For decades one of the biggest bogeys terrifying Catholic prelates has been masturbation. Deemed by RC prelates as a "mortal sin" but basically no different from sneezing. Typically, it's been based on Catholic natural law doctrine in which proponents attach guilt, or impute sin, and thereby imbue a normal human sexual activity with ethical import where none exists. For example, according to ethicist Leslie Dewart:[1]
It
is unnatural precisely as a moral object, for it contains a moral defect
against the generative powers and the use of the sexual organs. The moral
perfection of the use of these organs requires the congress of man and woman...
Subsequently quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, from the same
article:
It is contrary to the natural order of the sexual act
as befits human beings.
It is wrong because of the sexual isolation in which
its practitioner places himself.
Viewed from a scientific Materialist’s perspective,
these statements reflect an exaggerated, over solicitous concern for the
biology of one primate relative of the chimpanzee, on one ordinary planet. Worse, they signify a brazen attempt to
intrude in personal affairs that don’t concern moralists or theologians. They
also raise a host of questions for the skeptic and rationalist. For example, what exactly is a moral
defect against the generative powers?
By what specific criteria is a moral defect measurable, or even
knowable? I can determine an optical
defect, say in a lens or a telescope mirror, but how do I determine moral
defects? How does one verify moral perfection in sexual organs? What is the
empirical basis for this? What observables characterize this
perfection', so one may distinguish it unequivocally from ‘imperfection’? What
are the precise criteria?
Devoid of any answers, the natural law underpinning Catholic sexual morality amounts to so more balderdash than ballast. Now new research validates these points and clearly shows the total evolutionary 'naturalness' of masturbation.
Writing in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the team of evolutionary biologists based at University College London - and led by Dr Matilda Brindle has described how masturbation appeared common across primates of all sexes and ages. Why exactly it evolved more than 40m years ago is less clear but some cogent hypotheses can be put forward. Modern urology, for example, has suggested there may be benefits in regularly releasing sperm to avoid prostate cancer. Historically, the scientists’ analyses found support for the idea that male masturbation boosted the chances of impregnating a mate. For example, a low-ranking male may masturbate just enough to increase their arousal before sex, meaning they inseminate their partner faster – and before a burly competitor has the chance to knock them off and spoil the fun. Masturbation could also help males to shed old sperm, leaving them with fresher, more competitive sperm for sex.
That
was not the only apparent driver. The researchers found that male masturbation
in primates rose in line with levels of sexually transmitted infections. One
explanation could be that masturbation after sex helps flush the genital tract,
reducing the risk of an infection taking hold. Again this aspect may be related to the benefit associated with avoiding prostate cancer.
According to lead author Dr Matilda Brindle:
“What we can say is this behavior was present around 40 million years ago, in the common ancestor of all monkeys and apes. It’s not that some species woke up one day and started doing it. This is an ancient, evolved trait.”
Given humans are risen apes (with ape evolutionary traits) and not fallen angels, the new research clearly shows evolutionary biologists have traced the origins of masturbation to ancient primates that predate the first humans by tens of millions of years. The findings (based on the largest data set ever compiled) also confirm that humans arose on a branch of the tree of life replete with self-pleasuring predecessors. Hence, the fact humans are naked apes with the same tendencies should surprise no one, certainly not RC padres.
Catholics’ natural law then, is specious and an offshoot of dogmatism and pretension. It is neither natural nor any kind of recognizable law. And if it was would surely prohibit padres from sexually abusing their young charges. The putative basis for it then, appears more in line with the presumption of some kind of "natural" moral order - but which is known only to Vatican theologians and for which the RC's prelates seem to be immunized against.
See Also:
No comments:
Post a Comment