What is Rick Santorum's position on masturbation?

Sandy Levinson

According to the Sacred Congregation of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church,

The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self ("ipsation"), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.

This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.

So, now that former Senator Rick Santorum has become the non-Mitt of the hour--and given that his basic theology, as Molly Worthern argues in the New York Times, seems to be drawn from classical natural-law Catholic doctrine--it seems to be an altogether fair question to ask the good former senator what his position is on masturbation (not to mention his general position on his political duties when natural law conflicts with the postive law of the United States that he, as president, would presumably be required to "take care" to enforce). Is it like Newtonian adultery, an act that he has engaged in in the far past, when he was a weak-willed teenager but now publicly atones for? Does he believe that public funds should be cut off to any group that suggests that masturbation is other than a "seriously disordered act" and might even be defensible as a source of personal pleasure?

I note that Constance Johnson, a 31-year veteran of the Oklahoma legislature--the same state, incidentally, that has courageously taken the lead in preventing the injection of shar'ia law into the Edenic structure of American law--has filed a bill that would make it a criminal offense to deposit semen anywhere else than in a woman's vagina. As she notes, a "personhood" bill filed by one of her Republican counterparts--she is a Democrat herself--would subject Oklahoma women to the potential for "additional criminal charges and potential incarceration for biological functions that produce or, in some cases, destroy eggs or embryos, such as a miscarriage." She wants to produce "fair play" by placing men at risk for wasting sperm that could otherwise be productively engaged in the process of reproduction. Interestingly enough, female masturbation presumably wouldn't fall afoul of natural law theories of the sanctity of reproduction above all, since, at least to my knowledge, it has no effect on fertility. But is the point that it is equally forbidden becasue it casts doubt on the notion that the only legitimate form of sexuality is reproductive and, if need be, expression of the marital bond?

Given the emphasis being placed by former senator Santorum and others on the importance of limiting the possibility for contraception, one wonders what his position is on this proposed amendment. Perhaps he believes that it represents too great an incursion on personal liberty, perhaps because detection of the criminal offense would be so difficult. Perhaps he adopts the argument of St. Thomas, well explicated in Robert George'ss excellent book Making Men Moral, that an element of pragmatism is necessary with regard to the pace of that enterprise, that one can't move too much faster than the (sinning) population is ready for at any given time. But, obviously, this is an argument of tactics rather than of high principle, since presumably "grave moral disorders" ought to be limited as quickly as is reasonably possible, taking into account pragmatic considerations about the receptivity of the population to moral education (and potential coercion). (For what it is worth, I presume that most political liberals, in the loose rather than strict Millian sense, are willing to use state power on occasion to limit at least some "grave moral disorders" like racism or sexism even when one can't point to an immediate victim of such conduct).

It will, no doubt, be a bit awkward for one of the debate moderators to raise the issue of masturbation after Newt so eloquently denounced all mainstream journalists for expressing any interest in his views of adultery and "open marriage." But enquiring minds surely want to know more about former senator Santorum and masturbation, especially if one of the two "great" political parties is seriously thinking of foisting him on the nation as its candidate for the oval office and the power to veto legislation and issue administrative rules--not to mention nominating people to the federal judiciary--that comes with it. No one really cares what former governor Romney says because nobody believes that he is trustworthy with regard to anything other than the desire to limit his own taxes (and, of course, satisfy, and beat out, his father by becoming President). But Santorum is different. He actually believes things and seems to read theology.

This posting might be snarky, but I assure you it is not a joke.
Posted 6:03 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]