Any statesmanlike review, therefore, will recognise that here we have an
instinct--so fundamental, so imperious--that its influence is a fact which
has to be accepted: suppress it you cannot. You may guide it into
healthy channels--but an outlet it will have, and if that outlet is
inadequate or unduly obstructed, irregular channels will be forced.
We uphold the control of sex love outside marriage by the individual--and
that we are right in so doing is incontestable. But let us realise that
in practice self-control has a breaking point, and that if in any
community marriage is difficult or late of attainment, an increase of
irregular unions will inevitably result.
That the Church recognises this is shown by the statement that marriage
was instituted to prevent sin. In considering the problem of illicit
intercourse and its attendant evils the social conditions that make for
a wholesome life are of more efficiency than Acts of Parliament to
suppress vice.
My desire, however, on this occasion is rather to consider sex love in
relation to marriage. The first point I wish to make is that people need
more knowledge of the scientific bearings of sex relations and more
clearly defined guidance of their rightful purport and practice. They
are imperfectly provided with both. We talk about instructing the young
when we are neither clear nor agreed amongst ourselves, and the young
are endangered as much by crudity as by absence of instruction.
All are agreed that union of body should be in association with union of
mind and soul; all are agreed that the rearing of children is a
pre-eminent purpose. But what purport is there beyond these? Here there
is a lack of precision.