In chapter 5 an example was given of a person thinking about becoming sexually active with her boyfriend. She has well-intentioned reasons to become more sexually involved. She cares for him deeply and wants to physically express her love for him. She also has well-intentioned hesitations about doing so. She knows it will have a huge impact on their relationship, and is not sure how exactly their relationship will handle it, or indeed what their long-term plans together are.

This person is reflecting on how to live out her sex life most virtuously. What does sex mean? Is their relationship ready for it, and what features of a relationship make sex an appropriate activity? The focus on this chapter is how to be virtuous—that is, how to live in a truly fulfilling manner—with regard to sexuality. Writing a chapter on virtuous sex is an enormous task. Reminiscent of the other test-case chapters in this book, there are far too many facts and considerations to address in one chapter. In order to limit its scope, this chapter focuses on one specific question and explores the bigger topic of virtuous sexuality as it concerns this one particular question. The central goal of this chapter is to examine the question of when having sexual intercourse is virtuous and, in particular, whether sex can only be virtuous when a couple is married.

The first section addresses three preliminary questions. First, is this a question that only makes sense for Christians? Second, shouldn’t we heed the words of Jesus and “judge not” on delicate questions such as this? And third, what is the basic gist of the traditional position that having sexual intercourse is only virtuous for a couple who are married? All of these questions are important in framing the tone and content of the next section.

That section addresses two crucial topics when answering the question of whether sex is only virtuous in marriage. This section is the fruit of listening to students debate this question for years. They consistently focus their discussions on two questions. First, does sex have any inherent point, or meaning? Clearly, people have sex for some reason. But does the sort of action sexual intercourse is communicate something to one’s partner, or does sex simply communicate whatever one wants it to communicate? The second half of section two then explores marriage. Even if one grants that sex means exclusive, permanent love that is open to new life, need one be married to have a relationship marked by these characteristics? Why does a couple need a piece of paper (i.e., a marriage license) to prove this about their relationship?

The real goal of this chapter is to enter into, and take a position on, the debate over whether sex can only be virtuous in a married relationship. That is the task for the next section. But in order to do that well, some preliminary questions must be addressed. First, for what audience does this debate make sense? The first part below argues that this discussion is important not only for Christians, but for all people. Second, what is the tone and ultimate purpose of this debate? The second part explains the difference between making judgments and being judgmental, so as to avoid the latter and seek instead to try to lovingly guide ourselves and others to live most happily. Third, in this day and age, is the view that sex is only for marriage for real? The third part presents a succinct summary of the position that sex can only be virtuous within marriage, so this view is seen as (at least potentially) reasonable, rather than some leftover rule from the olden days. Having treated these three preliminary questions, the reader will be prepared to engage the arguments of section two in depth.

Is Reserving Sex for Marriage (and Even Asking That Question) Only for Christians?

Chastity, and in particular the relationship between sex and marriage, is the first issue explored in this book after the cardinal and theological virtues. Therefore, this is an appropriate place to pause and examine whether: a) this question only makes sense in a Christian context, and b) the answer that virtuous sex belongs only in marriage makes sense only for Christians. The short answer to both questions is no. Sex is an innerworldly activity. Thus, being a sexual person in a good manner (which is what chastity means) is a matter of the cardinal virtues (especially temperance, under which chastity falls). Since the innerworldly activities governed by the cardinal virtues can in principle be figured out, and done well by unaided human reasoning (natural law reasoning), one need not be Christian to be chaste. That said, the Christian person can draw on additional resources to better understand chastity, and has the further assistance of grace in living it out. So sex is a perfect example of how an innerworldly activity that is accessible to natural law reasoning is more perfectly understood in the larger context of Christian big-picture beliefs about the way things are.

Despite the old-fashioned, or even repressive, connotation of the term for some people, chastity simply means the virtue of using our sexuality well in our thoughts, desires, and deeds.Some people are thrown off by the phrasing, “use one’s sexuality,” as if it implies our sexuality is separate from ourselves, like some tool that may be picked up or put down. That is not intended here. The term is meant to remind us of the claim in chapter 15 about how the way we do certain things (in this case have sex) is shaped by our larger goals in life (in this case charity as love of God). It could equally be said that chastity is being a sexual person well and lust is being a sexual person poorly.Lust is the opposite of chastity; it is the vice of using our sexuality poorly in our thoughts, desires, and deeds. Though these words have heavy religious overtones (in no small part due to an obsession of some religious people with all things sexual), in reality every human person must determine, either explicitly or implicitly, how to live out his or her sexuality well.

Recall our discussion of rules in the first half of this book. Rules, in the most general sense, are principles that guide our actions (whether well or poorly). One person’s rule may be, “have sex whenever and with whomever you want!” Besides the fact that such a person likely does have some restrictions to this rule (e.g., sex must be consensual), note that any rule implies that someone not living according to that rule is not living well. Similarly, many think that deciding when to have sex is a strictly personal question, that it simply up to those involved. Wait until marriage, or do not—that is the couple’s choice. But note that even this view is a position, that the only thing that dictates when it is good for a couple to have sex is when they both choose to do so. Both of these views are also moralities, and have guidelines for exercising one’s sexuality well or poorly.

So everyone has some vision of how to use their sexuality well or poorly, with rules that guide how one lives that vision out. But the question for this part is not whether sex is an innerworldly activity, but whether the rule “no sex outside marriage” is a rule that people who are not Christian could and do come up with. The answer is clearly yes to the former, and even yes to the latter. Determining which peoples across times and cultures endorsed this view of chastity is a task for the historian and cultural anthropologist. It is certainly not claimed here that people have always lived out this rule. Nor is it even claimed that all peoples have endorsed, let alone lived out, this rule.A fine example of a very principled and thought-out endorsement of what Christians would see as lust can be found in the Epicurean thinker Lucretius, who advises his readers, by all means, to discharge one’s sexual needs as needed but never to make the mistake of falling in love, which is a clear impediment to living the good life! See chapter 10. But this rule has not only been endorsed by Christians. It can be found in people of other religious commitments. It can even be found in contemporary American secular parlance, as evidenced by the recent ad campaign enjoining teens to wait to have sex, with the phrase, “I can wait! I’m worth it!” The presence of commonality between Christians and non-Christians on moral rules concerning innerworldly activities should come as no surprise; as accessible to unaided human reasoning, these activities and the principles that guide how they are done well do not depend on Christian revelation. Once again, the claim here is not that all, or even most, people hold this rule regarding sex. It is simply that both Christians and non-Christians alike have and do hold such a rule to be the path to a happy life.

That said, Christian beliefs do augment, support, and extend the rationale behind the claim that sex belongs in marriage. Most of the debate over sex and marriage below proceeds along natural-law grounds. But that is not to say that distinctively Christian claims are irrelevant for how to live out a virtuous sex life. As explained in chapter 10, the Irish bishops helpfully sum up the entire Christian story with one word: love.See Irish Catholic Bishop’s Conference, Love is for Life (Pastoral Letter, 1985), 15–24. See also Pope Benedict XVI’s Deus Caritas Est (Encyclical Letter, 2005). The drama of God’s love can be seen to play out in the three movements of salvation history: creation, sin, and redemption. Chapter 10 explained the ways that these big-picture beliefs concretely influence how people who hold these beliefs live out their sex lives.

Christian morality, or life in Christ, is simply living in a manner reflective of this story of the way things truly are. Therefore, Christian sexual ethics should not be some arbitrary, externally imposed, repressive set of rules about what not to do. Sadly, Christians share some blame for presenting Christian teaching on sexuality in such a manner. But Christian sexual ethics should be presented and understood as a guide on how to live in accordance with this story of God’s love, as it concerns our sex lives. As the Irish bishops beautifully put it, “The Church’s whole moral teaching about sex is above all the application to sexuality of God’s greatest commandment to charity.”Irish bishops, Love is for Life, 24.

As explained in chapter 10, big-picture beliefs do indeed matter for how we do innerworldly activities like sex. Remembering this can help us sort through the different levels of disagreement that may arise among people discussing sexual ethics. One way someone can disagree with, say, the Catholic Church’s stance on sex is to contest some or all features of the above story. Such a person might say: “I don’t think love is why we are here and how we should live;”or, “There is no such thing as sin in the Christian sense, since it’s all good, and people are just growing and learning no matter what they do;” or, “Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and hence does not offer us grace to help live as sons and daughters of God.” Such a person would offer rival big-picture belief commitments. Since these commitments shape how people live virtuously with regard to innerworldly activities, different practical rules regarding sex may result. This is exactly what we saw with Lucretius in chapter 10. Disagreement at this level is not addressed in this chapter.

