Theology in Interdisciplinary Research About Human Sexuality: Introductory Reflections

Abstract

The development of modern sciences and specifically the subject of their research makes it necessary to conduct interdisciplinary research and dialogue between individual sciences. This applies especially to the complex and multi-dimensional issue of the phenomenon of sexuality. Since it concerns humans beings, their life, and their interpersonal relations, research in this area cannot be limited to sexology, medicine, psychology and the social sciences, but must also take into account the results of research in the field of anthropology, as well as philosophy and theology, the subject of which is the understanding of humankind, as well as the search for answers to the question about the meaning and significance of human life in the temporal dimension and in relation to God. This article contains reflections on the need for theology within the framework of interdisciplinary research on human sexuality. Against the background of the justification for the necessity to conduct research on the phenomenon of sexuality in various sciences, the author justifies the need for a theological discourse on this topic. Next, this issue is explained on the basis of exemplary reductionist approaches that attempt to explain the complexity of the phenomenon of sexuality from a single research perspective. Reflections lead to the conclusion about a holistic vision of sexuality, which is possible on the basis of interdisciplinary discourse and research on sexuality, in which its polyvalent dimension is taken into account.

1. Introduction

Sexuality as a fundamental dimension of personal identity encompasses various aspects of being human in the biological, mental, public and spiritual realms. Omitting or marginalizing any of these complex dimensions may result from incorrectly adopted anthropological assumptions and lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the understanding of human sexuality and its significance for human life, as well as false conclusions of a normative nature regarding attitudes and behaviors in this sphere. Consequently, an interdisciplinary approach to the issue of human sexuality is necessary. It should be based on anthropological assumptions and be conducted on the basis of reliable scientific research which respects the differences in research methods and is open to dialogue which takes into account the perspectives of the various sciences, mainly medical, social and the humanities, and their approach to complex problems in the field of sexuality.

The starting point for the proposed issues is the search for reasons to justify the need for interdisciplinary discourse on human sexuality and its relationship with relevant anthropology. Against this background, the need for theological reflection on human sexuality will be justified as one of the perspectives that makes an important contribution to explaining the complexity of the phenomenon in question. Next, we will present examples of problematic approaches, both from the past and current, which are based on a one-sided understanding of human sexuality and omit other aspects of this complex phenomenon. One of the contemporary tasks, as well as expectations, towards an interdisciplinary approach to human sexuality is to take into account the multidimensionality and functions of human sexuality and, on this basis, to present a comprehensive approach that is the basis of mature human life and responsible attitudes in this sphere.

2. The Need for Interdisciplinary Research

The character of interdisciplinary discourse on sexuality is related to the understanding of the term “sexuality”, which, although widely used since at least the second half of the 20th century and with a permanent place in dictionaries and encyclopedias, has not yet had a generally accepted definition. In professional literature and research, the concept of sexuality refers to sexual activity, being a sexual being, all aspects of behaviour related to gender and sex, the factor motivating people to establish interpersonal relationships, physical and mental processes related to the sexual sphere in the individual and social dimension, as well as human needs, experiences and feelings in the intimate sphere. According to sexologist Zbigniew Lew-Starowicz (1943–2024), the most comprehensive definition of sexuality is that it is a fundamental element of being human throughout life and includes sex, gender identity and roles associated with it, sexual orientation, eroticism, desire, intimacy, and procreation. These different aspects of sexuality are experienced and expressed in thoughts, fantasies, experiences, beliefs, values, behaviors, roles, and relationships. Furthermore, sexuality is expressed in the interactions of biological, psychological, social, economic, political, cultural, ethical, legal, historical, religious, and spiritual factors (Lew-Starowicz 2010, p. 25).

Such an understanding of sexuality in its multidimensionality allows us to state that “(…) the human person is so profoundly affected by sexuality that it must be considered as one of the factors which give to each individual’s life the principal traits that distinguish it. In fact it is from sex that the human person receives the characteristics which, on the biological, psychological and spiritual levels, make that person a man or a woman, and thereby largely condition his or her progress towards maturity and insertion into society” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1975, p. 1). In attempts to define sexuality, attention is paid to its biological, psychological, social, economic, political, ethical, legal, historical, religious and spiritual dimensions, as well as to the integral and natural aspect of being human, or the key aspect of human existence (WHO Regional Office for Europe 2010, p. 7).

Today, it is a common belief that sexuality is an integral part of the personality of every human being, whose full development depends on the satisfaction of basic needs. Sexuality develops as a result of the interaction of many biological, psychological, socio-cultural and religious factors. Therefore, sexuality is an interdisciplinary concept and is the subject of interest of various scientific disciplines, including sexology, psychology, medicine and social sciences, as well as the humanities, such as pedagogy, philosophy, ethics, theology, and many specialist areas of these sciences. Although currently, in research on sexuality, the greatest attention is paid to biological, psychological and social factors, and the most important achievements in this research area include the discovery of the role of hormones and neurotransmitters at the central and peripheral level, the discovery of centers in the brain that control sexual behavior, the knowledge of the erogenous zone, as well as transcultural studies or studies on the epidemiology of sexual disorders, they do not exhaust the complexity of the phenomenon of human sexuality. Attempts to define sexuality and research conducted by representatives of various sciences on this phenomenon indicate its complex and multi-dimensional nature, which justifies the interdisciplinary discourse on the discussed topic1 (Lew-Starowicz 2010, p. 26).

The multidimensionality and complexity of human sexuality justify the interdisciplinary nature of research on its nature and its individual aspects. This involves taking into account the results of empirical science research, as well as natural, medical, socio-cultural research presenting the nature, structure and mechanisms of human sexuality and behavior in this area of life and their impact on individual and social human development, as well as the humanities, in which sexuality is presented in the light of anthropological assumptions. In the discourse on human sexuality, it is necessary to take into account the complex conditions of the sexual drive, various aspects of the process of sexual maturation resulting from developmental psychology research, as well as socio-cultural conditions that make sexuality subject to historical processes of development. An interdisciplinary discourse on human sexuality cannot ignore the consideration of ethical and theological reflection, which is developing in a special way in the context of new research results on human sexuality, human attitudes in this area of life, as well as the possibilities of using its resources, especially in the area of reproductive medicine, or in confrontation with pathological phenomena (Molinski 2000, p. 321; see also Erber 1974).

In interdisciplinary reflection on the phenomenon of human sexuality, one cannot ignore the important distinction between the aspects that explain biological, ethological, psychological and sociological rules of behavior in the sexual sphere, and those that, beyond historical development, universally and timelessly characterize human behavior and are the subject of the humanities. The fact that different disciplines legitimately and with specific methods undertake research on the phenomenon of human sexuality indicates that there is no single explanation of human sexual behavior that would explain it in a full and exhaustive way (Fraling 1995, p. 9).

3. Theology in Dialogue with Other Sciences About Sexuality

In order to explain the phenomenon of human sexuality, it is indispensable to explain its biological, psychological and cultural-social aspects, and then its complexity and close connection with the human person justify the need for reflection from the perspective of philosophical and theological anthropology, the research results of which are concerned with the meaning of human life and the related meaning and significance of human sexuality, as it is understood that research results of empirical sciences are insufficient. Additionally, by taking into account strictly sexological aspects, the perspective of the meaning of human sexuality and its significance in human existence and for human life means we can speak of a holistic and unreduced understanding of sexuality, corresponding to its complexity (Fraling 1995, p. 47; Duss-von Werdt 1974, pp. 746–48).

Sexuality is so closely linked to the human person that it cannot be reduced to the physical, psychological or social dimension, but its explanation must take into account the fact of the overall link with the human person in all its dimensions. Sexuality is a way of being a human being, that is, the form and structure of human existence. Reflecting on the essence of the human person, we touch upon the issue of understanding oneself, the experience of one’s corporeality, one’s being in the world, one’s knowledge and desires, the perception of others and the experience of relationships with others, as well as one’s relationship with God. This is not about a type of pansexuality, but about an ontological statement, according to which every person as a sexual being expresses this in their way of being, thinking, desires, feelings and actions, and relationships with others. Sexuality is a complex and multi-dimensional reality, resulting from the interaction of many somatic, psychological and social factors, and the concept of the person as a unity of body and soul means that it protects against any type of reductionism and subordination (Faggioni 2010, pp. 132–35).

