbation is to be understood
“the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure”26.
Both the Magisterium of the church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral
sense of the faithful have in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an
intrinsically and gravely disordered action27 as any use of the sexual faculty, for whatever
reason, outside of marriage is essentially considered contrary to its purpose.
Again, conjugal love should not alone be intended to the detriment of procreation
especially if the procreation is not marred by natural barriers. Man and woman at creation
were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1: 28). The church as the sacrament
of salvation had constantly held this injunction in high esteem and had constantly handed
it on to her children. As expected, the modern case of zero marriage whereby the couples,
out of mutual decision, decide not to have any children is not only out of place but also
against the divine will.In this zero-marriage-thinking, if a child is ‘mistakenly’ conceived,
it is expected that the child must die as it is already an ‘intruder’. This death is taken care
of by abortion. Hence, our world is replete with abortion industries. Yet, the church
teaches that every direct abortion whether as a means or as an end is against the fifth
commandment of God and thus gravely sinful28.
Since human genital sexuality is sacred the purpose of which is expressed only in
marriage, the pre-marital and extra-marital sexual union is not allowed for the Christian.
Fornication, adultery and prostitution are contrary to the dignity of persons and of human
sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of the spouses and the generation and
education of children. More so, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the
young29.
The most recent expression of the desacralization of human sexuality is the
alarming rate at which pornography is increasing in modern times. One of the most recent
in technology is the use of pornographic computer software. Pornography involves
removing real or stimulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners in order to
display them deliberately to the third parties. Initially, soft-core pornography depicted
dressed, partially dressed or nude women in alluring pictures; but now it encompasses

13
exposure of genitals, couples in the act of intercourse, beatings and other deviant forms of
sexual foreplay. Hard-core pornography has also degenerated into showing it in incidents
of rape, incest, child molestation, murder and bestiality 30. Pornography is against the
dignity of human sexuality as it offends the conjugal act. It injures the dignity of its
participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes the object of base
pleasure and illicit profit for others. It “immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a
fantasy world”31.
Now if we put all these dangers to and perversions of human sexuality together we
can say that the cause that wrought them is either ignorance of the value of human
sexuality or the deliberate misuse and abuse of it. Sexuality is a highly prized human
value. Precisely as value, it ought to be fostered by a provision of possible conditions for
its prudent and legitimate expression. In view of this, any coordination of the human
reality which is antithetical to or misplace these priorities, poses as a threat to be urgently
confronted. Thus, something must definitely be done in order to re-orientate men to the
authentic use of this gift of God.

5. Need for Adequate Sex Education and Virtue of Chastity

The Catholic Church has now ever more than before given the highest support for
sex education. It declares that the young people should receive “a positive and prudent
sexual education”32. Hence, sex education has now been firmly established as an
important aspect of child training. It therefore behooves the church herself and competent
parents to engage in it.
Sex education is the “act of bringing up the young person, giving him the
intellectual and the moral training which he requires for growing into a mature human
person”33. According to this scheme of thought, sex education will aim at inculcating into
the child the ideals of human sexuality, its sacredness and dignity. This education will
also help the child to develop a system of internal control based on internal discipline,
moral ideals and religious practices. It should “emphasize the means for preserving
chastity (sacraments, prayers, special devotions, awareness of the occasions of sin,
etc…), and the reason for such preservation, particularly its integration with the present
spiritual life”34, and with man’s personality.

14
 Good sex education, should then include letting the boy or the girl at puberty
know that the sexual secondary characteristics evident at the time and accompanying
sexual urges are normal; and that these urges or libidos are not intrinsically sinful; that
masturbation and extra-marital and pre-marital sexual erotic relations are not acceptable
morally; that chastity, virginity, celibacy are virtues and that lust, rape, incest are vices;
that homosexuality, trans-sexuality, artificial contraception, and pornography are offences
against God and the natural law. The boy or the girl should also know the dangers of
venereal disease like AIDS, and should be aware that the contemporary propaganda about
population control will be free from missing the mark only by conforming to the
principles of natural family planning.
There is no doubt that the measure of the adequacy of any sex education is done
against the extent to which it fosters the virtue of chastity. It may then be ad rem to write
a word or two on the nature of chastity. Educating children for chastity strives to achieve
three objectives: “(a) to maintain in the family a positive atmosphere of love, virtue and
respect for the gifts of God, in particular the gift of life;(b) to help children to understand
the value of sexuality and chastity in stages, sustaining their growth through enlightening
word, example and prayer; (c) to help them understand and discover their own vocation
to marriage or to consecrated virginity for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven in
harmony with and respecting their attitudes and inclinations and the gifts of the Spirit”35.
St. Thomas places the virtue of chastity within the context of the virtue of
temperance36. Temperance itself is concerned with the proper use of the material world.
In particular, it is concerned with the way man uses his body with regard to food, drink
and sex. The virtue of chastity is however restricted to the correct use of sexuality.
"Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is training in human
freedom37. The chaste man must understand himself as a sexual being. This
understanding entails integrating his sexual nature to his personhood. Chastity is thus that
"spiritual energy capable of defending love from the perils of selfishness and
38
aggressiveness, and able to advance it towards its full realization" .The Catechism of
the Catholic Church describes and in a sense defines chastity as “the successful
integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily
39
and spiritual being". This integration involves commitment and control in the use of

15
genitals. Fundamentally, chastity is the measure of human capacity to love as men and
women and treat others as men and women. This relationship eschews selfishness and
jealousy but involves sacrifice and self-giving. In a true sense therefore, the chaste person
is the one who has a good grasp of the language of love. Because he is not distracted by
uncontrolled desires or feelings, the chaste man is capable of much grater commitment
and openness towards others40.In the virtue of chastity, a stability of mind and freedom of
heart towards constancy of love is cultivated. In acquiring this virtue, one is putting on
Christ in a way, as he is in fact restoring to human nature something of the integrity lost
in the fall of man41.
This virtue is expressed in either of two ways. First, there is the way of marriage.
The vocation to marriage is a call to redeem human sexuality through sexual love.
Chastity therefore plays a central part in married life. The second way of sexual
fulfillment is celibacy and consecrated virginity. Celibacy or virginity does not imply a
denial of sexuality. While the married seek to fulfill himself through a unique and, to that
extent, exclusive love of another, the celibate or the virgin is dedicated to the service all
men and women.
But because every person is sexual, all are called to cultivate their sexuality by
being chaste. All are called to relate with one another in respectful way and to love one
another. Chastity shuns all forms of sexual deviation. Indeed, the man who is chaste is
already called to imitate Christ in love and total self-giving.

6. Conclusion
"Sexuality is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of
manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living
human love" 42 .Human sexuality is good; it is holy. In it, there is a call to love which is
the greatest virtue. Sexuality is not simply about finding a lover or a friend. There is more
to it than the ‘aaahs’ and ‘ooohs’ of sexual intercourse. Sexuality is not something purely
biological; rather it concerns the intimate nucleus of the person. The use of sexuality as
physical giving has its own truth and reaches its full meaning when it expresses the
personal giving of man and woman even unto death43. It means more than a woman
‘dying and resurrecting’ at the arms of a man, or a man on the lapse of a woman.

16
Sexuality is the basis of human spirituality. Insofar as it is a way of relating and being
open to others, “sexuality has love as its intrinsic end, more precisely, love as donation
and acceptance, love as giving and receiving” 44. “Sexuality characterizes man and woman
not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its
mark on each of their expressions” 45.It is, in the words of Gotan, “about overcoming
separateness by giving oneself to a community, friendship, family service, creativity,
humor, delight and martyrdom so that, with God, we can help bring life into the world” 46.
These ideas lie at the explicit source of Tantra and many religions including Christianity.
Because of the noble nature of human sexuality, perversions must be eschewed and
dangers of sexually transmitted diseases avoided. Some cultural practices that reduce
sexuality to genitality and consider it a taboo need be addressed. More positive research
on sexuality based on proper understanding must be furthered and genuine sex education
is imperative.

