In this piece, I argue that the Catholic Church cannot fully engage in meaningful dialogues of peace without addressing its stance on the social and political dimensions of sexuality. Recent protests across campuses and universities have reignited the interplay between the discourse on war and peace and our evolving understanding of sexuality, drawing parallels to the protests of 1968. As in the past, today’s demonstrations remind us that sexuality is far from a private matter; it is a complex human reality with profound social implications, intricately linked to political dynamics in times of conflict.
The assertion that sexual ethics has significant social dimensions is not new to theology. Theologians like Margaret Farley, Lisa S. Cahill, and James Keenan have emphasized this for decades.[1] The Church’s teachings on sexuality are not isolated moral doctrines but are deeply intertwined with its broader role in shaping social ethics. As Cahill argued in 1996, “Christian sexual ethics needs an analysis of the social ramifications of sex which is both critical and constructive.”[2]
Yet, in official Catholic teaching, sexuality largely remains a private matter, confined to one’s conscience, spiritual direction, or the sacrament of reconciliation, and has rarely found its way into the Church’s social teachings. Apart from Pope Francis’s recognition in Amoris Laetitia and in his Message for the Fiftieth World Day of Peace, where he stresses that nonviolence should be practiced first within the family and that a culture of peace begins in how we communicate and interact with our parents and siblings, the Church’s sexual ethics remain largely disconnected from its discourse on social justice, war, and peace.[3]
Conversely, the relationship between sexuality, politics, and conflict has long been a subject of inquiry in philosophy, psychoanalysis, and political theory. With Freud, psychoanalysis revealed the deep connection between sexuality, pleasure, and aggression, suggesting that repressed sexual desires could manifest in violent or destructive behaviors. In philosophy, Foucault’s analysis of sexuality as a mechanism of social control highlights how power structures do not merely repress but actively shape individuals and societies by establishing norms around sexuality that regulate behavior and identity.[4] These insights, to only name a few, expose the intricate relationship between sexual morality, political power, and conflict where control over bodies and sexual desires is inextricably tied to broader social and political structures.
In the following sections, I will explore how sexual ethics and war politics have long been intertwined in public narrative, and how the Church must connect its social teachings with its views on sexuality if it seeks to offer a meaningful contribution to the dialogue on war and peace.
“Make Love, Not War:” Yesterday and Today
1968. Protests erupted across campuses and universities in Western countries. In the U.S., as students and activists advocated for sexual liberation, they simultaneously called for an end to the Vietnam War. In other Western democracies, such as Germany, similar movements arose, linking sexual oppression with the memory of fascism in twentieth-century Europe. Slogans like “Make Love, Not War” and “Pleasure, sex, and politics belong together” became rallying cries, echoing through music, art, and popular culture. As Dagmar Herzog and Yanara Schmacks argue, these slogans reflect the belief that sexually liberated individuals would be disinclined to wage war or engage in acts of violence.[5] Activists saw the struggle for social justice and the pursuit of pleasure as mutually reinforcing endeavors. For them, it was absurd that society could tolerate the moral atrocities of war, economic inequality, and racism, while condemning the pursuit of sexual pleasure as immoral.
Dagmar Herzog’s analysis suggests that the connection between sexual liberation and peace was not merely symbolic but revealed deeper existential and social truths. Drawing on Wilhelm Reich, Dietrich Haensch and the psychoanalytic tradition, Herzog demonstrates how, in their work, the repression of sexual desire was believed to fuel aggression and contribute to societal violence and war.[6] These thinkers were particularly influential in post-World War II Germany, where calls for sexual decency, often championed by Christian churches, became part of efforts to “restore” normalcy after the horrors of Nazism. Ironically, Nazi ideology itself emphasized sexual repression as essential for maintaining a disciplined, militaristic society.
Popular writer Arno Plack further explored this link between sexual repression and violence, suggesting that denying sexual pleasure creates a societal tendency toward domination and control, which can lead to broader political aggression. In 1967, he famously remarked, “It would be wrong to believe that all that happened at Auschwitz was uniquely German. It was typical of a society that suppresses sexuality.”[7] The movements of protests of 1968 sought to challenge the rigid sexual norms of post-war Europe, advocating for freedom and openness in both sexual and political life. For them, sexual liberation was inseparable from the broader struggles for justice and resistance to violence, whether in war or in the repression of personal freedoms.
By experimenting with new forms of communal living and exploring new sexual attitudes, the 1968ers declared a break with what they saw as the cultural conditions that had allowed fascism to take root in Europe. For them, the problem was not just “capitalist imperialism” but also a particular model of “bourgeois” family life and conservative Christian morality.[8] This critical engagement with the intersections of sex, pleasure, and political power underscored that the repression of one often manifests as violent assertions of the other.
2024. Student protests have once again spread across campuses and universities, this time to denounce the horrors of war in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Students demanded Palestinian liberation and urged their schools to disclose and divest from financial ties to Israel and weapons manufacturers. Alongside these protests for an end to the conflict, students also rallied for LGBTQ+ rights, the recognition of sexual minorities, and gender equality in access to reproductive care, especially in response to the U.S Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.[9] In 2024, the American GLSEN education network, in the face of over 800 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in the past year, broke from its tradition of holding a Day of Silence in April, instead calling for a Day of Action to protest harassment and discrimination.[10] At Pride events this past June, rainbow flags shared the stage with Palestinian flags. Once again, the discourse surrounding war and peace is deeply intertwined with sexual politics in the social activism of the younger generation, as it is in the minds of the political establishment they are challenging.
Of course, today, as in 1968, the political demands for peace and sexual justice do not always align in the objectives of every protester, yet the discourses they advance are interconnected. For instance, in cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and Denver, pro-Palestinian supporters disrupted Pride marches, chanting, “No pride in genocide.”[11]Supporters of Israel, on the other hand, argued that the LGBTQ+ movement should back Israel, as it remains one of the most LGBTQ+ friendly countries in the Middle East, while queer Palestinians engaging in consensual sex are still criminalized under laws dating back to 1936. Critics of Israel accused the country of “pinkwashing”—using its progressive LGBTQ+ rights record to distract from its treatment of Palestinians. As the Palestinian feminist movementunderstands it, the fight for political freedom and the fight against heteronormativity and patriarchy are separate yet interconnected struggles.[12] While different groups of protesters may prioritize different goals, the interplay between the political discourse on military intervention and the politics of the body continues to shape political narratives in many Western democracies, just as it did in the past.
In Europe, Italy provides a striking example. The rejection of the DDL Zan, which sought to protect LGBTQ+ people from violence and hateful speech, along with a recent ban on couples traveling abroad for surrogacy, reflects a socially conservative agenda aligning sexual repression with nationalist policies.[13] Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government has championed these efforts, positioning itself as a defender of “traditional family values” while opposing what it calls “LGBT lobbies.” This conservative wave, much like the post-World War II moral conservatism in Germany, responds to societal anxieties by reinforcing restrictive norms around surrogacy, abortion, and LGBTQ+ rights on one hand, while stoking fears about immigrants and foreign influences on the other.
Shortly after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church justified the war in Ukraine as a defense against Western liberal values, particularly gay parades, which he condemned as normalizing behaviors he considered sinful. He warned that “if humanity accepts that sin is not a violation of God’s law, if humanity accepts that sin is a variation of human behavior, then human civilization will end there,” referring specifically to the LGBTQ+ community.[14]
Much like in the 1960s and 70s, today’s sexual discourse is deeply enmeshed in political movements and social policies that shape a country’s international politics and military operations. As in the era of “Make Love, Not War,” today’s sexual policies are part of a broader political narrative, tied to nationalism, exclusion, and conflict both at home and abroad. The Church, in many cases, remains caught between these tensions, grappling with its stance on gender, sexuality, and its role in promoting peace in a deeply divided world.
The Church’s Role in Modern Sexual and Political Struggles
While the Church has evolved in its position on war and peace—consolidating its call for global demilitarization since John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris and increasingly advocating for “just peace” over “just war” under Pope Francis—it continues to wrestle with its understanding of human sexuality.[15] Although there have been steps toward greater inclusivity—such as Pope Francis’s appeal to parents to accompany, rather than condemn, their LGBTQ+ children—the Church remains internally conflicted. Recent controversies illustrate these tensions, from the Vatican’s mixed messages on blessing same-sex unions to the persistence of derogatory language used by some Church leaders. Even Pope Francis, who champions many progressive causes, has at times used language that reinforces harmful stereotypes about gay people, complicating the Church’s broader message of inclusivity and respect.[16] The Church’s moral authority on social justice and peace is undermined when it hesitates or appears conflicted about showing respect, mercy, and inclusion on matters of sexuality, leaving it out of step with movements striving for justice and equality.
