By DONALD De MARCO
According to Genesis there are two sexes, male and female. They have the inherent capacity to form a two-in-one-flesh intimacy in marriage in which they complement each other. They are, to their offspring, mother and father. Together, parents and children form a family which is the basic unit of society. Male and female are, in the words of St. John XXIII. “Equal in dignity, complementary in mission.” This view of the polarity and complementarity of the sexes has been regarded universally as the norm.
The fact that in all cultures throughout history, the human person is identified as either male or female (or man and woman) demonstrates the fundamental importance society attaches to distinguishing the sexes. At the same time, nature covertly distinguishes the sexes in the chromosomes of each body cell of every individual. Sex reveals itself in perspective, being microscopic as well as macroscopic, atomic as well as anatomic, genetic as well as generic, personal as well as political. It is dipolar both in typology and in the manner in which it discloses this typology.
Sex embodies the power of procreation. Yet, it means far more than procreation, for it is a rich and vital source of human creativity and provides a basis for an intense form of love. Apart from any viable relationship with a member of the opposite sex, the male or female is incomplete. Thus, the need for a complementary partner.
In the natural order, the sexually differentiated human being is seen as a microcosm. “The metaphysics of all cultures,” writes Hans Urs von Balthasar, “have been concerned to describe the male-female difference as the fundamental rhythm of being in the world.”
There is the mutuality of Heaven and Earth, rain and fertilization. The Greeks spoke of Logos and Eros, the Romans of animus and anima, the Chinese of Yin and Yang. Gender is embodied in many languages, the sun being masculine (sol), for example, the Earth being feminine (terra). The matter seemed settled.
It is most extraordinary, therefore, that what has been accepted by all cultures throughout history is now being challenged and threatened to be overthrown. What has precipitated such an unprecedented far-flung revolution?
A plausible answer begins with the widespread acceptance of contraception. When the man employs the condom, he is rejecting an important part of his being, namely, the ability to become a father. When the woman employs the Pill, she is rejecting her natural capacity to become a mother. These rejections signify a rejection of one’s sexual identity.
It is as if the man and the woman want to be of a different sex, one that cannot fertilize, and one that cannot be fertilized. Therefore, they introduce what might be referred to as two new sexes. When sexual differentiation is no longer seen as an important dimension of one’s being, then a barrier against same-sex relations has been removed.
Contraception is not always effective. It is said that those who use contraception to avoid an unwanted child are acting “responsibly.” This attitude paves the way for the justification of an abortion. Induced abortion denies the natural meaning of sexual intercourse. If the union of a man and a woman produces an entity that is fit to be destroyed, a significant aspect of that union is denied. Thus, the complementarity of the partners is denied as well as the procreative dimension of their action.
Contraception followed by abortion sets in motion a series of negations: the masculinity of the man, the femininity of the woman, the procreative significance of their union, and the inviolable dignity of the child conceived. When these negations are given widespread public acceptance, it is tempting for people to think that there are more than two sexes or that the traditional model of two sexes is simply an opinion that no longer fits into the fabric of the modern world. Technology, by de-sexualizing man and woman, has created new genders. Some have suggested that there may be as many as 75 different sexes. Why stop at that number, one might ask.
Technology is a double-edged sword. It is equally adept at destroying lives as it is at saving them.
Contraception and abortion have destabilized human sexuality. People want the pleasure derived from the sexual encounter but not the responsibilities. A new kind of person, therefore, must be created, one of a different type of sexuality. This is a project, however, that is doomed to failure.
God has created two sexes. This is a great gift and one that should be received with gratitude and respect. It should be used as God intended it to be used. As Alice von Hildebrand has written, “This difference between man and woman is an enormous enrichment of our earthly existence. The world is more colorful and life more attractive for men because there are women and for women because there are men.” We do not need a third sex. It would upset the rhythm of life, of existence, and of nature. A concert pianist does not need a third hand.
Technology poses a great temptation. It can limit itself by respecting the order of nature. At that point it can bring about great good. Or, on the other hand, it can reject the order of nature and attempt to create a new man with a multiplicity of sexes.
We now read about technology creating a trans-human. C.S. Lewis has warned us in his book, The Abolition of Man, “that if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress