eation. Moreover the only proper framework is permissible only within marriage. These two statements make up the core of the traditional Christian understanding of sex…”Now, Primoratz goes on to argue that while prostitution which is “both non-marital and disconnected from procreation” would appear to go against such a moral ethos on the surface, he also further notes that many eminent Catholic theologians such as Aquinas and Augustine are willing to go beyond this scriptural concession to fallen human nature, which permits the satiety of physical lust within the confines of the institution of marriage. They are willing to tolerate prostitution particularly if it serves a purpose as an outlet for rampant male sexuality, which, if overly repressed, might actually harm the institution of marriage.While I may agree with Primoratz’s argument on utilitarian grounds, with regards to the Christian ethos, it would be seem a surrender of morality to argue that the institution of marriage can only be maintained under such a context. Christianity is not a utilitarian ethical framework. The whole idea of the sanctity of marriage is that it is the sole acceptable outlet of male lust in addition to serving as an instrument of procreation – and a necessary institution that exists as a moral alternative to rampant adultery. Good Christians are supposed to master their passions within the concession of marriage allowed them – not use the necessity for a stable marriage to justify further extra-marital sex. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, defines certain acts(citing the Second Vatican Council’s list of examples, prostitution among them) as “intrinsically evil” which can never be “subjectively good or defensible as a choice”, even if the intention behind it serves to “diminish their evil”. Despite not being necessarily logically true, it is a good...
