Author: David Kustra
The human person figures prominently for both the utilitarian and for Pope John Paul II, but for different reasons. The utilitarian values a person insofar as the other person is a means to his own pleasure and delight, whereas Pope John Paul insists that we value the human person because man is the only earthly creature made in the image of God, that is, with reason and free will. The utilitarian values a person for what he has, whereas Pope John Paul values him for what he is. During his days as a professor of ethics at the Jagiellonian and at Lublin in the 1950s, the young Father Wojtyla developed a harmonization of traditional natural law ethics and personalism. We find this ethical integration in his landmark book, Milosc I Odpowiedzialnosc [Love and Responsibility] (Krakow, 1960). In the following, I will highlight the main points of the book as they relate to the sexuality of the human person.
1. The human person and the utilitarian. Because a human person possesses free will, he is his own master (sui juris); he bears responsibility for his actions.1 Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, trans. H.T. Willetts (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), 24. Originally published as Milosc I Odpowiedzialnosc (Krakow, 1960). Man’s sexual morality arises, not from the discovery of his sexuality, which is common to all animals, but from the realization that he is a person. His capacity for love depends on his willingness to seek a good together with others. By contrast, utilitarianism is a “consumer attitude” (consumere, to use) towards others, whereby one person uses another person for
some selfish purpose. We cease using each other for selfish ends when we share the same end.2 Ibid., 29. Personalism recognizes that a human person, because he is free to choose one good over another, should not be used as an instrument, but must be respected as a person, as an end per se, not as a means to an end. The only proper way to treat a person is to love him. Christ’s command to love is directly opposed to utilitarianism. The highest human goal is love, not pleasure derived from self-serving, utilitarian use. Pleasure or pain may accompany an action; they may be motives for an agent to seek a certain end, but they are ends in themselves, but rather, are accidental to the end.3 Ibid., 36. A utilitarian sees every other person as a potential tool for his own pleasure.4 Ibid., 37. The personalistic norm states that if I love a person, I value that person as something greater than a thing to use.5 Ibid., 42.
2. The human sexual urge. Man is capable of rising above his instincts, including his sexual instincts; if this were not so, morality would have no meaning.6 Ibid., 46. For true human love to be possible, a human sexual urge should be directed to a human person, not to his sexual attributes, for the person is what he is, and attributes are merely what he possesses.7 Ibid., 49. Love is a creation of the free will, an emotion unique to humans.8 Ibid., 51. Irrational animals operate on instinct. God does not use people as instrumental means to create life; rather, by allowing each person to choose the ends to which sexual intercourse leads, God allows a man and woman to freely and rationally cooperate in the creation of life. Wojtyla listed three traditional ends of marriage: the primary end is procreatio (procreation), the secondary end is mutuum adiutorium (mutual assistance), and the tertiary end is remedium concupiscentiae (remedy for concupiscence).9 Ibid., 60. Beginning with Gaudium et spes in 1965, the ends were no longer ordered as a hierarchy, but simply stated as procreation and conjugal love; Gaudium et spes, 48-51. By contrast, Freud saw pleasure (libido) as the primary end of sex, and procreation as a secondary end per accidens.10 Love and Responsibility, 61. In Humanae vitae (1968), Pope Paul VI analyzed the relation of responsible parenthood and conjugal love, and the integration of these operations on the level of the person. The value of the human person is intertwined with the values of family and conjugal.11 Karol Wojtyla, “The Truth of the Encyclical Humanae vitae” L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, Jan. 16, 1969.
3. A metaphysical analysis of love. Conjugal love involves attraction (amor complacentia), desire (amor concupiscentia), and goodwill (amor benevolentiae). Subjective feelings of attraction are purely natural and are not concerned with the truth; rather, truth is the object of reason. Emotions are fleeting; a subject who acts according to emotion, rather than reason, will be sorely disappointed when the feelings go away.12 Love and Responsibility, 77-78. Desire comes from the fact that the human person is not self-sufficient, but in need of others. Realizing this insufficiency leads him to realize that he is dependent upon God for his very existence. His sexual urge is the drive to find completion in a person of the other sex.13 Ibid., 80-81. In true love, which is amor benevolentiae, one desires the other not only for one’s own good, but for the good of the other; this is unconditional, altruistic love.14 Ibid., 83; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, 44, 7. Love is something shared; it seek reciprocity. Friendship, which leads to love, does not rely on emotion or sympathy; rather, it is a mutual commitment of two free wills, each desiring that the other achieve his good.15 Love and Responsibility, 93. Betrothed (marital) love consists in giving oneself totally to another person, whether that be a human person or God.16 Ibid., 97.
4. A psychological analysis of love. Sensuality pertains to the external senses, whereas sentimentality pertains to the interior senses. Our external senses establish initial contact with a corporeal object, and our internal senses maintain contact after the object is beyond the reach of the external senses; but the internal image is not just a body, but a whole person. Sensuality in the external senses is merely appetitive, drawn to certain bodily attributes, whereas the internal sense is contemplative, perceiving beauty. The external senses are blind to the person; they seek values wherever they can find them; they use a body for pleasure.17 Ibid., 102-09. Sentimental love idealizes the whole person, but does not seek to use the person or his attributes for pleasure; it is suited to contemplation and is associated with spiritual love.18 Ibid., 110-11.
5. An ethical analysis of love. Situationism and existentialism reject duty in the name of freedom, but in reality, free will is exercised precisely when one freely chooses to accept a duty. Since situationism does not recognize external norms, its understanding of true love “falls into vulgar psychologism.” Love as an experience should be subordinated to love as a virtue, for without virtue the experience of love lacks fullness.19 Ibid., 120. The value of a person is distinguished from the values present in a person.20 Ibid., 122. True love is not directed toward bodily attributes, but toward a person.21 Ibid., 123. Sensuality is constantly shifting from one body to the next as potential objects for pleasure; sentimentality is constantly shifting in response to different emotional experiences; true love cannot be found on either.22 Ibid., 124. In betrothed love each lover renounces his own autonomy and gives himself to the beloved as gift, not for mutual sexploitation. This can be called the law of ekstasis, in which the lover goes out of himself and finds a fuller existence in the other.23 Ibid., 125-26. Their union, which is expressed in the conjugal act and in many other ways, is a “mystery of reciprocity,” whereby they learn to give and receive love.24 Ibid., 129. Throughout their relationship, the object of choice must be the person himself, not the values associated with him, for while values change over time, the fundamental value of the person himself always remains.25 Ibid., 133. Love is put to the test when sensual and sentimental reactions decline and sexual values lose their luster; but if their love is strong, their union will “sink deeper roots.”26 Ibid., 134. Sexual values impose themselves, whereas the value of the person waits to be chosen.27 Ibid., 136. At first, a man and woman desire each other as a result of concupiscence; then they desire the good of each other; then, because the will desires infinite happiness, they desire for each other union with God. Love is not something that is, but is something that is always becoming, a work in progress, with the help of divine grace.28 Ibid., 139.
“the primary end is procreatio (procreation), the secondary end is mutuum adiutorium (mutual assistance), and the tertiary end is remedium concupiscentiae (remedy for concupiscence).”
David, I’d forgotten about this line. Thanks for including it in your paper. This is what makes the Book of Tobit make more sensefor me. Tobit takes his wife, Sarah, who’s already had 7 husbands die before consummation of the marriage, without lust in his heart “for the sake of having children.” When I spoke with someone recently about that text, I was asked what about the unitive nature of sex. I could only respond that sex is only unitive if it’s also procreative. What about couples where the woman is past menopause or young couples during the woman’s infertile period, I was asked? I said, as long as the couple does nothing to deliberately impede the participation of the Holy Spirit, then they can experience joy in sex without sin. The essence is not to use another person as a tool. Wojtyla is clear on this point that the only proper object of the sexual act is another human person, but one should not confuse the two meanings of the word “use.”
Also, what you wrote about the ordering of desire is also useful for me: “At first, a man and woman desire each other as a result of concupiscence; then they desire the good of each other; then, because the will desires infinite happiness, they desire for each other union with God.” This reminds me of St. Thomas’s explanation of the relationship between learning and ontology – ontologically, God was first and his creation came second, but, in the order of knowing, we experience the creation first and come to a knowledge of God through it. The ordering of love seems to work in the same direction – ontologically, we seek union with God, which causes us to desire the good for one another, which leads to our mutual coming together for the purpose of completing each other, but the order of our doing it is reverse – we’re sexually attracted to one another, then get to know one another enough to seek the good for the other, and through the union with the other we seek union with God.
In any case, thanks for the reference on that ordering. You’ve given me the spot where I need to reread his work.
Sebastian
Dr. Mahfood, Thank you for the interesting insight on ordering. I am fascinated by the symmetry that is built into the created universe on so many levels. This ontological symmetry seems to resonate particularly well with Scholastics like St. Thomas, who strove to demonstrate the rational ordering of all things.