Sexual Behaviour
and Human
Relationships
ESSAY BOOKLET
EXAM JUNE 6TH
Examine the ways in which one religion uses scripture as a basis for its teachings
about sexual behaviour. 30 marks
The Christian religion implements the use of scripture as a command for the way in
which sexual ethics is implemented. Christian teaching explores a multitude of issues
in light of sexuality such as sex in marriages, celibacy, homosexuality and
procreation. For Christians Biblical writings and scripture is perceived as a medium of
which to acknowledge God and so is of the highest importance.
The Christian Church has attempted to move with the times so it states in its
encyclicals that sensuality and the unitative aspect of sex is allowed for with
individuals of stout heart on the premise they allow God to ‘enlarge and enrich his
family day by day’. This acknowledgement of sensuality and procreation is
scripturally based. Sensuality is exemplified in Genesis Song of Songs as it shows the
erotic nature of love which accompanies the profound commitment of love as the
bride tells the bridegroom, ‘I held him and would not let him go ‘til I had taken him to
the room of the one who had conceived me’. This notion presents an ideology that
religion is not opposed to being sexual and upheld the notion of Eros which allows
for the identification of moral bonds in human relationships. Sex in terms of the
Christian faith also has the ultimate aim of upholding procreation and this is sourced
in the scripture of Genesis as God tells man to go forth and multiply, as in Exodus it
exemplifies the ideology that one should be fruitful in God’s name.
Christianity has always upheld the ideology of celibacy as a means of ensuring one
keeps as a holy follower of God. This notion is found in the scriptural writings of a
leading apostle St Paul (and upheld by later Christian thinkers such as Augustine)
who stated celibacy was the notion one should live at, especially as in the light of the
imminent end of the world. However, his scriptural writing did acknowledge that
celibacy is a divine gift, upheld in the church as one can see that Christian
monasteries still do uphold the ideology of celibacy. Yet the Christian Church
recognizes that this is a means that is only upheld by divine people and so the notion
of marriage is upheld. The Christian Church teaches that marriage is a means in
which we may avoid sin in light of the ideology that sex as a means to procreate can
permissibly take place in this sphere.
However, the church also upholds the notion that marriage is a sacrament of which
the unitative and deep mutuality of individuals is recognised. This is exemplified in St
Paul’s writings as he likens marriage to the family of God in Ephesians and states a
unison takes place as a means of which ‘a mans body does not belong only to him
but also to his wife’ indicates the unison.
The Christian church also upholds the ideology of monogamy as a result of this,
poignantly expressing that to have more than one partner is to give away something
that does not belong to you. Further to this Christians would say that marriage is
the only place that sexual activity is endorsed – using for justification Genesis 2:24:
‘Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they
become one flesh.’ This passage is also quoted in the Gospels (Mark 10:6–8 and
Matthew 19:4–5). Paul sees adultery and other forms of sex outside marriage as
wrong:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the
greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
This is further supported by the teaching of Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus says
‘You shall not commit adultery.’.. I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman
with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye
causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.
However the teaching on divorce is less clear-cut, than that on Adultery. There are
differences in Christian teaching over whether divorce can be acceptable on
occasions and this could be because its roots in scripture are unclear. As far as Jesus’
teaching on divorce it is not possible to be sure what he said or what he meant. Jesus
is quoted as saying: ‘Whoever divorces his wife and (kai) marries commits adultery
(porneia) against her’ (Mark 10:11b). The wording here is not easy to translate into
English; the word ‘kai’ could mean ‘in order to’, not just ‘and’, and so, depending on
what the word means, the understanding of what Jesus meant changes. Similarly
with the word ‘porneia’ – it has three alternatives: it could refer to a woman who
was not a virgin on marriage, in which case divorce would follow immediately after
marriage; it could mean adultery, in which case a man could divorce his wife for her
adultery, but she did not have the same right if he was adulterous; or it could mean
‘fornication’, which in the Old Testament means chasing after other gods – divorce is
allowed if the partner is a non-believer.
However, it is clear that Jesus is challenging the view of the wife as the man’s
property – he is talking more about equality than about sexual relationships. One
thing is clear, however, and this is that Jesus is setting out an ideal and divorce falls
short of it; which in general the Christian Church upholds today.
