Question:
My question is oriented towards sexual morality. What is the theological basis for considering all sins against the 6th and 9th commandments “non parvitas materiae”? Is there any magisterial definition on this matter? The theologian Marciano Vidal states in his “Moral de Actitudes” that this moral categorization corresponds to an error in biological anthropology, because, according to him, Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that semen already contained “homunculi,” that is, embryonic humans, and therefore every seminal emission would contain embryonic humans. Is this claim accurate? How would you respond to it?
Answer:
Dear Sir or Madam,
“Parvitas materiae” means “smallness of matter.” The principle you mention, that there is no “parvitas materiae,” means that, from a material aspect, any act performed against what is commanded in those commandments is sufficient to constitute mortal sin.
It has undoubtedly been a traditional teaching that in sexual matters, every disorder is something objectively serious and grave and which therefore constitutes sufficient matter for mortal sin. This does not simply mean that in every concrete case it is a mortal sin, because for an actual mortal sin to exist, it is not enough for a grave objective disorder to occur; it must also be known as such by the person committing it, and they must have willed or freely consented to it (thus, mitigating factors like ignorance, violence, lack of freedom or deliberation, etc., could exist).
In the second half of the 20th century, many theologians distanced themselves from this teaching, arguing that this doctrine made an unjustified distinction between sexual matters and those of other virtues (such as social justice, for example, where the concept of “parvitas materiae” is indeed discussed). Consequently, they demanded a reinterpretation of the principle (like Grundel, B. Häring, and others) or even declared it unsustainable (J. Ziegler, A. Valsecchi). However, it is not accurate to say that the doctrine of “non-parvitas materiae” applies only to the sexual sphere. There are other sins where “parvitas materiae” also does not apply. For example, the Catechism states: “There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.”. Note that acts that injure God, attack the life of a neighbor, and—in third place—sexuality are indicated.
The expression “non-parvitas materiae” does not appear in magisterial documents, but the essential meaning it conveys does. In this regard, there is a paragraph from the Declaration Persona Humana which criticizes the misuse of the theory of the fundamental option (with which many of these authors denied the “non-parvitas materiae” in sexual matters): “… According to the Christian tradition and the teaching of the Church, and as right reason also recognizes, the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct violation of this order is objectively grave”. By saying “every direct violation… is objectively grave,” it is precisely teaching what the previous theological tradition indicated with the principle of “non-parvitas materiae.” “Every violation” includes not only external acts but also thoughts and desires.
This becomes even clearer when we see that the text of the Declaration immediately distinguishes this judgment of objective gravity from the judgment of subjective responsibility: “It is true that in sins of the sexual order, in view of their kind and their causes, it more easily happens that free consent is not fully given; this is a reason which invites caution in all judgment as to the subjective seriousness of the sin.” This shows that the term “direct” (every direct violation) was not an allusion to the subjective elements of the act but simply referred to a “violation proper to the sexual order.”
Finally, the document unites both spheres (the objective and the subjective) by noting that while subjective elements (the person’s knowledge and freedom, or other conditioning factors) must be taken into account, this should not lead to holding “that in the sexual domain mortal sins are not committed.”
If we turn to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we see that when speaking of lust in general, it does not directly affirm the gravity (I understand gravity in the sense of mortality, i.e., “mortal sin”) of all sins in this matter; it only notes the objective disorder they entail: “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”
But when it goes on to speak of each species of lust, it uses terminology equivalent to that which expresses “non-parvitas materiae.” For example, regarding masturbation, it affirms (appealing to two sources: “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition,” and “intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”
And it refers to the act considered in itself, objectively, or if you will: materially; it is the act considered in its material aspect, objectively, apart from the knowledge and freedom of the subject performing it. Therefore, it then adds the other elements of the concrete judgment concerning the moral responsibility of the subjects who commit it; for this, it says, one must consider: “the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that may lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” Note, then, that all these factors can lessen or reduce “moral culpability.” Culpability is the responsibility someone bears for performing a disordered act. The act is gravely disordered in itself, but one’s culpability or responsibility may be lessened by ignorance, lack of freedom, or other factors. What has been affirmed, therefore, is the objective gravity of sexual disorder in its entire genus.