But disagreement can also arise on a more immediate level when discussing an innerworldly activity such as sex. For instance, someone could agree with the Christian story as presented in the previous paragraphs and think that sex under certain conditions before marriage is living in accordance with that story. Thus Catholics, for instance, may disagree with each other on an issue such as nonmarital sex. This does not, of course, mean that both sides are right. But it does mean that differences on this level will concern not primarily big-picture claims, but rather the meaning of innerworldly activities such as sex and marriage. In fact, two people who disagree on the level of big-picture questions could also conceivably disagree on the meaning of an activity such as sex. That disagreement could be importantly shaped by the different big-picture beliefs, but not reduced totally to differences at that level.

Thus, there are different sources of disagreement on particular moral rules regarding sex: differences in big-picture beliefs that shape how the innerworldly activity of sex is understood, and different understandings of what inner-worldly activities like sex and marriage mean, even if there is agreement over those big-picture beliefs. It is the latter sort of disagreement—that is, on the meanings of sex and marriage—that is examined in this chapter.

A Word on Judgment, Blame, and Sin

A second topic must be addressed to set the tone for the second section’s argument about whether sex can be virtuous outside of marriage. The purpose here is to say a few words about the point of this inquiry or, more accurately, what is not the point of this inquiry. Many authors who write on the relationship between sex and marriage—and certainly many college students who learn about this topic—are rightly concerned about judgmentalism. Often to a fault, young adults today so frequently refuse to label others’ behavior wrong, so as not to judge others. The kernel of truth in this tendency is a refusal to participate when certain (often religious) people use moral issues (often sexual ones) as a way to denounce other people and/or exalt themselves. Surely this is what Jesus was targeting when he counseled his followers, “judge not lest you be judged” (Matt. 7:1).

Yet it is just as sure that what Jesus is not condemning is recognizing faults in ourselves and others. The whole point of the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, is to explain how to live in accordance with the kingdom of God, and doing so entails recognizing, especially in ourselves, what actions run counter to that kingdom. In fact, Jesus gives explicit instruction on how to confront a peer whose behavior is damaging herself and the community (Matt. 18:15–17). Thus, judging in the sense of making distinctions about what is good and bad behavior is clearly not what Jesus denounces. Yet being judgmental, in the sense of using such discussion as a way to demean others or exalt one’s self, is surely what must be avoided, according to Jesus.Perhaps the finest example of this judgment vs. judgmentalism distinction is the famous story of Christ and the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1). Christ does not refuse to label her behavior sinful. Indeed, the story ends by his saying, “Go and sin no more.” Yet Jesus’s primary concern in that story is to stop the woman’s peers from self-righteously (in that they failed to recall their own sin) denouncing her, rather than lovingly correcting her, as Jesus himself does.

Thus, the tone of what follows is meant to be one of loving judgment, but not judgmentalism. As the use of the word “loving” in the previous sentence indicates, judgment is compatible with loving the person judged, whether one’s self or another. Judgmentalism is not compatible with love. A good stance to adopt in this difficult discussion is this: how would you address this topic with your teenage child or sibling who sought guidance from you on when to have sex? What lines would you offer him as to when to know the time is right? Only by refusing to offer any response would you avoid making judgments, and that would surely not be in the teenager’s best interest as he seeks guidance. Presumably you would tell him what you think is in his genuine best interest, and encourage him to act accordingly. That would be making a judgment, because you want what it best for him. You would hopefully avoid being judgmental, that is, lording it over him or condemning him if he fails. That is the tone of this discussion. We are seeking rules that are not externally imposed obligations, but true guides to a genuinely happy life. Thus, the most loving thing we can do for others and ourselves on challenging questions such as these is to humbly strive to speak the truth rather than tell people what they want to hear, since the truth is what is genuinely best for people.

It should also be noted that the point of the following discussion is not to blame people who do not live in accordance with the best rules. The point is to determine what rules best guide decisions on when to have sex. Of course, that discussion is related to assignment of blame, since if someone deliberately turns away from those rules they are choosing against “right reason, truth, and conscience,” which is sin. But assignment of blame to particular persons is a separate, although related, issue. Assignment of blame requires ascertaining what an individual person knew and could have known about the best way to live. What societal influences have shaped the person? (Recall the importance of formation of conscience.) If someone genuinely believes she is acting well, even though she is not (erroneous conscience), could she have known otherwise (vincible ignorance) or not (invincible ignorance)?

As the Irish bishops note, people can feel as if they are acting in a holy and loving manner but actually be wrong and harming themselves and others.Irish bishops, Love is for Life, 15. See also 74–76, for more on judging vs. judgmental-ism. If that is the case, it does not necessarily mean the person is without blame. As we know from an earlier discussion, meaning well is not enough; prudence is required to live well. Nonetheless, the assignment of blame is a discussion distinct from what follows.

As a final observation on the tone of this chapter, it should be noted that taking what one believes to be the right stand on this issue does not mean one has always lived up to it. People who hold certain beliefs are often called hypocrites if they fail to live up to them. But that does not necessarily mean they are. Hypocrites are people who claim to believe it is best to live in a certain way, and yet reveal they do not truly believe in that way, since they do not even try to live that way themselves. This is different from truly believing it is best to live a certain way and indeed trying to live it out, but failing at times.

To recall the teenager analogy, hopefully you would teach your child it is best not to talk behind people’s backs. Sadly, this does not mean you have always heeded this rule. But you believe it is the best way to live, and you have been disappointed in yourself when you have not lived it out. In this case you are not a hypocrite for teaching this rule. The same is true of sex. If you teach your sibling or child about how to best live sexuality—be chaste— you may not have always lived out what you teach. In fact, sexuality is such a challenging facet of our lives that I would suggest no one is without sin in this area—in thought, desire, or deed. But you are not a hypocrite to teach that, unless you do not really think it the best way to live. Otherwise, we would just have to tell our siblings or children to do whatever they want, because no one is perfect. The point here is that truly loving ourselves and others means wanting our or their true happiness. To help ourselves and others achieve that in the area of sexuality, we must speak the truth lovingly and humbly, always seeking the best way to live, while compassionately recognizing that we and others do fail.

The Relationship between Sex and Marriage

The first two parts of this section have helped set the audience (not just Christian) and tone (humble and loving judgment but not judgmentalism) for the next section’s argument on sex and marriage. Before entering into that argument, it is important to succinctly state the rationale of the position that sex is fully virtuous only within marriage. Why? Given the prevalence of sexual intercourse outside marriage in our society, the reasons for following that path are readily available to us. But too often the view that sex is only virtuous within marriage is presented without any adequate explanation of why it is more than some taboo, or residue of the olden days. Is there any reasoning behind this norm? There most certainly is. The task now is to explain that reasoning in preparation for the second section of this chapter, which will explore in more depth the challenges to this reasoning.

What constitutes living out one’s sex life chastely, or virtuously? Besides a question of temperance, this is also a question of prudence, since we are seeking to see clearly an innerworldly activity (sex) so as to act virtuously. What norms guide virtuous sex? There are plenty of norms, and many of them are up to individual couples. For instance, different couples may have sex with different frequencies, and go about it in different ways. There are some norms that are absolute in that they apply to all, and their violation always constitutes bad use of sexuality. These are assumed rather than argued here. For instance, lack of consent is incompatible with chastity. Having sex with someone who is married to someone else is incompatible with chastity. There are many rules, or norms, that govern virtuous sex, some absolute and some not. Our more specific question is whether or not having sex with someone without being married to that person is ever virtuous.

Answering this question requires some explanation of what sex means, and what marriage means. These are the two issues that are addressed in more detail in section two. It should be noted now that the traditional norm against sex outside of marriage is not arbitrary as if marriage were some license that enables one to have sex guilt-free. First of all, being married is not the only requirement for virtuous sex. In other words, in the traditional view it is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for virtuous sex. There are plenty of ways to be lustful while married, even regarding sex with one’s spouse. Second, the reason why marriage has long been regarded as a necessary (even if not sufficient) condition for virtuous sex is because both activities—being married and having sex—have been understood to have the same meaning or purpose. In the Christian tradition, marriage is understood by its three goods: fidelity (i.e., exclusivity), permanence, and openness to new life. Even civil marriage is a pledge to remain with one person indefinitely, in a relationship that has long been associated with bearing children.