An exemplary approach to the study of sexuality is the work of Martin M. Lintner. This theologian pointed out that in the matter of searching for ethical norms and formulating ethical judgments, the natural, humanistic and historical sciences are an indispensable partner of theological ethics. Historical sciences help to understand issues from the perspective of their transformations and development, while natural sciences and humanities help to better understand human actions and attitudes and their evolutionary-biological, cultural-historical, social and psychological determinants. At the same time, knowledge of the natural and human sciences is not an external addition to faith, but explains the reality and life of man, which in turn is also shown from the perspective of faith and provides an understanding of the laws and conditions in which people take action and develop their lives. This means that one cannot define as moral and decent something that is denied by medical, economic, pedagogical, social or psychological knowledge. At the same time, ethical obligation does not yet directly result from empirical data, but it is derived in the context of the question about a fulfilled and meaningful life, in such a way that human must ask the question about possibility and meaning, which are an inseparable element of empirical realities. What a fulfilled and meaningful life is results from the transcendental constitution and destiny of man, from which he philosophically and theologically derives the certainty of his inalienable personal dignity. According to Lintner, a moral subject can always and only act in specific contexts and develop his freedom in the conditions of empirical data and natural assumptions that set the limits of his ability to act and have freedom and at the same time define them. Within these limits, a person realizes an obligation that he formulates on the basis of the claim to be a human person, that is, from the perspective of his dignity and striving for a meaningful and good life. On the one hand, a moral obligation must be meaningful and possible to be practically applied and should not exceed the possibilities and abilities of the moral subject to act. On the other hand, the criterion of the practical application of norms should not be contrary to moral requirements resulting from the essence of the person and his actions (Lintner 2023, pp. 500–1; see also Korff 1995, pp. 634–35).

4. Examples of Reductionist Approaches

It is a certain paradox that despite the development of interdisciplinary research on the phenomenon of sexuality in the last century—suffice to mention the results of biological, psychological, social and cultural research—this knowledge has not contributed to solving problems, but indicates multidimensionality and complexity. The greater the amount of knowledge about sexuality, the greater the awareness of ignorance on this subject, because individual sciences indicate the nature of its enigmatic or mysterious nature, causing its various aspects to be opposed to each other. Perhaps this is related to the fact that the acquisition of new knowledge lacks a close connection between sexuality and who a person is. It should be remembered that the different interpretations provided by the human sciences are not always coherent with each other and there is a danger of absolutizing the point of view of individual sciences, which consequently leads to reducing the complex reality of human sexuality to one aspect or aspects presented by individual human sciences. These may be, for example, instinctive mechanisms, genetic regularities, psychological and educational conditions, or social and cultural structures. In such a situation, there is a “conflict of interpretations”, consisting in the difficulty of presenting a holistic approach to sexuality and composing various approaches, which are often alternative approaches to each other (Piana 2007, pp. 15–16).

One example of a reductive approach to understanding sexuality is the contemporary version of biologism, which explains complex mechanisms based on knowledge of genetics. According to Francis Fukuyama, it is indisputable that sexuality has strong biological roots, as evidenced by the fact that sexual differentiation appeared long before the emergence of the human species, and men and women differ physiologically, genetically and neurologically. Studies on the social determinants of human sexuality also confirm that, in addition to the socialization patterns usually believed to influence the behavior of men and women, biological elements must be involved. The clear connection between biological aspects, mainly genetics, and the social conditions of the process of shaping gender identity and sexual behavior is sometimes used ideologically. According to Fukuyama, this is confirmed by the approach to the phenomenon of homosexuality. Some circles question the links between genes and intelligence, crime, or gender differences, but in the matter of homosexual orientation they claim that it is not a matter of individual choice or social conditioning, but is something that an individual is born with, because it has its genetic basis. There are indeed many serious studies and research showing the genetic basis of homosexuality, as well as studies that question the results of these studies. The most plausible are the convergence theories, which see the basis of homosexual orientation in various factors, not just biological ones. However, the claim about the existence of a gene conditioning homosexuality, which justifies that this orientation is not a matter of human choice, but is an unchangeable feature for which one is not responsible, is problematic. In this case, we are dealing with reductionism, which consists in absolutizing the results of research about sexuality from one science without taking into account the claims of others, as well as with anthropological reductionism, which reduces a person to the issue of genes. Even if genotype has a great influence on a person, it never fully decides the fate and choices of an individual. Hence, claims about a gene for homosexuality should not undermine, but take into account, claims that culture, norms, lifestyles, human choices and other factors also play a role in the development of human sexual orientation. It is controversial to elevate the claim about the genetic determinants of homosexuality to the rank of the only and indisputable axiom in the understanding of human sexuality, because it suggests a limitation of the potential of a human being (Fukuyama 2004, pp. 57–62).

Another example of a reductive approach to sexuality is the overemphasis of biological aspects while considering the psychological, social and cultural aspects of sexuality and sexual differentiation as secondary or underestimating them, as well as emphasizing the procreative function of sexuality while ignoring its other functions and meanings. For centuries, this approach has been characteristic of the Catholic Church’s position on sexuality and is also dominant in contemporary approaches, which emphasize the need to oppose the so-called gender ideology. The concerns of the Catholic position on the understanding of sexuality are mainly about the danger of undermining the biological gender binary and promoting the possibility of freely choosing gender identity, as well as the ambiguity in the distinction between the binary model of gender from the perspective of biological sciences and gender understood as a social construction. The context of the aforementioned doubts is the danger of breaking with the primacy of procreation attributed to every act of sexual intercourse in marriage, or at least expressed in an attitude of openness to life as the goal of human sexuality. In the light of Catholic approaches, the moral justification for engaging in sexual intercourse depends on the realization of the procreative meaning. Such an approach does not take into account, or rather diminishes the importance of, or does not take seriously into account the complexity of human sexuality and the multiplicity of forms of its expression (Lob-Hüdepohl 2023, pp. 89–92; see also Gründel 1991, pp. 94–103).

The issue concerns the relationship between the biological and social dimensions of human sexuality, the mutual relations of which are currently under debate. Gender is a descriptive-analytical category and denotes socio-cultural processes in which, on the basis of biological characteristics, specific gender-specific typologies of abilities or inabilities and patterns of roles and behaviors are assigned to a person and assimilated by them. These processes of assignment and assimilation take place in complex socialization processes, in which cultural self-awareness and gender-typical practices are transmitted (given gender) and are constantly revived (doing gender) and transmitted. Biological (sex) and social constructions of sex (gender) should not be separated from each other, and what is decisive is how biological sex with its “material matter” affects the social construction of gender with its role assignment and vice versa, as well as how the relationship between biologically differentiated sexes serves to legitimize specific relationships between social construction of sexes. Biological sex leads, and can lead, to certain predispositions within gender, but there is no one-sided linear determinism of biological sex with respect to gender (Lob-Hüdepohl 2023, pp. 92–94; see also Lenz 2017, pp. 42–45; Marschütz 2017).

5. Towards an Integral Vision of Sexuality

The above-presented examples of approaches to sexuality confirm that interdisciplinary discourse on human sexuality cannot be limited to taking into account the results of research in the area of sexuality originating only from empirical sciences, such as sexology, medicine, psychology, or social and cultural sciences, but should also include approaches proposed by philosophy and theology. Philosophical and theological reflections on sexuality without considering empirical, humanistic, and social sciences carry the risk of ideological distortion of an essential sphere of human life. Only through dialogue between different sciences—philosophy, theology, and empirical and social research—is a full and reliable presentation of human sexuality possible, avoiding simplifications and ideological distortions. Contemporary approaches emphasize the necessity of integrating knowledge from various disciplines to describe and understand the complexity of human sexuality on biological, psychological, social, and spiritual levels. Only then is it possible to comprehensively present the multi-layered reality of human sexuality and to explain the issues of its complex meaning that it plays in human life. Ultimately, it is about presenting the polyvalent nature of human sexuality, which will not be reduced to one aspect.

In philosophical and theological reflection about sexuality, one cannot fail to take into account the research results of the empirical sciences of modern biology and psychology, as well as the social and cultural sciences, which enable a differentiated assessment of the complex conditions of human action in the area of sexuality, the responsible shaping of which is the subject of reflection in ethics and moral theology. Even if empirical and socio-cultural sciences do not provide a comprehensive vision of human sexuality, because they deal with it from their own perspective and with the help of separate research methods, they perform an important function of presenting the complex conditions within which it is possible to realize the meaning and values associated with sexuality, and they play a protective role to prevent ethical postulates from being alienated from life and deprived of the possibility of application. At the same time, ethical principles and norms in the area of sexuality do not draw their foundations solely from empirical knowledge, but from anthropological assumptions that present an understanding of human in his personal dignity and his being a responsible moral subject. Hence, ethical and theological-moral reflection plays an important role in relation to empirical sciences, so that from descriptive research we do not derive principles of conduct that are unrelated to the personal destiny of human to live in dignity, freedom and responsibility. Therefore, there is a relationship of dialogue between the empirical sciences and the theological sciences (theological ethics), which determines the path of a specific search for moral norms and provides for multifaceted possibilities of opposition. In the area of human sexuality, no action that is contrary to human experience and scientific knowledge can be considered morally righteous and prescribed, nor can individual empirical sciences raise the claim of normativity without asking themselves whether their results serve the good—the dignified life of human in its entirety and complexity (Schockenhoff 2021, pp. 243–44).

The research results of individual human sciences on the complexity of sexuality present diverse aspects and their own research perspective, which in its entirety is an extremely rich picture. Sexuality is also, but not only, a biological drive; it also serves, but not exclusively, procreation; it is also, but not only, a source of various sensory experiences of pleasure, satisfaction and fulfillment. Sexuality in all these dimensions is part of the fulfillment of a person’s life, from which no one can escape, which is the construction of an environment and an environment consisting of a sense of security, intimacy and closeness. Only in such a context can a person experience an unconditional confirmation of himself in his individual being and acceptance by others. It is important that individual detailed sciences do not reduce sexuality to one of its many aspects, but perceive it as an integral element of the human personality and taking into account the entirety of emotional and instinctual aspirations and relationships between people of the same and opposite sex. Sexuality understood in this way is the basic energy of life held by a person, to which belong feelings of love, the desire to experience and show tenderness, the need for communication, the longing for intimate devotion and the experience of pleasure and relaxation. Since the 1970s, the humanities have been talking about polyvalent basic functions or dimensions of meaning and significance of human sexuality. In this context, we talk about the procreative dimension, which is common to all living beings, the relational or social function, which enables the construction of intensive interpersonal relationships, the pleasure function, which gives a person the experience of relaxing sensual satisfaction, and the identity function, which is expressed in the mutual self-affirmation of partners. All these functions of sexuality belong to a complex reality, although they define it in different ways in the individual phases of life (Schockenhoff 2021, pp. 306–7; Lintner 2012, pp. 101–7; Dabrock et al. 2015, pp. 40–42; Salzman and Lawler 2008, pp. 127–38; Zuccaro 1997, pp. 36–64).

According to the German moral theologian Johannes Gründel (1929–2015), the attitude to tenderness, which provides a value orientation, should be at the center of the discourse on sexuality. Tenderness is not a technique, but a style of life that is considered a positive experience of sensuality, which includes the experience of body and love, and requires the ability to take oneself and others seriously, by creating an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect without fear, as well as an attitude of closeness and distance towards the partner in his or her sphere of intimacy. Tender encounters are realized both through the looks at the beloved person and in handshakes and not only in caressing and touching, but in the respectful attitude of the partners towards each other, who treat each other as people worthy of love. The attitude of tenderness guarantees intimate sexual relations of which the content of that is the basis of a happy and fulfilled relationship. Sexual activity devoid of tenderness will remain unsatisfying in the long run and will lead to an insult to the person and a degradation of their dignity. Nowadays, the importance of sexuality as a means of communication with other people and an important factor in the development of the human person is emphasized, because only in the multiple relationships and dependencies in which a person lives do they realize themselves. Consequently, erotic love is important in the life of every person from childhood to old age. At the same time, sexuality cannot be understood as the most important and only means of communication with others and the only possibility of experiencing relationality. Human sexuality is a gift as well as a task for each person, which should not be denied, devalued or neglected. Everyone must mature into this ability to communicate, which is also an element of the attitude of tenderness (Gründel 1991, pp. 110–15).

Anthropology, which is based on a complex and holistic vision of man, is the justification for a polyvalent understanding of human sexuality and a monovalent approach that reduces the functions and meanings of human sexuality to one dimension, even if this is socially significant, will be alien to it. In a holistic vision, human is a created being whose sexuality encompasses all spheres of humanity, and in the holistic dimension it focuses on understanding the person in a horizontal dimension focused on interpersonal relations, but also takes into account the vertical dimension, which perceives human in relation to God. From this perspective, individual elements of the meaning and significance of human sexuality should be understood, the explanation of which is served by research from the area of theological sciences. Provided that the meaning and significance of human sexuality, which are related to anthropological assumptions, are taken into account, it is possible to maturely and responsibly shape attitudes in the area of sexuality, taking into account their polyvalent nature (Duss-von Werdt 1974, p. 751).

6. Conclusions

The above reflections justify the thesis that contemporary approaches to issues related to sexuality must be interdisciplinary in nature, and research from the area of theological sciences has an unquestionable place in them. This is related to the nature of human sexuality, which encompasses various dimensions of human life. Since one of them is the spiritual dimension, ethics and moral theology also have their place in the study of the phenomenon of human sexuality and ensure that an important aspect of human life is not omitted. Each approach developed within the framework of individual sciences is extremely important, but it should be seen as one element of the complex mosaic that is the phenomenon of sexuality. Hence, elevating the research results of one science to the role of an axiom defining a comprehensive vision is unjustified and leads to conclusions that do not fully correspond to the complex mystery that is human sexuality. This remark also concerns the contribution of theology and ethics to the reflection on human sexuality, which can play an important role in understanding and explaining it, but they will not be able to properly fulfill this task without reference to the research results of other sciences. Currently, a particular challenge of interdisciplinary undertaking of research on the phenomenon of sexuality is to emphasize its polyvalent dimension, which is related to an integrally understood anthropology. This text contains introductory reflections on the necessity of theology in an interdisciplinary approach to human sexuality, aimed at inspiring the development of more detailed issues within this complex subject matter, which is possible within the framework of a broader study.