Endnotes
1. A. C. Bhaktivedanta, Celibacy, Los Angeles: Bhaktivada Book Trust, 1984, p. 25.
2. A. Tanquerey, The Spiritual Life, Tournai: Desclee, 1923, pp. 101-103.
3. M. Izunwa, “From Unconscious Alienation to Conscious Integration of Sex
and Love” in The Thinker, 2000/2001 Edition, p. 6.
4. T. Moore, The Re-Enchantment of Everyday Life, London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1006, pp. 155-156.
5. www.wchd.info/recmod.html
6. K. E. Oraegbunam, “On the Dignity of Human Sexuality” in The Fountain, 1996
Edition, p. 26.
7. F. O’Connor, “Sexuality and Celibacy” in Doctrine and Life, March 1968, p. 129.
8. A. Fagothey, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice; London: C. V.
Mosby, 1963, p. 324.
9. B. W. Powers, Marriage and Divorce, Australia: Peter Sham, 1987, p. 95.
10. R. Thompson, Holy Ground, London: S. P. C. K., 1990, p. 179.
11. D. Westley, “Sexuality” in M. Downey (ed.), The New Dictionary of Catholic
Spirituality, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1993, p. 878-879.
12. Ibid, p. 881.
13. John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd, 1995,
p. 210.
14. Ibid.

17
15. P. Vardy, The Puzzle of Sex, London: Herper Collins, 1997, p. 134.
16. M. Buber in P. Lefevre, Understanding of Man, Philadelphia: The West Minister
Press, 1997, pp. 107-111.
17. D. Westley, Art. Cit., p. 880.
18. Ibid., p. 882.
19. C. Wright, Life Issues: A Christian Perspective, p. 53.
20. T. Moore, Op. Cit., p. 155.
21. T. Aquinas, 2 Sent. 3, 1, 6.
22. Cf. D. A. Fox, Meditation and Reality, Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1993, pp. 1543.
See also R. Puligandla, An Encounter with Awareness, U.S.A.: The Theosophical
Publishing House, 1981.
23. S. C. D. F., “Human Sexuality” in A. Flannery, Vatican Council II, Vol. 2, New
York: Costello Publishing Company, p. 506.
24. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 12.

25. R. Chartham, Your Sexual Future, Great Britain: Ardenbrook Ltd., 1972, p. 107.
26. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (C. C. C), n. 2352.
27. Ibid.
28. C. C. C. nn. 2271, 2319, 2322-3.
29. C. C. C. n. 2353.
30. G. R. Albers, Plague in Our Midst, Louisiana: Huntington House, Inc., 1988, p.
142.
31. C. C. C., n. 2353.
32. Vatican II, Declaration on Christian Education, Gravissimum Educationis, n. 3.
33. A. E. Onyeocha, Sex Education and Us, Owerri: Assumpta Press, 1989, p. iii.
34. Ibid.
35. www.christusrex.org/www1/pope/sexedu.html . See also Pope John Paul II,
Evangelium Vitae, n.97.
36. T. Aquinas, Ia IIae, q. 61.
37. www.christusrex.org/www1/pope/sexedu.html
38. Ibid. See also Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, n.33.
39. Ibid. See also C.C.C., n. 2337.
40. K. Oraegbunam, “On Human Sexuality and Beyond” in The Sign, Vol. 4, No 6,
June 1998- June 1999, p. 42.
41. Ibid.

18
42. www.christusrex.org/www1/pope/sexedu.html See also Congregation for Catholic
Education, Educational Guidance in Human Love, November 1, 1983, 4;
L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, December 5, 1983, p. 5.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. C. T. Gotan, “Recognizing, Understanding and Addressing Issues of Sexual
Orientation and Sexual Abuses in Formation Today” in The Nigerian Journal of
Theology, vol. 20, June 2006, p.47.

19