What does this have to do with sex? Sex is the sort of activity that binds people together (exclusively and over time) and leads to children. This is why Christians and many non-Christians alike have traditionally and today claimed that marriage is the best home, or place, for sex. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of a twofold rule to guide sexual intercourse: it must be procreative and unitive.Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), 2363. Since this is what sex as an activity means, people do it virtuously when they do it for these reasons. Sex is procreative when the couple is open to new life, understood not only as being willing to have a child that comes from their sexual union, but also being committed to caring for and raising the child well.Note that there are biological reasons, some temporary and some permanent, that may prevent the actual conception of a child. That is why the criterion is “open to new life” rather than having given birth to new life. It is possible to be open to new life but (often sadly) never have a child. What is prohibited by this norm is having sex and at the same time making it infertile. This raises the contested issue of contraception, a related topic but beyond the scope of this chapter. Sex is unitive (= unifying) when the couple has committed themselves permanently and exclusively to each other. When these things are true of a relationship, sex is not simply allowed or permitted; it is an appropriate, beautiful, and effective way to live out that relationship. This is why sex and marriage belong together.

Sex before a couple is married is by definition not fully unitive. The man and woman have not committed themselves publicly to stay with each other (and no one else) permanently. In fact, sex before marriage is not even properly procreative. How can this be if a couple is open to having a child that may be conceived from their sexual union? Since the procreative aspect of sex is only fully respected when a couple is open to having and raising the child well, and since marriage is the best environment in which to raise a child, then having sex before marriage also defies the procreative facet of sex.

Some nuances to this basic position must be addressed. First, note that though the claim here is that sex can only be virtuous in marriage, the claim is not that all extramarital sex is equally vicious. Obviously there is an enormous difference between an engaged couple having sex before their wedding, and a casual one-night stand. There is a huge difference between violent sex, and sex between young adults who do love each other but are not ready to commit themselves to each other permanently. But that is not the question here. The question for this chapter is: what is the line a relationship must cross for sex to be virtuous? In other words, what set of conditions should hold true of a relationship in order for the couple to have virtuous sex; and, more specifically, is being married always one of those conditions? Non-married couples may be close to, or far from, that set of conditions. And even people who are married may fail to meet the set of conditions that makes sex virtuous. But the answer offered here is that certain conditions are inherently absent from a non-married relationship that make it best for the couple not to have sex.

Second, saying that marriage is the best relationship to have children is not the same as saying children cannot be raised well by divorced, single, or widowed parents. Thankfully, thriving children have come from all these environments, as they have from broken or abusive households where the parents are married. But recognizing this does not mean that these factors make no difference in how children are raised. All have negative influence on how children are raised, and therefore should not be sought. All of course happen, and when they do we hope (and thankfully have seen) that good can come out of them. But again this is different than purposely acting in a manner that leads to these situations.

This brief overview suffices to present the crux of the argument why sex and marriage belong together. It should go without saying that people often do not live this out. But that is not the focus of this chapter. The focus of this chapter is determining how people who strive to live most fully, most happily, therefore should want to live out their sex lives. According to the position presented thus far, we should want to have sex in, and only in, marriage since the meaning of sexuality corresponds with the meaning of marriage, and thus sex is a beautiful and fitting expression of a marriage relationship. We now turn to address not those who see this as the best way to live and sometimes fail, but rather those who claim this is not the ideal way to live out one’s sexuality.

The crux of the position on why sexual intercourse is only virtuous in a married relationship relies upon the claim that having sex and being married are human things to do that have corresponding meanings. Thus it makes sense that they belong together. Unsurprisingly then, when people contest this position, the two most common counterarguments are that: a) sex does not have this meaning; and/or, b) marriage does not have this meaning (or at least marriage is not the only relationship that has this meaning). Therefore these counterarguments will be used to structure this second section of the chapter on the debate over the possibility of virtuous sex outside of marriage. The first part addresses the question of what sex means. If sexual intercourse does not, or at least need not always, signify love that is exclusive, permanent, and open to new life, then it could be at home in non-married relationships too. The second part addresses the claim that even if sex does have this meaning, marriage is not the only relationship that truly is exclusive, permanent, and open to new life. To these issues we now turn.

The Purpose, or Meaning, of Sex

What is the point of having sex? In other words, does sex have any meaning or purpose? If so, what is it? What determines the meaning of sex, something about the action itself, or simply whatever the couple wants it to express? And need sex always have the same meaning, or purpose? These are the questions for this first part of this section.

What Does It Mean to Say Sex “Means” Something?

Before examining the important question of what sex means, we must first pause to explain the meaning of the phrase, “what sex means.” To say that an activity “means” something is to say that there is a point, or purpose, to the activity. How to determine the point of sex? Rather than start with some abstract discussion of the nature of sexual intercourse, we begin here with the simple observation that our practices—the way we do activities—reveal what we think those activities mean. By examining when people do and do not have sex, we can better specify what that particular action means. Of course, there is not one consistent way people do and do not have sex. But there is significant commonality. By starting there, we can identify the general purpose of sex from common practices, and then use what we find to evaluate differences to see if the different ways all serve that purpose, or if some practices actually defy the general purpose of sex.

Consider an uncontroversial example first. What does a simple sign like a handshake mean? People shake hands when they are entering into, or sustaining, some sort of relationship. It is an embodied sign of peace and goodwill. It may accompany an introduction to a friend’s friend, or the closing of a business deal. It may signify affection and friendship for an old friend or acquaintance. Looking at when and how we shake hands with people reveals what that action means. There are certain situations where a handshake would be inappropriate. If you shook your mother’s hand after a long absence, she would likely think something amiss! If you offered your hand to someone while still arguing with them about some offense they committed, they would likely think it odd. The gesture would not fit these occasions because of its meaning. Of course, cultural and social factors are very important in specifying the meanings of such bodily acts. But even granting significant cultural variation, there are some boundaries to those variations. In no culture is a punch in the face a sign of friendship and goodwill! Nowhere is sexual intercourse a commonly practiced way of introducing yourself to a new person.

The meaning, or point, of an action is an important way to determine if some gesture is fitting for an occasion. This is a way of looking at the object of the action, to use terminology from chapter 2. But looking at the object of the action alone is not adequate. We must also examine the agent’s intention in performing the action. For instance, a handshake may be an appropriate way to close a business deal. But if we learn that one of the partners was actually cheating the other, we would call not just the deal, but also the handshake, deceptive. Though there is nothing wrong with the object or meaning of a handshake, that meaning was not intended by the agent. Thus, there was a disconnect between the purpose of the act and the agent’s intention. We would call such a person deceptive, and say their act (the handshake) was a lie in some sense, since the person’s intention did not match the meaning of the gesture. In all this we would have to attend to the relevant circumstances.

Therefore, when asking what sex means, we are seeking to determine the point or purpose of sex, in order to help us determine in which situations it is appropriate so that we can perform this symbolic act when we mean what it stands for. Note that it is granted here that sex means something, or has some point. If there were no meaning whatsoever to sex, then we would be unconcerned when we had it and with whom, since sex would be pointless, or literally mean nothing. That is obviously not the case, even if there is significant disagreement about what sex means. For instance, if sex literally meant nothing, we could not say it was inappropriate between certain persons (family members, a married person and their lover, doctors and patients, etc.). Thankfully, there are certain situations that are basically unanimously understood as inappropriate venues for sex. To use a more accessible example, if your longtime boyfriend or girlfriend told you they had sex with someone else, it would be nonsensical to be upset about it if sex had no point or meaning. You would have to respond as if they simply held the door for someone, or did some other simple gesture, since it would not mean anything. (In fact, even these gestures have some point.) Clearly, that is not the case, nor would it be the case even if you were told that they did not intend it to mean anything. You would likely reply that even if they intended it to mean nothing, it still did mean something! What is contested is not whether sex has meaning, but which meaning it has.