Defining a new sexual liberation for the twenty-first century is no easy task, but history teaches us that sexual ethics are inseparable from social justice. Sexuality is not an isolated aspect of human life; it is deeply interwoven with broader questions of power, inclusion, and national identity. If the Church genuinely seeks to contribute to dialogues on peace and human flourishing, it cannot evade the question of what a contemporary sexual revolution might look like for its believers. It must listen to, accompany, and respond to the voices of those on the margins—those struggling with their identities, relationships, and sense of belonging within both the Church and the world.
If the Church wishes to promote dialogues of peace and justice, it must face the complex realities of human sexuality with courage. Just as sexuality and politics have always been intertwined, the Church must acknowledge that meaningful contributions to peace-building require serious engagement with sexual ethics in the twenty-first century.
—
[1] See Margaret A. Farley, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2006); Lisa Sowle Cahill, Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) and Theological Bioethics: Participation, Justice, Change(Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2005); James F. Keenan, “Can We Talk?: Theological Ethics and Sexuality,” Theological Studies68, no. 1 (2007).
[2] Cahill, Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics, 10.
[3] See Francis, “Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (19 March 2016) at The Holy See, nos. 194, 234, http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_it.pdf; Message for the Celebration of the Fiftieth World Day of Peace (1 January 2017) at the Holy See, no. 5, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/peace/documents/papa-francesco_20161208_messaggio-l-giornata-mondiale-pace-2017.html.
[4] See Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1: An Introduction (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978), 135-45.
[5] See Dagmar Herzog, and Yanara Schmacks, “The Sexual Revolution,” in The Cambridge World History of Sexualities, vol. 4: Modern Sexualities, ed. Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks and Mathew Kuefler, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024), 278.
[6] See Dagmar Herzog, “‘Pleasure, Sex, and Politics Belong Together:’ Post-Holocaust Memory and the Sexual Revolution in West Germany,” Critical Inquiry 24, no. 2 (1998).
[7] Arno Plack, Die Gesellschaft und das Böse; Eine Kritik der Herrschenden Moral (München: List, 1967), 309.
[8] See Herzog, “‘Pleasure, Sex, and Politics Belong Together,’” 396.
[9] Ian Prasad Philbrick, “The End of Roe,” The New York Times, 25 June 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/briefing/roe-v-wade-struck-down-explained.html#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20overturned,ruling%20that%20established%20abortion%20rights.
[10] GLSEN, “Day of (No) Silence 2024: Rise Up. Take Action,” https://www.glsen.org/dayofnosilence.
[11] See Matt Lavietes, “Israel-Hamas War Protests Have Disrupted Pride Marches across the U.S.,” NBC News, 28 June 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/lgbtq-pride-march-israel-hamas-war-protests-rcna156595.
[12] See Cecilia Dalla Negra, “L’8 Marzo e il Movimento Femminista Palestinese,” last modified 8 March 2021, https://orientxxi.info/magazine/articles-en-italien/l-8-marzo-e-il-movimento-femminista-palestinese,4581.
[13] Lorenzo Tondo, “‘Disgraceful:’ Italy’s Senate Votes down Anti-Homophobic Violence Bill,” The Guardian, 27 October 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/27/italy-senate-votes-down-anti-homophobic-violence-bill; Emma Bubola, “Italy Criminalizes Surrogacy from Abroad, a Blow to Gay and Infertile Couples,” The New York Times, 16 October 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/world/europe/italy-surrogacy-law.html.
[14] See Sergei Vedyashkin, “Russian Church Leader Appears to Blame Gay Pride Parades for Ukraine War,” The Moscow Times, 7 March 2022, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/07/russian-church-leader-appears-to-blame-gay-pride-parades-for-ukraine-war-a76803.
[15] See Lisa Sowle Cahill, “Just War as a Theory, Just Peace as a Virtue,” Studies in Christian Ethics 37, no. 3 (2024).
[16] See Christopher White, “Pope Francis: The Unintentional Star of Rome’s 2024 LGBTQ Pride Parade,” National Catholic Reporter, June 16 2024, https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/pope-francis-unintentional-star-romes-2024-lgbtq-pride-parade