The other paragraphs of the Catechism that refer to other “offenses against chastity” maintain the language of “gravity” (i.e., grave sin by its object or intrinsically grave) for the objective judgment: thus, speaking of fornication, it says it is “It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality”; pornography “does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (…); it is a grave offense”; in prostitution, the client “sins gravely,” and engaging in it “is always gravely sinful” (and then again will indicate the possibility of diminished imputability for victims of blackmail, pressure, etc.); rape “is always an intrinsically evil act”; homosexual acts “are intrinsically disordered”. Speaking of free unions, it states universally: “the sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin”, but it is evident that the Catechism does not ignore that some people have enormous ignorance on these topics; therefore, it is speaking of material gravity (and saying “always grave” is equivalent to saying “they do not admit parvitas materiae”). Later, in the chapter summary, the same Catechism refers to many of the acts just mentioned as: “sins gravely contrary to chastity”; speaking of contraception, it says it is “intrinsically evil”. What has been said must also extend to interior acts, as several times the expression of Jesus Christ is cited: “everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:28); thus, it receives the same judgment as adultery, which is “absolutely forbidden” and “denounced in its gravity by the prophets”. Keep in mind that interior acts are morally qualified in the same way as external acts that have the same moral object (for example, the interior act of desire or complacency in a homosexual action has the same qualification as the external act; therefore, it is properly speaking a homosexual act, though of desire or thought). It must be said, then, that they also share the same theological qualification as such acts: that is, in this case, they are intrinsically grave by their object
A distinction is always made, therefore, between gravity—or objective gravity or intrinsic gravity—which refers to the matter, and responsibility, imputability, and culpability, which is the attribution of the offense or sin to a subject, where knowledge and voluntariness at the time of performing the act play an important role. The first terms correspond, in the texts cited above, to what theological tradition has coined as “non-parvitas materiae”
The reason for this objective judgment is not the one indicated in the inquiry, but the one indicated in some of the documents we have noted, especially in the Declaration Persona Humana, when it says that “the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life” that its transgression is objectively grave; these are things ordered intrinsically—by their object—to the ultimate end of life; for this reason, every disordered use involves, at least objectively, a deviation from the ultimate end of life. This is the moral judgment of the Magisterium and of St. Thomas (and not the one indicated by the inquirer). It concerns, therefore, the greatness of the values involved in sexuality, which is given for several reasons:
(a) by the relationship that the use of sexuality has with God: God has granted the use of sexuality the dignity of being the vehicle by which man associates himself with the creative act of new human beings (and for this reason, we call parents pro-creators);
(b) by the relationship that sex has with the existence of humanity: the perpetuation of the human species depends on its right use (and I say its right use, because for there to be authentic perpetuation, there must be generation and education of offspring);
(c) by the relationship that sex has with human love: it is the most perfect act of communion that can occur between two human beings, man and woman, because it objectively represents the total and unrestricted surrender of the entire being of one person to another; it is an act of personal gift (of the person of the lover to the person of the beloved); every use of sex outside this context implies the fraudulent use of a quasi-sacred language.
As for the theses of Marciano Vidal, they lack authority because, using these same principles, the author has proceeded to legitimize masturbation in certain cases, premarital relations, homosexuality, etc., all of which motivated a Notification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that obliged this theologian to retract his positions.
Fr. Miguel A. Fuentes, IVE
Original Post: Here
Bibliography:
The cited texts of the Catechism can be read, as well as: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona Humana, on certain questions concerning sexual ethics; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification concerning some writings of Rev. Fr. Marciano Vidal, C.Ss.R., February 22, 2001.