It is also granted here that sexual intercourse is an expression of love in romantic relationships. There is an important place for cultural studies here, since it has not always and everywhere been the case that the appropriate venue for sex is a romantic relationship of the sort we understand in our own society.See Lawrence Stone, “Passionate Attachments in the West in Historical Perspective,” in Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar ed. Amy Kass and Leon Kass (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000), 38–44. Dame Press, 2000). Nonetheless, given the scope of this chapter, that investigation will not be done here. Furthermore, the fact that romantic love need not be present in order for there to be virtuous sex (in, say, arranged marriages) does not defeat the following argument about the meaning of sex. The more common question today is at what stage in a romantic relationship is sexual intercourse appropriate. To that question we now turn.

What Does Sex Mean?

So, granting that sex has a meaning and that it has to do with love, what exactly does sex mean? After all, saying sex means “I love you” is not enough. There are plenty of people in our lives whom we love, but with whom we do not have sex (family, friends, mentors, etc.). If sex simply meant I love you, we would have sex with these people. So we have sex not just to say I love you, but to say, “I love you in a certain way,” a way that is not true of other people whom we also truly love. What types of love does sex express? Even saying that sex means I love you in a romantic way is not enough. What should characterize a romantic relationship where people are having sex? Need there be feelings of romantic love? If feelings of love are needed, do they alone suffice to make sex appropriate? If so, can I have sex with several different people with whom I have such feelings, or have sex with someone I just met that I have a crush on? Our answers to these questions help reveal what we think the meaning of sex is.

In a beautiful description of the meaning of sex, the Irish bishops claim:

Sexual union says, “I love you”, in a very profound way. By sexual union, a man and woman say to each other: “I love you. There is nobody else in all the world I love in the way I love you. I love you just for being you. I want you to become even more wonderful than you are. I want to share my life and my world with you. I want you to share your life and your world with me. I want us to build a new life together, a future together, which will be our future. I need you. I can’t live without you. I need you to love me, and to love me not just now but always. I will be faithful to you not just now but always. I will never let you down or walk out on you. I will never put anyone else in place of you. I will stay with you through thick and through thin. I will be responsible for you and I want you to be responsible for me, for us, no matter what happens.Irish bishops, Love is For Life, 9.

Much of what they claim sex means in this powerful passage is not distinctive to sex. For instance, there are, hopefully, many people in our lives to whom we could say, “I want to share my life and my world with you. I want you to share your life and your world with me.” Or, “I love you for just being you.” Presumably we could say these things to a friend or family member. But much of what is said here concerns a very particular type of relationship, namely marriage. Several phrases describe faithful exclusivity, such as, “there is nobody else in all the world I love in the way I love you.” Even more describe permanence: “I need you to love me, and to love me not just now but always,” and, “I will stay with you through thick and thin,” and, “I will be faithful to you not just now but always.”

In summary, the Irish bishops claim that sex is an embodied form of communication that has an inherent meaning, and that meaning is exclusive and permanent love.Another crucial facet of the meaning of sex is described below. It speaks exclusive and permanent love, regardless of whether or not those having sex are intending to say that when they have sex. Due to this meaning, therefore, sex is only appropriate in a relationship where a couple can and has stated just that. They need not be saying it or even thinking of it while having sex, of course! But it must be true of their relationship in order for sex to be an honest act. If it is, then sex is a beautiful, pleasurable, and powerful expression of, and further nourishment of, such love. If it is not, the Irish bishops claim that sex is a lie. Two people are saying something with their bodies that they do not intend.

Obviously, the heart of this argument lies in the claim that the point of sex is permanent, faithful love. In order to contextualize the Irish bishops’ claim, consider some alternatives. Imagine a graph charting the ascending levels of a relationship, if you will. It starts at two people just meeting and having feelings, or falling for each other. Next, perhaps, comes an expectation that they will see each other again in coming days, weeks, or months. Then comes an expectation of exclusivity. In other words, at some point in the relationship, each expects the other is not seeing someone else, and would rightly feel betrayed if that were the case. Then perhaps things get more serious, such that there is not only exclusivity, but even openness to and discussion of future plans together. At this stage the relationship is at least a factor in decisions of whether to move, what job to take, and so on. This is seen especially in couples where at least one person is going off to or graduating from college, considering a career change, or relocating. At some point there may come an explicit hope, and even expectation, that the two will stay together permanently, often in marriage. If marriage is indeed the goal, then a period of engagement generally precedes the marriage itself.

In this tidy little graph of ascending levels of commitment, three things should be noted. First, the relationship can stop at any one of these and end, or go no further. Second, you could add in, combine, or eliminate any particular stage. The point here is not a precise delineation of how exactly relationships develop. It is simply to specify and imagine where sex enters into the picture. Third, living together is not given as a stage since it can become part of the relationship at nearly any of the above stages.

Our question is, at what stage is sex an appropriate way to express such a relationship? Answering this question reveals what one thinks sex means. If you think sex is appropriate once there is exclusivity, you are simultaneously saying that sex conveys an “I love you” that is exclusive romantic love, and that one should not have sex before that is the case. If you think only those couples who are married should have sex, you are saying that sex means an I love you that is not only exclusive but vowed to be permanent, and open to new life. You are also saying couples who are not in such a married relationship should not have sex.

Clearly there are different people who live out the view that sex is appropriate at each of the spots on this spectrum. So it is tempting to say that sex can mean whatever we want it to mean. For some it’s a simply recreational pleasure. For others it’s an expression of exclusive self-giving love. For others it’s an expression of exclusive self-giving love that is permanent and open to new life. No one can doubt that different people live in these different ways. The question is, does sex have any inherent meaning, such that we might tell someone the relationship they are in is not an appropriate venue for sex because they do not intend to say what sex means?

This is the place people of religious traditions like Christianity commonly cite some authority specific to their tradition and say things like, “the Bible says not to fornicate!” Or, “Genesis 2:24 makes it clear in its claim that the ‘two become one flesh’ that this is meant to happen in marriage.” This is all well and good, and Christian revelation does indeed offer additional resources to enable Christians to better understand innerworldly activities like sex.Many Catholic people have found an approach to sexuality called “theology of the body” to be a compelling account of sexuality in the context of faith and discipleship. The theology of the body was explicitly articulated primarily by Pope John Paul II. See his rather dense Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, trans. Michale Waldstein (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 2006). There are also numerous popular portrayals of John Paul’s thought, done with varying degrees of accuracy. One particularly popular example is Christopher West’s The Good News about Sex and Marriage (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2004). Though nearly all contain much that is helpful, no one popular presentation is endorsed here in its totality. But since it is an innerworldly activity, we can trust that the reasoning behind these revealed norms can indeed be understood by us using our reason, even if it may be difficult and we do not all see it the same way. So why do the Irish bishops claim sex has the meaning it does, which makes it appropriate and honest only in marriage? What do we know about sex that makes this claim credible? Two answers are offered here.

First, sex is a powerful bodily act that bonds people together physically and emotionally. Sex is pleasurable, but it is more than that. Two people are literally joined in their bodies. Naked and vulnerable, clumsy and awkward, longing and longed for, two people unite bodily in a manner that is more powerful and intimate than other important forms of bodily communication we employ (smiles, handshakes, kisses, etc.) It is not just a sign of love that is already there, although it is that too. It also helps further ingrain that love through its intimacy. Sex works in bonding people together.

There is much evidence for the meaning of sex as powerfully bonding. Scientists describe hormonal changes that sex brings about in partners. But perhaps the most common evidence is the difference sex makes in how partners view each other, and how others view the couple. We assume that a couple who has had sex shares some intimacy that is different than other friendships and intimacies. Friends of each person in the couple generally view that friend’s partner as unavailable romantically, somehow connected to their friend in a way that means they are now off-limits. Sex also leads the partners to view one another differently. A bond is established, and even two people who have “hooked up” and had casual sex generally feel awkward if they see each again soon afterward. A bodily connection was made that was disproportionate to their relationship, or lack thereof, on other levels (emotional, mental, spiritual, etc.) It is also why we can tell a partner that we do not intend to get serious despite having sex, and perhaps he or she will agree; yet someone still gets hurt in that scenario, since despite what we say with our words, what we are saying with our bodies is importantly different.

One can immediately object here that this is clearly not the case for some people who have sex casually without a care in the world, who do not seem to be bonded to their partners, or who do not feel awkward after sexual encounters without a proportionate relationship. Granted, there are people like this. But concluding that sex therefore has no inherent bonding meaning is much like saying that we cannot specify what amount of alcohol is virtuous due to the example of alcoholics, who drink too much. Amazingly, even with things like food and drink that are more clearly limited by health concerns, human persons manage to warp themselves, to form bad habits, so as to become persons who are used to all sorts of activities that are actually bad for them. Surely the same can be true of sex.

All of this anecdotal evidence suggests that sex works in bonding people together, even in situations where that does not seem to be the intent. Granted, this is not a knock-down argument proving definitively that sex means exclusive permanent love. Here is a good example of how the meaning of even innerworldly activities may not be uncontested among us even though they are innerworldly (i.e., matters of natural law). But though not demonstrable, the case for the meaning of sex as permanent and exclusive is most persuasive. Loving couples can indeed have sex and bond together even if they do not intend to say they are permanent and exclusive. But in doing so, they use a powerfully intimate form of communication to speak a love that may be strong and genuine, but not fully committed in its exclusivity and permanence. In doing so, they rob sex of its capacity to signify and further nourish a relationship that is truly fully committed. Though sex works, and powerfully bonds people to signify and nourish their faithful permanence, it is only fully effective in its meaning when that is the intention of those who have sex. When it is not, people who have sex outside such a relationship not only lie by speaking with their bodies that which they do not intend; they also dissipate the power of their sexuality and settle for sexual expression that may be genuine and loving, but is simply not all it is capable of being.

Thus far the claim has been that sex has what the Christian tradition has called a unitive, or unifying, meaning. It signifies and sustains faithful, permanent relationships. But the second thing that sex means has been neglected so far. Yes, sex seems to bond people together. But if there is one thing that sex does for sure, it is to engender children. Sex is a way to have kids, and is the reason why each of us is here.Note that the first children conceived not as a result of intercourse, but through in vitro fertilization, are now young adults. Though this claim is not true of them, it is nonetheless still the case that sex leads to children. This is called the procreative meaning of sex. The Irish bishops describe it this way:

Sexual union speaks of a man’s willingness or readiness to “give” a child to a woman as hers, and of a woman’s readiness to bear or “have” a child “with him.” It speaks of a man and a woman’s readiness to openness to share their being in a child which will be “their child,” the expression of their love, the bond of their shared life. It speaks of a man’s and a woman’s desire to “begin a new life together,” both in the form of their child and in the form of their shared life around that child.Irish bishops, Love is For Life, 11.

Again, a couple need not verbally or even consciously have this intention while having sex. But in having sex they are engaging in an act that has this meaning, whether they intend that meaning or not (hence the expression, unintended pregnancy). The Irish bishops eloquently state the Christian tradition’s consistent affirmation that sex has a procreative meaning, an affirmation that one clearly need not be Christian to recognize.Of course, given the prevalence and effectiveness today of contraception, a couple can try to prevent sex from being a procreative act, often successfully. But even this separation of procreativity from acts of sexual intercourse seems to acknowledge that inherent meaning of sex. Though this is an obvious occasion to explore the contested issue of the morality of contraception, the scope of this chapter precludes that discussion here. As for the claim that the procreative nature of sex is a consistent claim in the Christian tradition, note that even Christians who affirm the permissibility of birth control do so in ways that purport to respect the procreative nature of sex. Whether that is in fact the case is a topic for another discussion.

Two observations are fitting here concerning the procreative and unitive meanings of sex. First, the Irish bishops go on to describe the interconnectedness of these two meanings of sexual intercourse.

The two meanings of sexual union blend into each other. An act of sexual union which truly and honestly expresses total and life-long and exclusive union between a man and woman is also an act which is open to new life in a child. If the act is deliberately prevented from being open to new life, this can only be by the introduction of some barrier or separation into the life-giving act. But deliberately to introduce separation into an act which intends and says total union is a failure in truth.Irish bishops, Love is For Life, 12.

Though the Irish bishops emphasize that sexual intercourse which is not open to new life is therefore also not fully unifying, it could also be said that sexual intercourse that is not an expression of faithful permanence is also not fully procreative. This leads to the second observation. The procreative meaning of sex is not simply openness to having a child that is conceived from sex. It is a willingness to care for and raise that child. Justice to the child, and justice to a wider society that is clearly impacted by unintended pregnancy, dictates that having a child occur in relationship where people are committed to care for that child together. As noted earlier in this chapter, sometimes this does not happen. And, thankfully, children can grow up well in environments where that is not the case. But assuming that a child is best raised by parents who love the child and each other, having sex in a manner that is not fully unitive simultaneously offends the procreative nature of sex.

One final argument needs to be addressed before moving on in this chapter. Some claim it is possible to grant the view expressed here that the meaning of sex is only fully respected, and therefore done well, in a relationship that is faithfully permanent and open to nurturing new life. Yet, they continue, while that is their ultimate goal in living out their sexuality, it is possible to engage in sex for a different meaning at certain times in one’s life (for pleasure alone, or even for genuine love, but which is not faithfully permanent and open to new life), and then at some later point engage in sex in a manner that fulfills its meaning. Can’t we have sex now more casually, or at least not in a fully committed relationship, even while realizing that eventually we want to live out our sex lives in a manner that expresses the full meaning of sex? In fact, perhaps it is important that we do so, in order to try out a relationship on all levels (including sex) before committing exclusively and permanently to the other person!

This is by far the most common objection encountered to the position that sex is only fully virtuous in marriage. In effect these people grant this claim, but think sex can be permissible before such a relationship is present, and simply mean less at the present time. But there is an important problem with this position, and it has everything to do with this book’s reliance on developing virtues. A virtue is a habit of using some human capacity (like sex) well. The relevant virtue here is chastity, and the relevant vice is lust. Virtues incline us to acts of a certain sort. They not only incline us to perform certain types of actions, but also to perform those acts with a certain intentionality, and thus meaning. Intentions shape the meaning of our actions, and virtues are inclinations to consistent acts with a certain meaning. People who hold the position just described are in effect developing a habit of exercising their sexuality with a certain meaning, namely, as an expression of pleasure—or perhaps, as an expression of love that is genuine but not fully committed. They are shaping themselves to be the sorts of persons for whom sex means something that is not faithful permanence and open to new life. Such people in effect recognize that sex means something more beautiful and powerful, but develop themselves into people for whom sex means something different. The inconsistency should be clear. But the problem is not simply intellectual inconsistency. If we become what we do through the development of habits, and the full meaning of sexuality is what these people grant it is, then such people in effect prevent themselves from developing sexual habits that will enable them to live most truthfully, most happily. Even should such a couple who truly loves one another eventually get married, their sexual intercourse does not mean faithful permanence open to new life. They have developed it differently. Can they change? Thankfully, yes. But so can people who are greedy, envious, or gluttonous. The fact that people can rectify a bad habit is surely no argument justifying the development of the bad habit in the first place! And, of course, having the habit of exercising their sexuality differently inclines them to do so more in the future.

In summary, this first part of this section has sought to determine what the point, or meaning of sex is. The main claim here is not that sex has some point, or meaning—granted. The first main claim is that due to the sort of action it is, sex has a meaning of exclusive, permanent love that is open to new life. Therefore, sex is done virtuously when this is what the couple intends to express while having sex. If they do not, there is a disconnect between what they say and what they mean. The second main claim is that, due to the way we develop our capacities into virtues or vices, sex has a stable point or meaning even if the couple wishes it to mean different things according to their states of relationship. Both of these claims lead to the conclusion that sex is fully virtuous only in a permanent, exclusive, relationship that is open to new life. That sort of relationship is marriage. To the question of whether that sort of relationship can only be in marriage we now turn.

What’s the Big Deal about Marriage?

One of the more surprising things about teaching this topic over the past few years has been that students generally recognize that sexual intercourse has the meaning described in the previous section. The affirmation of sexual exclusivity, and even the recognition that sex is inextricably linked to having children, is less surprising. What is striking is the common recognition that sex means permanent love, and thus is at home in a fully committed relationship. I had always assumed that recognizing this was the end of the discussion. Conclusion: sex is only fully virtuous in marriage. But there is one more step—for many students a rather large one—required to draw this conclusion. Why is being married the only descriptor of a fully committed relationship? This is actually the question that many students spend a clear majority of time debating in their discussions of when sex is fully virtuous.

Even granting the previous view of what sex means, three common objections are offered against the need to be married in order to have such a relationship. First, people understandably gripe that weddings too often say more about wealth and status than they do about a couple’s relationship, and so are not morally relevant when discussing when to have sex virtuously. Second, people often claim they can be fully committed without having made marriage vows to each other. And third, people often claim that everything marriage is supposed to signify can be had without a piece of paper that says one is married. These three objections will structure the next part.

What Is Marriage Anyway?

When discussing the moral importance of marriage, one set of arguments that always comes up includes claims such as: “I do not need a dress or big party to know that our love is real;” or “diamond rings, limousines, or tuxedos have more to do with showing how much money you have than with how committed a relationship is.” In other words, some of the reasons people dismiss the moral relevance of marriage are based on a rejection of how many people celebrate weddings. What is the difference between marriage and a wedding?

A wedding ceremony is an event. In our society, no matter what one’s religious tradition, this often entails a beautiful setting (which may or may not be in a house of worship), fancy dress, expensive meals at lavish event halls, ornate cakes, and open bars. While there may be nothing inherently wrong with any of these features of contemporary weddings, taken together they often suggest that the purpose of the wedding is not simply the celebration of marriage vows, but rather an occasion to display the social status and wealth of those hosting the event. This is not the place to judge what exactly constitutes the virtuous planning of a wedding day; there are other authors who have done a fine job with that issue.One, in particular, is Julie Hanlon Rubio. See the second chapter of her excellent book, A Christian Theology of Marriage and Family (New York: Paulist, 2003). Note that the problem of wedding-day extravagance is not simply a contemporary American issue. See St. John Chrys-ostom’s homilies (discussed in Rubio) to his fifth-century Greek audiences about how Christians should not lose sight of their faith and what is really important when celebrating marriages. The point here is that arguments against wedding-day extravagance (which are often right on target) are not arguments against marriage. Why not?

Marriage is a state of life. It begins with an event, namely, the profession of vows. These vows may or may not be professed with a big wedding. But marriage is the state of living out the vows to love and honor one’s spouse “for richer or for poorer, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, ‘til death do us part.” The sense of these vows may be summed up in the word “permanence.” The couple promises that nothing—not poverty, not sickness, not bad times—will end their relationship before death. What makes a couple married is not the party. It is the public profession of these vows. It can be done in a quiet religious context. It could be done before a justice of the peace and two witnesses. Or it could be done in an ornate setting. But what makes a couple married is their public vow, or promise, to stay with one another “‘til death do us part.” The claim that sex is only truly at home in marriage means that it is only fully virtuous in a relationship where the couple has made this public profession.

The permanence of marriage is not simply a religious claim. In fact, the vows cited above (‘til death do us part,” or sometimes “all the days of our lives”) are used in civil marriage services with no religious affiliation. Of course, different religious traditions offer further resources for understanding the marriage state. In the Catholic tradition, marriage is one of the seven sacraments, there in the beginning (Gen. 1–2) and then blessed by Christ (John 2, Matt. 19). When marriage is performed not only in a civil but in a sacramental context, a sacramental bond is engendered, echoing the words of Christ himself, “what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (Matt. 19:6). The faithfulness and permanence of marriage is such that St. Paul (following the tradition of several Old Testament prophets) uses this state of life as a metaphor for God’s relationship with his people, and in particular Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph. 5). Obviously, not all people who are married civilly share all of this understanding of marriage, including Christian traditions where marriage is not a sacrament. And these differences in what marriage means do result in important differences on the question of whether and how a marriage vow can be terminated. Nonetheless, what unites different visions of marriage is vowed permanence.

But how permanent is marriage really? Already the previous paragraph mentioned the termination of a marriage vow. What good is vowed permanence if it is not definitely permanent? Everyone is familiar with the prevalence of divorce in our society. The commonly cited figure is that half of all marriages end in divorce. Given this state of affairs, does it really matter whether or not a couple has taken public vows to stay together for life? This is not the place to sort through the enormously difficult (and for many, painful) question of the morality of divorce, religiously and/or civilly. The simple claim made here is that there is an important different between the loving couple that publicly vows permanence and the one that does not, regardless of the fact that either relationship—or both—may fail. In fact, the very wording of this previous sentence indicates why. Only one relationship is rightly said to have failed:the marriage. For only in that relationship was there a public promise to stay together for life. In the absence of any such promise, we cannot even say the other relationship failed—it just ended. The value of vowed permanence is explored next. It suffices here to note that regardless of the actual longevity of the relationship, assuming marital vows are given with full consent and full intent to be lived out, there is a difference between living in such a state (marriage) and living a committed relationship where that promise is absent. Further reasons for this are given later.

Permanence: Why Bother?

Many will immediately say, why? What is the point of promising to stay with another person in good times and in bad? In fact, this may seem like the last thing a person should want to do. If two people no longer love one another, what is the point of staying together? In one sense this is a valid point. There are many relationships in life, even intimate and important ones such as friendships, that run their course. When they do, we let them go. This is also true of romantic relationships. Many times they run their course and we leave them behind, perhaps with fond memories, but often with pain. So the real question here is what point is there in ever promising in the first place to be with someone in good times and in bad, “all the days of our lives”? If it ends up that way, great. But why commit to it ahead of time, in marriage?

Every person should ask him or herself this question, particularly in considering marriage. It is not simply a rubber-stamp approval of a good relationship. Nor is it the logical next step after dating, falling in love, and becoming exclusive. Nor is it a shared hope that two people will always love each other. It could, of course, be any of these things for a particular couple. But none of these are good enough reasons to publicly vow marriage. Marriage is a commitment to stay together. It is a promise, an act of the will. In our day and age, this promise is generally made in the context of feelings of romantic love, which are fine and beautiful. But those feelings are neither the reason for, nor a solid future foundation of, a marriage commitment. If what one means by love is feeling desire to be with another person, then it actually makes no sense to promise life-long love. One should avoid such commitments, and remain free to leave one’s partner if, or when, these desires pass.

Married love is a commitment to share certain goods together in life: an intimate friendship where the good of the other becomes one’s own good, an openness to new life in possible children and the raising of those children together, and a participation in the life of a community as a unit (couple or family). It is not a rubber-stamp approval of a relationship, or of sexual intimacy. It is not a statement of the intensity of love a couple shares, and/ or a pledge to keep that intensity alive. It is a commitment to go through life together. Its permanence is crucial for two reasons. First, that permanence is the best setting to have and raise children. Second, that permanence makes possible certain facets of a shared life together that are not otherwise possible. The permanence of a relationship means a shared life together, and shared stories. It means being vulnerable to each other in ways that may be avoided outside the commitment of such shared life. It entails a commitment to reconciliation and growth as a couple in the inevitable times of discord. It is not security in the sad sense sought by those who are uncertain and crave certainty; it is commitment in the strong sense of having and building further a common vision of what it means to live a good life.

As such, marriage is actually a radical thing. People change over their lives. Who you are when you marry is not the same exact person you are ten, twenty, or however many years later. The same is true of your spouse. And the world around us changes at least as rapidly. Marriage is the pledge to stay together, to love one another through all of this. It is based on the assumption that there is something life-giving and true about doing so. As a commitment, it may often feel like an obligation, due to difficult situations or our own weaknesses. But from a morality-of-happiness perspective, like the life of virtue itself, marriage properly understood is a source of true happiness.

This discussion of the goods available in vowed permanence has been purposely general so as to apply to all marriages—religious and civil—where such a vow is made. In the Catholic tradition, there are further resources to understand and live out that commitment. One of—if not the—most frequent metaphors in the scriptures used to describe God’s relationship with his people is that of marriage. God is the faithful one who always loves and forgives the spouse, his people, even in their times of infidelity. If the scriptures tell us anything about God’s love for us, it is that God is faithful forever. Thus Catholics, guided by Ephesians 5, have always seen sacramental marriage as a sign of God’s relationship with his people. Combined with Christ’s own teaching on the permanence of marriage, this has led Catholics to understand marriage as importantly permanent, a very modeling of God’s faithful, enduring love. Of course, given earlier chapters’ discussion of self-giving love as the very point of the Christian story (as in who God is, the point of creation, and what we as persons are called to do), it is more clear as to why a couple vows permanence; it is an occasion to embark on a state of life whose very point is the self-giving love of, and service to, another person. In living that life, Christians believe they truly live out, with the help of God’s grace, their creation as imago Dei.

This is why couples decide—or should be why they decide—to pledge to stay with each other for life. It may be the case that some couples marry who should not, perhaps pressured into marriage as the next step, or seeking societal approval to live together or have sex. Or perhaps they really love each other and seek marriage as a way to proclaim or keep alive that love. Even when couples do understand marriage as a commitment, it is certainly the case that nearly all couples do not fully understand the magnitude and meaning of the marriage commitment when they marry. The claim here is not that a couple should understand fully what lies in store for them in marriage; any long-time married couple will tell you that is impossible. But a couple should understand that they are making a promise, a commitment, that they will make every effort to live into as they grow together.

Can’t I Have All That without the Piece of Paper?

Perhaps someone can agree with these claims based on the beauty and importance of committing to stay with someone in the manner described above. Indeed, many couples describe themselves as fully committed, and live out practices reflective of that commitment (living together, having children, shared bank accounts, participation in each other’s family lives, etc.). Yet still these couples may question why getting married is necessary to be fully committed. Two responses to this challenge are offered here.

First, if that is indeed their intention, it matters that a couple be able to state clearly that they are promising to stay with each other permanently. Doing so ensures that both persons are on the same page about their relationship, and make clear exactly what that page is! Without any decisive event signifying how the couple understands their relationship, that clarity is lacking. The couple likely shares a similar understanding of what it means to be together which, after all, sustains them in their relationship. But even in the presence of beautiful self-giving love, absent a promise of permanence it is not clear that each person has this understanding of the relationship, namely, as something both are committed to sustaining in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, and so on. Furthermore, even with a shared understanding of full and mutual commitment, there may be only a vague sense of what full commitment means. After all, “commitment” is a word that requires an object: committed to what? Commitment to feel love for the other person? Even given this book’s (chapter 4) claims about the possibility of habituating our emotions, it is an odd thing to commit to have certain feelings. Commit to try real hard to make things work? This is closer to a marriage promise, but note it is not the same as committing to love one another until death. Stating marriage vows not only helps ensure each person in the couple is on the same page, it also helps clarify what it is that they commit to together.

At this point a common objection raised is that a couple may indeed be fully committed but unable to make marriage vows due to being in college or graduate school, student loans or other sources of financial insecurity, military service, and the like. What unites all of these seeming impediments to marriage is that there is some societally imposed constraint that is an obstacle to making a permanent commitment to be together.For an example of this type of argument, saying that sex outside marriage is permissible if such externally imposed obstacles are present, see Phillip Keane, “The Dilemma of Committed Premarital Intercourse,” in his Sexual Morality: A Catholic Perspective (New York: Paulist, 1997), 105–10. It is indeed true that all of these things can impede a couple from getting married. But two things should be kept in mind for those in such a position.

First, be careful to distinguish the wedding from being married. Getting married actually costs very little (usually some fees for a state license and blood tests, and perhaps a contribution to a church, if the ceremony is held there). Of course what does not cost little is the big wedding that so many of us envision on the occasion of our marriage vows. The big wedding and its costs may be fine and good, but are not necessary to be married. Of course, societal pressure (especially from parents) on a couple to get married in such a setting may be real, and that may indeed impose hardship on the couple. This is certainly an occasion for fortitude. The couple must endure the difficulty of going ahead with what they, in good conscience, deem most important (if it is their marriage) even without the big wedding, or with the celebration of the marriage delayed to some point after the vows. Or they can decide that it is indeed important to do the big family wedding, and therefore wait to have sex a little longer.

The second observation in situations like this is that often such impediments to marriage are not truly societally imposed, but rather reflections of the fact that due to the age and/or stage in life of the couple, the two people are simply not readily to promise permanent love, even if that state of life is indeed their hope and desire. Young couples may say things like, “we are fully committed to each other but cannot get married” because they are in college or graduate school, because they need to get financially secure, or need to get our careers on track. These may indeed be good reasons to postpone marriage. But then even in the presence of truly self-giving and committed love, there is not full commitment. Full commitment would mean finishing school while together, or establishing financial or job security together. The claim here is not that all couples should do this. It is rather that if they are not ready to, fine and good, but then they are not fully committed. When such challenges come up during marriage rather than before it, the married couple promises to work out the situation and stay together (richer or poorer, sickness and in health, etc.). If a couple before marriage is not willing to promise permanence until the resolution of the challenge, it in effect means their commitment, while strong, is not full. It is conditional upon the resolution of that challenge. That may indeed be a prudent judgment on the part of the couple (or may be an imprudent fear of commitment), but, regardless, it is not the full commitment of promised permanence.

Now to the second response. What if a couple is willing to promise permanence to each other? They are willing to verbally state to one another, and even to others who might ask (like their family members), that they are committed to staying with each other in good times and bad, in sickness and health, and so on. So in this case, they are indeed clear to each about where the relationship stands, and it is not simply really committed, but permanently committed, and indeed promised, to each other. The objection continues, “why do we need a piece of paper (a marriage license from the state or church) to make our marriage legitimate? We know and have even promised our love to each other, and that’s enough for us!” What distinguishes this case from the prior one is that there is indeed promised permanence. Yet what distinguishes this case from marriage is the fact that the vow is private rather than public (before others and officially recognized by state and perhaps church). If there is nothing importantly different between marriage and the relationship described in this case, it would seem that sex is fully virtuous in this relationship, which is not marriage. So the question is, what, if anything, makes this relationship importantly different from marriage?

Note that the non-marital relationship, as described here, may be a beautiful and self-giving loving relationship. The claim here is not that this relationship only seems good, but is actually malicious or deceptive. The claim is simply that it lacks something important that marriage has, and that sex is fully virtuous only where all elements that marriage has are present. Furthermore, such a relationship may indeed work out. In fact, most of us likely know people in such relationships who are generous, loving couples, who do indeed stay together, perhaps even longer than (and in a more loving way) than certain married couples we know. No denying that! Yet it is claimed that such couples work out not because of, but in spite of, their lack of public profession of marriage vows.

What distinguishes the couple described here from the married couple is that their promises, or vows, to one another are private. This seems to make sense. After all, what is more personal, and thus seemingly more private, than one’s romantic relationship and sex life? If two people know they love one another, and promise that love forever, what could be gained by publicly professing that promise? In fact, to many such a public profession seems to be a crutch, an aid employed by couples who perhaps secretly fear they may not make it, and thus place themselves together publicly so that the public pressures and expectations on married people may help them through tough times. If their love were stronger or pure (i.e., without this public interference), it would be better. In fact, many people assume that it is precisely the public dimension of married relationships that so often leads to their demise!

There are actually several different views here. Some think public profession of vows means nothing. Others think it actually signifies a weaker relationship. Still others think it actually leads to problems since it invites outside interference. What all these have in common is that one can have just as good, if not a better, relationship where permanence is explicitly understood by the couple as the goal of the relationship, and yet never publicly professed. It is not contested here that communal influence on a couple can be an interference, or that some couples may get married as a crutch to help them stay together when they are actually not sure they can or really want to do so. Yet it is claimed here that public profession of vows adds something to the relationship, something that can be a powerful support for married people and indeed a further sign of their commitment to each other.

In the same way that verbal promises between the couple clarify the intent of their relationship to each other, the same is true of a public profession with the broader community. In this case the couple makes it clear to others—family, friends, the state, others who may interact with them in formal or informal ways—that they are a unit, two people bound together for the long haul. Why bother doing this, when the key players, so to speak, in the relationship are the man and woman themselves? Though it is indeed the two people that constitute the couple, as explained in the context of justice in chapter 7 we human persons are social creatures. It is not simply that we are always around other people. Our very identities are shaped by our relations with others. Therefore, if a person is in a relationship as important as marriage, which will be the primary relationship for that person for the rest of his or her life due to its promised permanence (something that even strong friendships do not formally have), it is only fitting for others who are in relationship with us to be aware of such a central relationship. Public profession of marriage vows does that.

Someone may object, don’t the people you care about in your life know that you are in such a relationship? Actually, no. First of all, there are relationships that are not so personal (with the state, insurance companies, a child’s school, etc.), where this may not be known, and it is important that it is. Second, even when those close to a couple know they are in a real serious relationship, perhaps one where the couple loves each other deeply and lives together, the couple’s loved ones do not know whether or not the couple intends to make that relationship permanent. And thus they do not know how to treat the couple on certain occasions. For instance, should my unmarried friend’s partner be included in things I might only invite friends to, or friends with their spouses? If my unmarried friend comes to me while having problems in his relationship, how am I to know if I should support him to try and make the relationship work out, when he and his partner have not publicly promised that they vow to make it work? In the absence of public vows, others have not, in effect, been invited to treat the two people as a couple. Assuming both the primacy of the marital relationship in one’s life and the importance of our interactions with others around us, this is a real deficiency.

In addition to these considerations, there is another reason why being married is importantly different than living together, even when living together involves a promise of permanence. Marriage helps people stay together. Rather than simply offering the clear statistics about the increased longevity of couples who are married versus those who live together,For a helpful overview of sociological data on this question, see Adrian Thatcher’s Living Together and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). let us consider why these statistics are true. One contemporary author describes the weightiness that marriage carries.See Jo McGowen, “Marriage Versus Living Together,” in Perspectives on Marriage, ed. Kieran Scott and Michael Warren (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 125–29. Though a couple may understand their relationship as their own, once they publicly vow to be married they enter into a state of life that has existed long before them, and will exist long afterwards. There are social responsibilities and expectations that come along with being married, and the couple takes on the power of those centuries-old expectations to help shape their relationship and keep it permanent. This does not, of course, mean that they have no ability to shape their own relationship, or that they must be married in a manner dictated solely by others. But it does mean that they are in effect saying that their relationship is about more than themselves; they are entering into a state of life that is not simply of their own construction. In doing so they are inviting the support and involvement of others in their community.

Of course, here lies the problem too. The reason why many couples who choose not to marry make that choice is because the weightiness of marriage is experienced as a burden rather than a support. Perhaps their own parents were married and had a horrible relationship which inflicted pain on the children. Perhaps the couple has experienced painful divorce in their families, and the refusal to be married appears an obvious way to avoid such trauma, should hard times arise for them in the future. Given these experiences, it is understandable why people wish to avoid marriage. Yet the question that needs to be asked here is whether the problems against which they react are inherent to marriage (and thus can be avoided by living together without marriage), or whether they are particular to a specific couple. To do so, what must be compared are good marriages and good non-married relationships, to see what differences between the two forms are not simply attributable to characteristics of a particular couple.

One of the assumptions of a public profession of marriage vows is that it is indeed difficult to stay married. In fact, in more difficult times couples report they may stay together simply because they are married. Now this is not a good long-term reason to stay together. The reasons why a permanent relationship is a good thing were discussed previously. Granting that, marriage vows can get people through tough times when they do not feel like being married, but experience their commitment as a burden. In such times marriage vows are a support of the couple’s freedom, since they have decided (as evidenced by their vows) that staying together permanently is indeed what is best for them. Marriage promises not only can sustain the couple in times of hardship, but also hopefully act as an impetus not just to endure in hardship, but to work together and address the sources of the difficulty so as to live again in fulfilling relationship with each other. Reminiscent of the second chapter’s discussion of freedom for excellence, in this situation the rules (staying together when married) may be experienced as a burden. But living in accordance with them indeed constitutes true happiness.

It is for these reasons that marriage helps a couple stay together. The assumption here, of course, is that this is a good thing, for reasons already described. There may be occasions where this is not so (horrible situations of spousal abuse come immediately to mind). And in such cases separating may indeed be what is best for the couple. But the question for this section is how to best effectuate a couple’s commitment to stay together permanently. If a couple avoids marriage, it must be asked if permanence is really their goal. Why not avail themselves of available communal support and expectations to reach that goal? And if such support is not desired in favor of having some sort of pure relationship that is kept together solely by the present desires of the couple, it must be asked to what extent permanence is truly the goal.For more on the concept of pure relationship, see David McCarthy, Sex and Love in the Home (London: SCM Press, 2004). If permanence is indeed the goal, and a couple feels marriage is actually an impediment to that goal, the argument here is this is not true. Marriage may be experienced as an impediment due to painful experiences in the couple’s past. But reminiscent of the first chapter’s argument that the remedy to harm inflicted by destructive authorities is not to avoid them altogether but rather to seek genuinely life-giving ones, the best response to destructive experiences of marriage is not to avoid a state of life that actually best serves a stated goal of permanence, but rather to seek out and rely on more life-giving models and experiences of that state. In sum, being married is importantly different than living together in privately promised permanence.

The bulk of this chapter has been spent discussing one specific question as an entry point into the far broader discussion of when it is virtuous to have sex. The particular question addressed has been whether or not being married is a necessary (even if not sufficient) condition of having virtuous sex. The answer supported here is yes, based mainly on the contention (consistent with this book’s focus on intentionality) that the goals or meanings of marriage and sex coincide, such that having sex without marriage reveals that the relationship lacks something signified in marriage necessary to have virtuous sex. A host of arguments have been addressed, but all concern one of two points: whether sex really has a meaning akin to marriage, or whether marriage is the only state of relationship where these goals can be fully sought and lived out. Given the previous chapter’s arguments about the existence of infused cardinal virtues, the chapter contains occasional discussion of how certain big-picture Christian beliefs shape the meaning of human activities like having sex and being married. The Christian may do the same acts as a chaste non-Christian, but the former person not only relies of God’s grace to live virtuously, but also understands the meaning of virtuous sexuality differently. Since sex is an innerworldly activity accessible to unaided human reasoning (i.e., a natural law activity), much of this chapter’s discussion remained at that level. It is hoped this discussion, like the one in the next chapter on end-of-life decision-making, reveals how a topic can be both a natural law issue, and yet also be shaped by one’s faith.

It is fitting to end where we started, especially by returning to the early part of the chapter on judgment and judgmentalism. The point in this chapter, as in the entire book, is to try and determine how to live most virtuously, understood as living the most fulfilling life by espousing and acting toward what will make us genuinely happy. This is difficult for most of us. All of us have likely failed to live up to this challenge as it concerns our sexuality, whether it be in deed or desire. But in order to determine how we ourselves can live, and lovingly support other to live, in a most fulfilling manner, articulating what rules best serve this goal is necessary, even if challenging to understand and live. The need for prudence and fortitude, as well as temperance and justice, is particularly evident here. It is hoped that this chapter can be an occasion for the development of those virtues as it concerns our sex lives.

1. Explain why or why not the question of whether sex belongs in marriage only makes sense for Christians.

2. Describe two different levels on which people could disagree about the question of the relationship between sex and marriage.

3. Distinguish judging from being judgmental. Can one discuss how to have sex virtuously and not be judgmental?

4. What about sex and marriage leads some people to say that sex is only fully virtuous in marriage?

5. What does it “mean” to ask what sex means?

6. What does sex mean? Place yourself somewhere on the continuum of a developing relationship, and say why sex is appropriate at that stage.

7. What is the essence of marriage? How is this different from a wedding?

8. Why would a couple promise to stay together permanently?

9. Does being publicly married add anything to a loving relationship where the partners tell each other they want to be together forever? Why or why not?

chastity, lust, judgment vs. judgmentalism, sex as language metaphor, unitive meaning of sex, procreative meaning of sex, wedding vs. marriage, marriage as public

1. How can we determine whether one has crossed the line from loving judgment to judgmentalism?

2. One goal of this chapter has been to make a certain vision of sex understandable to people. What societal, familial, and church forces are at work that inhibit the reception of this vision? In other words, how are consciences being poorly (as well as properly) formed on this issue?

3. What impact does the high divorce rate have today on people’s reflection on this question?

4. How central is the procreative meaning of sex? Can the position articulated here account for the case of sterile couples? What are the ramifications of one’s position on the procreative meaning of sex for questions such as homosexuality, marriage, and contraception?

5. Does permanence makes sense as a good of marriage outside of a Christian perspective?

There is an enormous literature on sex and morality in general, and the relationship between sex and marriage in particular. The official Catholic church document I have found most helpful for teaching is the Irish Bishops’ Pastoral Letter Love is for Life. David Cloutier’s Love, Reason, and God’s Story is an outstanding introduction to sexual ethics. See also David McCarthy’s Sex and Love in the Home, Julie Hanlon Rubio’s A Christian Theology of Marriage and Family, and Richard Gaillardetz’s A Daring Promise: A Spiritually of Christian Marriage. For a more popular presentation of the position taken in this chapter see Lauren Winner’s Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Chastity.