Theologian demands Church must commit herself to principle of sexual self-determination

Liberal societies uphold the principle of sexual self-determination - in contrast to traditional church sexual morality. The Church could learn something from this, says moral theologian Stephan Goertz - without that meaning relativism.

Stephan Goertz, a moral theologian from Mainz, believes it is necessary for the Church to commit itself to the principle of sexual self-determination. Behind the consensus principle there is far more ethical appreciation of the staff than behind the traditional nature principle of Catholic sexual ethics, the theologian writes in the current "Herder-Korrespondenz" (May issue). The Church could learn a lot from the moral sensitivity of liberal societies, which should not be relativised as mere majority opinion, Goertz says. The humanisation of sexuality associated with the concept of self-determination should not be concealed. On the other hand, it is not true that Christian sexual morality has always advocated the cultivation of human sexuality in the sense of personal freedom and love.

Goertz opposes the idea that sexual self-determination is accompanied by a levelling of moral demands. It is indeed true that sexual orientation or gender identity is no longer decisive. Instead, the mutual respect of the bodily and thus inseparably linked psychological integrity of the participants counts, the theologian continued: "Does this not correspond to the best intentions of a Christian anthropology that believes in the autonomous dignity of the human being?"

Reform unrest as the flip side of long refusal of dialogue

Goertz does not agree with the criticism of the Synodal Path that theological discussions on sexual morality were neglected there. The theological literature of the past decades shows that there has been enough opportunity in the Church to deal carefully with the arguments that justify a revision of doctrine. "Those who complain that the Synodal Path has left too little room for substantive discussion have possibly missed out on making themselves known in good time," the theologian emphasises. The reform unrest is the flip side of a long refusal of dialogue: "It is seldom considered that the prevention of frank theological discussion stems from the very documents and persons about whose position it is now said that they could not be brought to bear in peace. Goertz is thus referring to the teaching on sexuality and the human person put forward by Pope John Paul II. He says that anyone who assumes that Christian anthropology "reached its historically unsurpassable goal" in his Pontificate should say so and justify the judgement: "If this is not justified, why should one follow this conviction out of free insight?"

Goertz sees in John Paul II's sexual morality a "primacy of the natural purpose of reproduction, in which the morally demanding will of God reveals itself". The formulation of an "ideal unity" between the reproductive and the unification dimension, however, "obscures the fact that in the end the antique-medieval distinction between natural and unnatural sexuality is fixed". For the moral theologian, on the other hand, it is clear that the good of procreation is not a good that can never compete with other goods. "The human-scientific objection that this is a reductionist perception of human sexuality is thereby ignored, as is the ethical indication that absolutely binding commandments cannot be derived from a biological lawfulness of human sexuality." 

Source

Cathcon:  This is where arguments from personalism can get the Church if they get out of hand. They were used by Pope Benedict and especially by Pope John Paul II.  Natural law arguments are much sounder grounds to fight on.