Sex: the Radical View of a Catholic Theologian by Michael Valente (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 707 there are other currently available books which go more deeply into the several problems raised in this book and emerge with considerably more satisfying theological perspectives on them. Oak Ridge Associated Universities Oak Ridge, Tennessee WILLIAM G. PoLLARD Sex: the Radical View of a Catholic Theologian. By MICHAEL VALENTE. New York: The Bruce Publishing Co.; London: Collier-Macmillan, 1970. Pp. 158. Paper, $~.95. In this small book, Michael Valente uses the widespread dissent from Humanae Vitae as a fulcrum upon which to gain leverage against the entire traditional Christian sexual ethics and against the Roman Catholic ecclesiology of Vatican I and Vatican II. The book defies easy summary, since it is not tightly organized theological argument; rather, it is theological vulgarization-a diatribe aimed at the widest non-professional audience. Valente's position is that " there is no intrinsic moral valuation in any species of sexual act." Rather, the value derives from "the context of an individual's life " or from "the personal judgment of the individual." (p. ~4) Valente does not notice that context and judgment are not identical; he is not concerned with theoretical precision. Neither does Valente systematically examine either the older or newer arguments against the morality of practices such as contraception. Of polygamy, he simply asserts that "there is no clear-cut, supposedly intrinsic or ' natural ' reason why being monogamous, as opposed to being polygamous, is any more virtuous than having blue eyes instead of brown." (p. ~3) Masturbation is not unnatural and is no more harmful than cigarette smoking. (pp. 73-74, 13~, 136-137) Contraception is an ethical imperative. (p. 118) The quality of the relationship and the intention with which it is carried on are the factors that count, not whether the couple are married, use a contraceptive, or are of opposite sex. (p. 96) If sex can be non-procreative, then the sanctions against masturbation, homosexuality , and even bestiality are removed. (pp. 126, 135, 140) Adultery is not absolutely wrong. (pp. 130-131) Loveless, casual relationships may have some value, and in any case are not intrinsically sinful. (pp. 136, 143) Valente does admit some moral guidelines for sexual behavior, although he makes clear that such guidelines have no validity as absolute, objective precepts. One should ask oneself if anyone, including oneself, will be hurt by one's action . (p. 136) Guilt feelings are to be avoided. (p. 13~) Meaningful and loving relationships are desirable, but empty, promiscuous, and 708 BOOK REVIEWS unfaithful ones are not on that account to be regarded as sinful. (pp. 128130 ) In the last analysis, what is at stake is individual comfort in life. (pp. 139, 149) Valente's positions in themselves are not particularly new. l\-Iany liberal, secular writers who treat sexual ethics in ultilitarian terms, and who base their judgments exclusively on psychological and sociological data relevant in a utilitarian approach, share all of the same positions. (Even in such writers one seldom finds so much obvious sympathy for some of the perversions.) What is peculiar about Valente's book is that he presents himself as a Catholic theologian and weaves into this secular sexual ethics a polemic against the ecclesiastical " Establishment "-that is, the institutional Church. The demise of the institutional Church is being completed today through a Protestant dynamic which extends beyond and generalizes the process begun by Luther. (p. 112) Valente holds that all creedal statements are subject to revision and evolution; the opposite position is the " hierarchical heresy of institutionalism ." (p. 92) "Even if all creedal statements fell into disuse, however unlikely that may be, faith would still remain." (p. 97) Infallibility does not imply the exclusion of error under specified conditions; what it really means is " the indefectibility of the believing community's existential commitment to its Lord Jesus." (p. 109) Characteristically, Valente does not explain what this means; he never tells us whether, for example, an atheist who regards Jesus as one heroic figure among others shares in the " existential commitment " or not. Valente disposes of theological sources in a cavalier manner. Scriptural teachin~:s relative to moral issues are excluded from the argument by a simple assertion that the moral teachings in the...