Sexuality series – Does Aquinas leave room for the separation between gender and sex?

Although Aquinas has certain similarities with Augustine regarding sexuality, he departs from him in some other particular respects.

Aquinas’s discussions in Summa Theologia about sexuality are brief; one clearly sees, however, how Aquinas interpreted human sexuality through the lens of natural law and rational abstraction.

Through his holistic view of the human being as a composite of soul and body, Aquinas does not leave room for a separation between gender and sex: the soul informs the human body this essential information (e.g. the gender/sex is randomly assigned by the soul/form). In addition, with no doubt Aquinas clings to the order of creation, where such order dictates how a person morally behaves by doing something that is permissive or avoiding something it is prohibited in light of reason.

Some new interpretations of Aquinas believe there might be some room in Aquinas’s notion of sexuality for same-sex unions and gender orientation. But I don’t see this can reflect a faithful reading of Aquinas. In fact, alternative notions of sexuality, gender or sexual preference/orientation that depart from the male/female normativity will be difficult to justify in Aquinas.

To approach the implications of being made male and female in Aquinas’s thought, one should pay attention to his belief that it is through its functions we know what a thing is. So, in order to know what the sexes are, we should look for their functions.

Therefore, the functions of the sexes from a biological perspective can provide us with basic knowledge about what the sexes are and their purpose.

In its basic functions, the male would have the ability to produce male reproductive fluid and the female would have the ability to produce eggs. Everything that does not follow its natural order, it would be unnatural, and as a consequence, morally wrong.

As Eleonore Stump correctly highlights, for Aquinas the goodness of human nature, human sexuality, and human actions are determined by the exercise of reason. This metaphysical yet strong teleological dimension of sexuality applies to other aspects of human sexuality as well and not only the biological dimension of the sexes.

What reason establishes as the natural function of the human body would be, at least in theory, according to the divine design: the sexes were created to correspond to each other, their intercourse has the goal of begetting children, etc. Of course, one should admit that Aquinas’s starting point is the male as some kind of archetype of the human being, and not the female. (In some way, God is the archetype of Adam, and Eve of Adam). More research is needed to evaluate if choosing the male or the female first would affect Aquinas’s conclusions about human sexuality and their biological functions.

For Aquinas gender roles are the product of what the natural order establishes. If it is the female the one who carries the human baby for nine months, then she would be also the responsible for the care and nurture of the creature. On the other hand, the male as the ruler of the household would have the responsibility to create the adequate environment where his woman and children may grow safe and healthy. This is a starting point to create differentiated roles for each sex for both the man (as the ruler of the family) and the woman (as the subordinated). For Aquinas, the fact that those roles may serve the common good is more important for Aquinas than the additional assigned roles to the sexes. In fact, Aquinas does not view the “subordination” of the married woman in a negative term, but a positive, even necessary one. This is so because along with his husband the wife fulfills her purpose as God commanded in the cultural mandate.

An issue which arises is the fact that it seems it is the male who constitutes the best example in Aquinas’s discussion on sexuality. It might be understandable yet controversial for current standards his assertion regarding the nature of the female. For him, unlike the male, the female is a less than perfect creature compared to the male. Although the exact words he uses carry a stronger meaning than “less than perfect,” this phrase summarizes well his description, ideas he borrows from the Greeks via Aristotle. The role of the female is to be a helpmate to the male, and such a condition is still beneficial to her as I explained earlier. These descriptions arise also the question about what he believes regarding the status of the female as the bearer of the image of God.

It is good to note that Aquinas does believe the female is also part of the divine purpose in the creation. We can explain this ambiguity in different ways. One approach, usually the more accepted in the American tradition, is that Aquinas considered the equality of the sexes regarding their rational nature, while his negative comments about the female have to be in relation to her body or physicality. In this respect, the female body would be inferior in relation to the male body. Other Thomistic traditions reject this and affirm the American tradition has misunderstood the passage that says that the woman is a defective male. (This is part of the objection section of the article).

In any case, the union of the sexes fulfills the purpose of their creation. Therefore, from the theological-anthropological point of view, the sexes are the image of God (the rational soul/form the male and female has, and that embraces the intellect and the will) and the purpose of the sexes are not only merely begetting children but also support each other in love. Both ends are linked together for Aquinas and should not be separated.

Now, Aquinas finds some issues with the sexual act, even practiced within marriage if such a practice does not lead to procreation. Perhaps Aquinas is trying to avoid the abuse of the sexual act that while being a good thing might be converted in a bad action by altering its primary purpose. Following Augustine in this respect, Aquinas definitely remains cautious of sexual passion and desire.