The Catholic Church and Sex

By Stephen D. Mumford, DrPH | 31 July 2012
Church and State

Excerpt from Chapter 7 of our Chairman Dr. Stephen D. Mumford’s book, American Democracy and the Vatican: Population Growth and National Security (1984). The book is available at Kindle here and to read for free here.

The Church’s preoccupation with sex stems chiefly from three very different concerns of power or control: (1) control of priests and nuns; (2) control of lay persons; and (3) control of nations.

The control of nations is seen by the Church, as by many other institutions throughout history, as being a function of numbers. The Church, from the beginning, was concerned with “out-reproducing” other groups. Sex, to some extent, became a concern on those grounds.

For the Church’s first four hundred years, it was a democratic insti­tution.[17] Then it evolved into an absolute monarchy as its lust for power grew, resulting in the need for absolute control of priests and laity. This control derived in no small part from the exploitation of their human sexuality, though this exploitation was different for priests than for the laity. For each group, an elaborate system of con­trols related to human sexuality was developed, and these controls were classified as “morals” (as defined by God, of course).

Earlier religions and primitive groups exalted virginity as a status of perfection. The Catholic Church adopted this concept as a step toward producing clerical leadership for the masses. The self-control required for celibacy was looked upon as evidence of an inner strength not possessed by ordinary men and women. These celibates of the Church were promoted as men and women worthy of leadership posi­tions in the community or people who should be respected, admired, and unquestionably followed. Then the Church bestowed a number of characteristics upon the priest to literally “create” leadership that was at the same time devoted, subservient, loyal, and obedient to the hierarchy. The priest is obliged to relinquish certain personal prerogatives that we all would agree are essential for responsible and responsive participation in American democratic life.

No one has stated this systematic subjection of the Catholic mind to clerical guidance more frankly than the noted British Catholic writer, Hilaire Belloc:

‘The religion of the Catholic is not a mood induced by isolated personal introspection coupled with an isolated personal attempt to discover all things and the maker of all things. It is essentially an acceptance of the religion of others; which others are the Apostolic College, the Conciliar decisions, and all the proceeds from the authoritative voice of the Church. For the Catholic, it is not he himself, it is the Church which can alone discover, decide, and affirm.’

With such an attitude toward his own personal doubts and toward any independent thinking in his own congregation, the parish priest becomes primarily the Voice of Authority. He is not a man among men. He is a member of a special caste. He follows a routine which is almost military in its severity, and he must obey his superiors with military precision. He wears special uniforms and does not marry. He is called “Father” to emphasize his pater­nal supervision over his people. He has certain special powers that distinguish him from his fellows, and by using those powers he becomes a purveyor of certain supernatural benefits to all believers.

The Catholic priest is also armed with several special and effective devices of concern over his people. The people are told that under certain circumstances he is able to forgive sin and grant absolution and he performs these operations with impres­sive dignity.[18]

Thus, much, if not all, of the priest’s behavior is directed by the need to control his large flock to provide the control demanded by the hierarchy. Democracy or the needs of people that are different from the needs of the hierarchy cannot be given serious consideration.

Control of the laity through exploitation of their sexuality was probably initially related to desire of the hierarchy to out-reproduce non-Christians. Thus, controls were placed on all human sex-related activities imaginable. Since maximum reproductive output was the goal, anything and everything that inhibited maximum output was made “immoral.”

1. Masturbation was forbidden. Making intercourse the only sexu­al outlet maximized reproduction.

2. Sex among the unmarried was made immoral since, on the average, women will have more exposure to intercourse and, in turn, be more likely to conceive and produce more children if all sex were limited to marriage.

3. Homosexuality was made immoral because it obviously reduces reproduction.

4. Contraception, which had already been practiced for centuries, was made immoral because this practice reduces reproduction.

5. Abortion was made immoral because it obviously reduces reproduction.

6. Divorce was made immoral because it, too, often meant the ter­mination of reproduction by women before they reached menopause.

7. Sex education has traditionally been immoral because it inevi­tably results in fertility control actions on the part of the couple. In a reluctant compromise, the Vatican now allows limited sex education which does not include information on any of the effective methods of fertility control, such as the modern methods of contraception and abortion. Education that includes effective fertility control measures continues to be immoral.

8. Prostitution was made immoral because it reduced the number of marriages and thus family formations and lessened sexual activity among married couples.

Nearly all sex-related acts that are considered immoral by the Church can be traced to the reduction of reproduction. Others not mentioned here are related to the Church’s absolutism, but nearly all can be traced to the “immoralities” listed above.

I used the past tense in the list because it is unlikely that the Church, if it were making its list of “immoralities” in 1984, would include these immoralities given the problem of overpopulation. However, because it cannot change its “infallible” teachings, it is locked into this set of “immoralities.”

Now that these “immoralities’ are accepted by the laity, priests can use them for purposes of control, as well as fundraising. Since vir­tually everyone is guilty of at least some of these “sins,” and since foregiveness of sins has to be sought and only the priest can give such foregiveness, he retains a considerable amount of control over his flock. The power that the priest derives from this control is ultimately transferred to the Vatican.

The great tragedy in all of this is the tremendous social injustice caused by the Church because of these “immoralities” which seem to have at their root a lust for power. The untold mental anguish caused by production of guilt feelings, as well as physical harm brought about by these “immoralities” is unconscionable.

The importance of the control of education of youth in control of the laity becomes all the more apparent in the face of these “immorali­ties.”

[17] Jean-Guy Vaillancourt, Papal Power: A Study of Vatican Control Over Lay Catholic Elites (Berkeley: California Press, 1980), p. 24.

[18] Blanshard, American Freedom and Catholic Power, p. 35.

"American Democracy and the Vatican: Population Growth and National Security" by Stephen D. Mumford. https://t.co/AIyKhyLvZS pic.twitter.com/ZW8N3tZycx

— Church and State (@ChurchAndStateN) June 6, 2018

During the formative years of the World Health Organization (WHO), broad consensus existed among United Nations member countries that overpopulation is a grave public health threat and would be a major cause of preventable death not too far in the future. One of the founding fathers of the WHO, the late Milton P. Siegel, speaks to Dr. Mumford in 1992. He explains how the Vatican successfully stymied the incorporation of family planning and birth control into official WHO policy. This video is available for public viewing for the first time. Read the full transcript of the interview here.

Lester R. Brown interview with Rob Stewart

Professor Paul Ehrlich: Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?

How the world went from 170 million people to 7.3 billion, in one map

Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook