The Talk, by John Carberry

Most father son relationships encounter that uneasy period where the master decides to instruct the apprentice on that embarrassing topic of sex. Neither person looks forward to the time and the place when the opportunity presents itself. The son becomes embarrassed with a discussion topic that often was taboo in the family. He may also be overcome with pride that often overshadows the young adolescent who hasn’t stumbled enough times in his life. The father feels the discomfort of his own ignorance in the area as well as his own past failures. Will my son ask me something I cannot explain? Will he question my sordid past?

The difficulty in “The Talk” these days is that it is usually centered on biology, rather than faith. Physical repercussions such as sɛҳuąƖly transmitted diseases,  nwanted pregnancies, and being a father before being ready dominate the discussion. What seems to be lacking is how sɛҳuąƖity is integrated into one’s spirituality. While an eleven- or twelve-year-old may not be ready to digest Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, a walk through Sacred Scripture and Church teachings with a reasoned argument could be the dose of knowledge that the son really needs and wants.

In the beginning, God concluded His creation with humankind, and He saw that it was very good (Gn 1.31), not simply good as the rest of His creation (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 1 Tm 4:4-5). The human was made in God’s image and likeness (Gn 1.27, 9:6, Sir 17:1), with God’s spirit blown into his nostrils (Gn 2.7). Humans were made holy and united with God, set apart from the rest of God’s creation.

Most teens can tell you what original sin is, but how many can name the original command? Before any other directive was issued or spoken, God told Adam to be fruitful and to multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it (Gn 1.28). He repeated this command to Noah and Israel (Gn 9.1, 35.11). This cooperative effort with God was immediately recognized by Eve when she bore her first child (Gn 4.1). Procreation and unity became the reasons for the conjugal act, what made it pure. It brought God, the creator, back into this unique relationship between husband and wife. Like our monotheistic relationship with God, monogamous marriage was the design of God that reflected our relationship with Him (Gn 2.24). Both relationships are exclusive, permanent, unending, committed, fruitful, inseparable, trusting and mutually desirous. Matrimony would later become sacramental.

The sin of Onan was once well-known history (Gn 38.8-10). Onanism became a noun referring to any frustration of the procreative process. Some modern-day scholars try to discount it because they indicate that it was merely a practice similar to the Leverite marriage where upon death, a surviving brother takes the widow as his own. However, those same scholars have difficulty in reconciling the difference in the punishment for the action. God killed Onan for his action, while the brother who refused to abide by the Leverite marriage custom merely lost his sandal (Dt 25.5-10).

The Malthusian argument that God cannot feed such an overpopulated and hungry world rejects Church teachings regarding procreation. At first glance, a world dominated by poverty makes this argument tougher to overcome if it were not for the fact that Sacred Scripture directly addresses it. Moses asked the same question of Yahweh over 3000 years ago. If all the fish of the sea were caught, would it be enough to feed these six hundred thousand soldiers and their families? God’ answer: “Is this beyond the Lord’s reach” (Nm 11.21-23)? Upon reflection, the mere question of overpopulation contradicts a basic tenet of the faith, that God is almighty (Gn 17.1, 18.14, 35.11, Ex 6.3, Jb 40.2, 42.2, Wis 11.23, Jer 32.27, Mt 19.26, Mk 9.23, 10.27, 14.36, Lk 1.37, 18.27, Rv 1.8). We repeat this belief at Mass every Sunday in the Creed. The examples of which are provided in the manna, quail and water that sustained the Israelites in the desert for 40 years as well as the feeding of the 5000 and 4000 by Christ with the few loaves and fish. The Christian solution to hunger is for those “that have” to show charity to those “that have not.” “When I was hungry, you gave me to eat” (Mt 25.35).

No doubt another argument will be brought up that the Church is behind the times and cannot keep up with technical achievements. However, intrinsically evil acts never become less evil just because new means are found to carry them out. Rather, one should marvel at how the Church is consistent, unchanging and timeless (Nm 23.19, Ps 33.11, 90.4, Is 40.8, Dan 9.13, Mal 3.6, 1 Pt 1.25, 2 Pt 3.8, Heb 13.8). From the doctors of the Church in the past to the current leaders, the church has stood firm and unbending. St. Augustine (354-430) stated that the purpose of God’s creation of woman was procreation. “I do not see, therefore, in what other way the woman was made to be helper of the man if procreation is eliminated, and I do not understand why it should be eliminated.”1 “For, although the natural use, when it goes beyond the marriage rights, that is, beyond the need for procreation, is pardonable in a wife but damnable in a prostitute, that use which is against nature is abominable in a prostitute but more abominable in a wife.”2 St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) said that every omission of semen where generation cannot follow is contrary to the good of man and it is sinful if done deliberately.3

The position of the Church remains the same today as is evident by the writings of the Popes of the twentieth century. In his encyclical Casti Connubii [Chaste Wedlock, para. 56, 1930], Pope Pius XI indicated that any person who frustrates the life generating process of the marital act is a guilty of a grave sin. Likewise, in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, [Of Human Life, para. 14, 1968], Pope Paul VI referenced footnote 16 of the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent and denounced any prevention of procreation in the marital act.

In the fictional classic It’s a Wonderful Life, George Bailey reflected on the question of whether it would be better had he never been born. It took his guardian angel to demonstrate the goodness of his existence and the depth of his livelihood. Perhaps only the imagination of a movie writer can simplify the fruitfulness of one’s life. Christ taught against the barrenness of one’s actions (Mt 21.18-19, Mk 11.12-14, 20-21, Lk 6.44, 13.6-9, Jn 15.2). Consistent with the Old Law (Ex 20.14, Dt 5.18, 22.13-29), He recognized the holiness of marriage as well as the sins against it: adultery and fornication or licentiousness (Mt 15.19, Mk 7.22, 10.19, Lk 18.20). Only God can see the George Baileys that never were allowed to enter this world.

The unitive aspect of marriage is also important. Only a mature relationship centered on God can move both spouses forward in holiness. The influence of spouses on each other must be considered in selecting a mate. If God is secondary and physical attributes or other factors are primary, spouses cannot expect to grow in holiness with each other. One who places any other person above Christ is not worthy of Him (Mt 10:37, Lk 14:26). The preliminary meetings before marriage must include discussions about religion in order to find like minds regarding faith and morals.

The talk is an important bonding time between the father and his son. The father should teach the biology of sɛҳuąƖity. But if the science is never mentioned, the world will eventually provide it. What may go unsaid is the philosophy that is necessary for a young teen to face a cruel and ignorant world. All sɛҳuąƖ morals are founded on the belief that we cooperate with God when we use our sɛҳuąƖity to continue the goodness of his creative spirit. The rock footing of Catholic sɛҳuąƖ teachings can keep the teen from getting washed away in today’s wayward culture.

John Carberry is the author of Parables: Catholic Apologetics Through Sacred Scripture (2003) and Sacraments: Signs, Symbols and Significance (2023).

1 Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume II, Book 9 (The Creation of Woman), Chapter 7, 12 (The Good of Marriage), translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J., Ancient Christian Writers (New York, Newman Press, 1982), Volume 42, p. 77.
2 Augustine, Saint, The Good of Marriage, The Ascetic Debates and Augustine’s Response, Saint Augustine on Marriage and sɛҳuąƖity, Edited by Elizabeth Clark, (The Catholic University of America Press, 1996), Chapter 11, p. 54.
3 Aquinas, Saint Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, Providence, Part II, Ch. 122 [5], translated by Vernon J. Bourke (London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), p. 144.