Heterosexuality and the equality of women and man are also upheld in Christianity.
In Genesis it states ‘A man should leave his father and mother and become one flesh
with his wife’ suggests of the normality of heterosexuality. The church also states
that the equality of women and men is fundamental as Sansco states ‘men and
women are not different in value but function’ and this notion of sexual equality is
upheld in the ideology of the differentiation of man and women being for sexual
fulfillment in Genesis.
Furthermore, the notion of homosexuality is upheld as wrong not in the
instinct(supported by the Roman Catholic Church) but the act as it defies God’s will
for man to go forth and multiply as stated in Genesis. The Methodist church states it
does ‘not condone homosexuality yet they are no less than heterosexuals’. This is
exemplified in the ideology of Leviticus as it states ‘a man should not lie with a man
as he does with a women that is detestable’ suggests of the scripturally point notion
of the wrongness of homosexuality.
However other Christian’s suggest a different understanding of the Biblical teaching;
and that the context, interpretation, and translation of the text can suggest that the
Bible does not in fact, reject the physical aspect of homosexuality. For example; the
two Greek words that have traditionally been translated as ‘homosexual’ may mean
‘loose living’ or ‘prostitute’, so in the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible the
word ‘homosexual’ has been omitted from Paul’s letters. The story of Sodom (is not
about sexuality but about hospitality, and so the only specific references are in the
codes of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The meaning of these codes was obviously
important at the time they were written, but today laws about purity, including the
types of animals and fish that could be eaten, which excluded shellfish, and about
dress, which outlawed the wearing of garments made from more than one type of
yarn, are just irrelevant to many people. One concept underlying the laws was the
idea of the pure form of a man and a woman, which led to the prohibition of shaving
in men so that they did not look like women, and also of cross-dressing and same-sex
relationships. Almost all Christians ignore these prohibitions, except the one about
homosexuality.
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams also recognises it is important to
re-examine the grounds for the Church’s rejection of physical acts of homosexual
sex. Williams concluded that the texts in the Bible often cited to support a hard line
against gay and lesbian behaviour may actually give a different message when read
carefully in context. For example, he famously suggested that Genesis 19 contains a
condemnation of male rape, not consensual and committed acts of homosexual sex.
In summary (although alongside tradition on occasions) the various Christian
denominations place the highest importance on scripture, and use it to as a basis for
their sexual ethics. Although clearly there are difficulties with this due to apparent
contradictions within the text, it still underpins the teachings of the Christian
Churches and is central to the community of believers.
0 5 Examine what one religion teaches about marriage.
Marriage is seen as a normal part of society. For many couples it is the final way of
declaring their love for each other. In Christianity, marriage is seen as an important
part of society. Concerns are being raised with the recent views of marriage and how
modern society acts. With increased divorce and homosexual marriages the church
has some concerns.
The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on marriage cannot be accused of a lack of
clarity. The complementarily nature of the sexes reiterates a truth that they feel is
evident to right reason, and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world.
Marriage to Catholics is not just any relationship between human beings. It was
established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No
ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely
between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to
themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. They teach that, they
mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and
upbringing of new human lives.
The Catholic Churches position is that the natural truth about marriage was
confirmed by the revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an
expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is
heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as
narrated in the Book of Genesis. Firstly that Man, the image of God, was created
"male and female" (The Book of Genesis). Men and women are equal as persons and
complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the
physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level - the personal level where nature and spirit are united.
Secondly that Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a
communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. "That is why
a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh"
(The Book of Genesis).
Finally that God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special
participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with
the words "Be fruitful and multiply" (The Book of Genesis). Therefore, in the
Creator's plan, sexual complementarily and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of
marriage.
Further to this Natural law states that everything has a purpose. Same sex marriage
makes the natural way of having children impossible and is therefore morally
unacceptable. Divorce within the Bible is seen as a sin. Marriage is a commitment to
one another and to God which should never be broken. Christians raise concerns
about the high rates of divorce, saying it degrades the value of marriage.
Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to
the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is potent sign
of the covenant between Christ and the Church as put forward in the Epistle to
Ephesians . This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly
human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and
strengthens it. The Church uses the Gospels of Mark and Matthew to support this
teaching.
There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions or gay marriages
to be in any way similar or even remotely similar to God's plan for marriage and
family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.
Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a
genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be
approved".
The Catholic Church further affirms this through referring to scripture. Sacred
Scripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity; as put forward in the
letters of Paul. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude
that all those who are homosexual are personally responsible for it, but it does attest
to the fact that homosexual acts, which would be a necessary part of a Gay Marriage;
are "intrinsically disordered".This same moral judgment is found in many Christian
writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
Clearly many thinkers would consider this thinking to be prejudiced.
Although, the Church does accept that, men and women with homosexual
tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of
unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". They are called, like other
Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however
"objectively disordered" and homosexual practices are "sins gravely contrary to
chastity" as such to a Conservative Catholic a ‘gay marriage must be rejected.
The traditional Evangelical Christian view of marriage is generally in line with the
Catholic approach. Their view that it is an important part of society. Marriage is
seen as the ideal place for children to be raised. It is also the only place foe sex which
purpose is to reproduce. Cohabitations and pre marital sex for many conservative
Christians is a sin which degrades society. Children need a stable family and
household to grow up in as such pre- marital sex goes against this idea that marriage
is the ideal.
Modern society has become more and more liberal, especially when it comes to
homosexuality. Evangelical protestants again in common with the Catholic Church
reject also reject same sex marriage and consider it as a sin. In Leviticus 18:22 it
states ‘do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable’. Literal
interpretations of the bible are followed by many conservative Christians. If same sex
marriage would go against the Christian ideal of procreation and the ideas of natural
law. Jesus stated in Genesis that ‘a man will leave his mother and father and will be
united with his wife, they will become one flesh’.
More liberal Christians such as the Church of England and the Methodists accept
divorce under certain circumstance, for instance if someone is the relationship is
being abused. Liberal Christians have changed their views and so on same sex
marriages saying that is the quality of the relationship that counts. Still though
homosexuality is viewed with a dim light within the church and in monastic
communities.
What is clear is that there is a divide within Christianity over the ideas of marriage.
More liberal Christians have tried to change traditional Christian views towards
modern society but still there are conservative Christians who maintain the views of
the Bible in their literal forms. Such views may not be accepted by modern society.
Examine at least one individual-based idea on sexual behaviour which has been
developed from individual conscience or interpretation of scripture/institutional
based ideas.
The individual based ideas this essay will focus on will be those of Augustine and
Aquinas. Both these thinkers have developed their teaching in light of the scripture
based ideas of St. Paul, their individual conscience and also the institution of the
early Church. Firstly I will examine the teaching of Augustine and then consider the
approach of Aquinas generally before seeing how his individual based approach
could apply to homosexuality.
Augustine of Hippo lived in a world of multiple sects and ‘heresies’, some of which he
picked up on and emphasised the dualism of body and soul. This dualism is found in
Gnosticism, itself a mixture of the Greek traditions, with some from Judaism and
Zoroastrianism. It was from Zoroastrianism, the religion of ancient Persia, that the
extreme dualism sprang, along with a pessimistic fatalism. Central to Gnostic
teaching was an intense dislike of the body and its needs, a total pessimism about
sexuality which infiltrated the early Church.
In this world, the views of Augustine were surprisingly liberal, and he considered
that, far from abstaining from all sex, it was necessary for procreation, and that, as
for Paul and the Greeks, sex was a necessary evil. Augustine taught, after his many
sexual relationships, that sex was to be restricted to marriage, but it was still
‘dangerous’. The devil uses women to lead men away from reason, and pleasure in
sex leads men away from reason. For Augustine the problem, and the solution, dated
back to creation and the Fall. Adam and Eve, he concluded, must have been made for
procreation, though they would not have needed to procreate before the Fall, or at
least would have experienced no desire or pleasure. However, God knew that Eve
would take the fruit and so he prepared for the consequences.
For Augustine, then, sexual desire is a constant reminder of the human rebellion
against God – it is our original sin. Augustine, unlike Pelagius, believed that we could
not control sexual desire – he did not go in for ‘muscular Christianity’ like Pelagius,
who thought that sexual desire could be controlled by the will. So, for Augustine,
chastity was the ideal, but sex was allowed, so long as it was not enjoyed, within
marriage.
Attitudes such as those of Augustine have had great influence on sexual attitudes
and practices in the Western world. Marriage was seen as the only way people could
engage in sexual relationships without committing grave sins. Furthermore, sex
within marriage was permitted only for the purpose of procreation, and it was this
view that ultimately influenced the teaching of the Catholic Church, not only about
marriage but also about couples living together, contraceptives and homosexual
relationships.
However, Augustine also had a more positive influence on Catholic teaching in that
marriage is seen as a sacrament that should be the basis for a supportive, loving
relationship that allows couples to be joined in union for life. Augustine was a major
influence on the Catholic teaching that does not recognise divorce, but allows
annulments to show that there was no marriage in the first place.
The second thinker this essay will examine as an individual based approach to sex
and relationships is Thomas Aquinas; his views on sexual relationships were accepted
as right for Christians until they began to be questioned in modern times.
Aquinas based his thinking about sexual ethics on his understanding of Natural Law,
in which he attempted to unite the thinking of Aristotle with Christian theology.
Aquinas believed that human life had a purpose or telos; good acts developed our
human nature and bad acts went against human nature. Aquinas assumed that
humans shared a common human nature and so general principles could be applied
to everyone, everywhere and at all times. Aquinas concluded that the purpose of the
sexual organs and sexual activity was procreation, and any other use of sex was
intrinsically wrong. Sex for Aquinas was to take place within the bounds of marriage,
and must be open to the possibility of procreation. This became the view of the
Catholic Church.
In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas argued that sexual acts can be morally wrong in
two different ways:
1. Sex is wrong when ‘the act of its nature is incompatible with the purpose of the
sex act [procreation]. In so far as generation is blocked, we have unnatural vice,
which is any complete sex act from which of its nature generation cannot follow.’
Aquinas gives us four examples: ‘The sin of self-abuse’ (masturbation), ‘Intercourse
with a thing of another species’ (bestiality), acts with a person of the same sex
(homosexuality), and acts in which ‘the natural style of intercourse is not observed,
as regards proper organ or according to other rather beastly and monstrous
techniques’ (foreplay?).
2. Sexual acts can be morally wrong even if natural; in these cases, ‘conflict with right
reason may arise from the nature of the act with respect to the other party’; for
example, incest, rape or adultery.
Stephen Law a senior lecturer at Heythrop College at the University London; uses the
issue of homosexuality to further illustrate Aquinas’ individual based teaching. When
homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that
homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated
version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle,
whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s
over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly
compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Aristotle’s scientific
conception of the world.
As mentioned earlier; in Aristotle’s vision of the world man-made objects typically
have a purpose. A knife is made to cut, a telephone for speaking to people at a
distance, and a car for transporting us about. In the case of knives, telephones and
cars, it is clear what their purpose is, as we made them for that purpose. But what
about naturally occurring things? Might they, too, have a purpose? Clearly, some
naturally things do have a function. Legs are for walking and running. Teeth are for
biting and chewing. Hearts are for pumping blood. But what of clouds, pebbles and
mountains? Are they, too, for something?
Law argues that can now be seen how Aquinas’s version of “natural law” theory is
likely to have repercussions for sexual ethics. Many parts of our bodies have a
purpose. These purposes are, according to Aquinas, God-given. It was God who gave
us legs so that we can walk, a tongue so that we can taste and speak, and so on. But
then someone who uses their body, or any part of it, contrary to the manner God
intended, contravenes “natural law”. To thwart the natural functions that God has
given things is act against God’s will. That makes it wrong.
Law points that Aquinas felt semen had a God given purpose. Aquinas notes that
semen is plays a role in reproduction. That is its purpose, he supposes. But then any
activity that involves thwarting the natural function of semen must be contrary to
nature, and thus morally wrong. “It is evident,” says Aquinas, that every emission of
semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to man. And if this be
done deliberately, it must be a sin. Summa Theologica.
But then it follows that those sexual acts that result in the issue of semen where
generation is not possible must be sinful. As homosexual acts between males involve
thwarting the purpose God has assigned to semen, such acts are “contrary to
nature”. If we act in this way, we frustrate the will of God. We sin.
Of course, if Aquinas is correct, it follows that masturbation and contraception are
sinful too. This is, of course, the current position of the Catholic Church on
homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex and contraception. All are sinful.
To date, the Catholic Church continues to oppose the use of condoms even in places
like Africa, where they might save countless lives by reducing the spread of HIV and
Aids (though there are signs, finally, that the Church may be about to shift its
position on this). The roots of the Church’s justification for continuing to forbid the
use of condoms lie at least partly in Aquinas’s medieval blending of Christian
theology with the science of Aristotle. The use of condoms involves thwarting the
natural reproductive function God has assigned to semen.
Although the aim of the essay is not to evaluate the thinking of Aquinas it is worth
examining how he responds to one of the more obvious worries you might have
about Aquinas’ justification for condemning homosexual acts: as it further illustrates
Aquinas’s approach to Sex. Take walking on your hands. There is nothing morally
wrong with that, surely? Circus performers and acrobats do it all the time. No one,
not even the staunchest Catholic, condemns them. Yet our hands are not designed to
be walked on. So why doesn’t Aquinas condemn the activities of circus folk?
Aquinas is ready for this objection. He admits that it isn’t always wrong to use a body
part contrary to its natural function. Walking on your hands is not a sin. But this is
because, as Aquinas puts it, “man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate
use.” It is acceptable to use a body part contrary to its natural function if this helps
man as a whole, or at least doesn’t frustrate the natural purpose of that whole.
Walking on your hands does not frustrate the purpose God has given man, and so it
is morally acceptable. But homosexuality does frustrate this purpose. Man is
designed by God to procreate. Homosexuality thwarts that function. That makes it
morally wrong.
In summary it is clear that Augustine and Aquinas offer an individual based approach
to Sex and Human relationships that are rooted in scripture, conscience and the
institution of the early Church.
(It is worth being ware of Freud as an alternative to a religious approach)
According to Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), each person’s approach to sex and their
sexual relationships is based on their upbringing and their relationship with their
parents. He suggests that sexual personality may be found at the core of moral
personality: how we behave towards sexual partners both influences and mirrors
how we perceive and interact with people in general. So, the failure to learn to
control the pursuit of sexual pleasure undermines the achievement of a virtuous
character.
Freud says that we each have a super-ego, which is like an inner voice reminding us
of the social norms inculcated in us by our parents and authority figures in society.
We need this voice in order to live happily in a law-abiding society. Unlike Aquinas,
Freud considers that being moral may not accord with our real natures at all and so it
is not possible to base an ethical theory on what we essentially are. Rules about sex
and relationships have existed in every culture, as have disagreements about what is
and what is not morally acceptable. Must morally permissible sex have only one
function? Must it be heterosexual? Must it be limited to marriage? Does sex require
love or just mutual consent? Conditions in the modern world are changing rapidly
and, as a result, modern opinions towards sex and relationships are also changing.
This has influenced traditional religious teaching also.
Here are some more modern individual based ideas.
• Conditions in the modern world are changing rapidly and, as a result, modern
opinions about sex and relationships are also changing. This has influenced
traditional religious teaching also. The Catholic psychiatrist Jack Dominion
argues, and has done for the past 30 years at least, not that sex is dangerous
and needs marriage and procreation to protect it but rather that sex is so
powerful and meaningful that justice can be done to it only in a continuous
and enduring relationship. He does not see premarital sex, cohabitation or
even one-off adultery as destroying this ideal and even considers that
homosexual sex is fine within a permanent loving relationship. He sees society
as moving forward and the Church as needing to rethink but not reject its
fundamental truths.
• This view is shared by the Anglican theologian Duncan Dormor, who suggests
that for the majority of people today cohabitation is an integral part of
becoming a couple and leading eventually to marriage for most. He says that
the Christian Church needs to accept and welcome cohabiting couples and
listen to their reasons, without just giving an uncritical idealised endorsement
of marriage. He points out that people cohabit for a variety of reasons;
sometimes they are trying out a relationship to see if it could become a
permanent partnership or not. This means, he suggests, that the Church needs
to help couples move from the wedding to the marriage as a life journey – this
he says is a far greater moral issue than cohabitation and divorce. This view
requires Christians to take a far more mature approach to sexuality so that sex
outside marriage within a stable long-term faithful, but unmarried,
relationship is not considered as sinful as the actions of the promiscuous
hedonist. Dormor is not just saying that the Church should follow the morals
of the time mindlessly, but he considers that the current approach of the
Church means that it cannot make any useful contributions to the debate
about current sexual issues which he sees as promiscuity, premature
sexualisation and pornography.
Examine the following ideas as they appear in the teaching on human relationships
of one religion you have studied.
• The abuse of power
• Respect and responsibility towards others
The Christian tradition has varied approaches to human relationships. Clearly there
are a wide range of human relationships ranging from friendship, cohabitation,
family relationship, marriage, to relationships of a more sexual nature. Each of the
various Christian denominations will approach these issues in a slightly different way.
As it is impossible to cover all these issues in this essay; it will focus on the human
relationships of a homosexual nature. The essay will examine the general Christian
approach as rooted in scripture, and then consider the current church teaching of
the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church. The essay will examine whether the
teaching discriminates against individuals, and considers if it is an abuse of power.
As Oliphant summarises the Biblical teaching on homosexuality is at best unclear.
The two Greek words that have traditionally been translated as ‘homosexual’ may
mean ‘loose living’ or ‘prostitute’, so in the New Revised Standard Version of the
Bible the word ‘homosexual’ has been omitted from Paul’s letters. The story of
Sodom (is not about sexuality but about hospitality, and so the only specific
references are in the codes of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The meaning of these
codes was obviously important at the time they were written, but today laws about
purity, including the types of animals and fish that could be eaten, which excluded
shellfish, and about dress, which outlawed the wearing of garments made from more
than one type of yarn, are just irrelevant to many people. One concept underlying
the laws was the idea of the pure form of a man and a woman, which led to the
prohibition of shaving in men so that they did not look like women, and also of crossdressing and same-sex relationships. Almost all Christians ignore these prohibitions,
except the one about homosexuality. Again this appears to make the Church
teaching on this particular human relationship unclear. Kate Saunders and Peter
Stanford note that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
So it seems as though the Bible is being used, as in the possible split in the Anglican
Church over the ordination of gay bishops, to reinforce prejudices. As Richard
Holloway points out, the impetus for social reform comes from society, not from
within the Christian Church. It would seem that if the Bible is being used in this way;
it can be considered an abuse of power as many would argue it encourages
discrimination on the basis of an individual’s sexuality. Furthermore it contradicts
other Biblical teaching that demands respect and responsibility towards others e.g.
‘Humans made in the image of God’ etc.
Peter Vardy describes how the Anglican Church teaching on ‘gay human
relationships’ is unclear in that it has been divided over the issue of homosexuality
for several years. This is highlighted by its response to the gay rights group
‘Searchlight’ in the 1980’s, under the direction of Peter Tatchell, began a campaign of
exposing prominent figures’ private lives, when they seemed to conflict with their
public stance on ‘family values’. The campaign ‘outed’ several Anglican priests and
even the then Archbishop of York, David Hope. Archbishop Hope’s response to the
accusations was to admit having homosexual inclinations but to claim that he had
chosen to live a celibate life and that this was in keeping with the teachings of the
Church. The Church confirmed this as their teaching on ‘homosexual human
relationships’ and stated that homosexuality in priests was not itself a bar to working
in the Anglican Communion, but that such priests were expected to remain physically
celibate. This would appear to give clarity to the Anglican churches teaching on these
human relationships of a homosexual nature.
However many felt this did not encourage respect and responsibility for others, and
was an abuse of power. This is illustrated by the fact that for many, this public
statement caused anger and a sense of injustice. By the 1980s and 90s, scientific
research seemed to confirm that homosexuality is not simply a lifestyle choice and,
given that the Church condones the marriage of priests because it serves as a good
model to congregations of the value of a loving, committed relationship and because
it provides important support for priests, who do a difficult job, it seemed unfair that
homosexual priests in long-term, committed human relationships should be forced
to choose between a physical expression of that relationship which they felt natural
and their vocation in the Church. Allowing priests in a relationship of this nature
would encourage respect and responsibility for others, it would also set an example
to any relationships of a promiscuous nature about the standard that should be
adhered to in a relationship.
This led to further confusion surrounding the Anglican teaching on human
relationships. The growing frustration of homosexual priests and those sympathetic
to their cause led many leading Anglican theologians, including former Archbishop of
Canterbury Rowan Williams, to re-examine the grounds for the Church’s rejection of
physical acts of homosexual sex. A teaching was needed that would demand respect
and responsibility for those of a homosexual inclination. Williams concluded that
the texts in the Bible often cited to support a hard line against gay and lesbian
behaviour may actually give a different message when read carefully in context. For
example, he famously suggested that Genesis 19 contains a condemnation of male
rape, not consensual and committed acts of homosexual sex. On becoming the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Williams decided to tackle the issue head-on and
provoked a debate in the synod and among the clergy (not to mention in the press)
about whether the Church should recognize priests who have long-term, committed
male partners and maybe go further to sanction other members of the Church in
adopting this form of gay relationship.
The Church was split in regard to its teaching, not least when it emerged that a
number of priests seeking to be bishops were in this situation. In 2003, the Episcopal
Church in the USA confirmed Gene Robinson, who was openly gay and living in a
long-term civil-partnership with another man, as Bishop of New Hampshire. In the
same year in England, Jeffrey John, was put forward as Suffragan Bishop of Reading
while openly living with another man (he gave assurances that the relationship was
celibate). The controversy led to conservative figures in the Anglican Communion
threatening to leave the Church if his consecration went ahead. In the interests of
unity, Williams was forced to back-track. The division between the conservative
(evangelical or traditional) and liberal wings of the Church of England has led many
to speculate as to its future as a ‘broad Church’. The issue of the ordination of
women, so hotly contested in the early 1990s (the first women were officially
ordained in 1994), has still not been resolved in the Anglican Communion round the
world. In the same way, as many gay priests feel frustrated that the official line of the
Church recognizes their inclinations but denies them sanction to express them,
Again, the question centres on how to read and regard the texts relating to
homosexuality in the Church. Conservative, traditional and evangelical Anglicans
argue that the texts should be read literally, taken at face value. It is fair to say that
the Anglican Communion is being torn apart over issues of sex. As such it is perhaps
fair to say that within this denomination the teaching on this human relationship is
perhaps clear; but the interpretation of it is extremely divided. Division centres on
whether the official Church teaching is an abuse of its power when surely it should
be encouraging respect and responsibility towards homosexuals.
The Roman Catholic teachings on homosexuality are summarised in the Catechism.
The Church teaches respect and responsibility towards others in that there is no sin
involved in an inclination towards a member of the same sex, as such an inclination is
not freely chosen and is a trial for the person. The homosexual person should be
treated with respect compassion and sensitivity, and unjust discrimination should be
avoided. Again the Church feels it teaches respect and responsibility towards others
when they teach that homosexuals are called to chastity with the help of friendship,
prayer and grace to achieve homosexual perfection. However, the church maintains
that homosexual acts are sinful because they are not open to procreation, and
contradict the natural law. The Vatican would also consider that they are
condemned in the Bible.
The teaching on homosexuality clearly impacts on family life. Again the Church is
clear that marriage is the place where children should be raised and also condems
adoption by gay couples. The Pope in 2003 stated absence of sexual
complementarity in these (homosexual) unions creates obstacles in the normal
development of children who would be placed in the care of such person..Allowing
children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing
violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be
used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human
development." In 2010 the Leeds based Catholic Care lost its appeal to prevent
adoption by gay couples.
Robert Bowie notes that individual Catholic (in acts of conscience) have attempted
to move away from the teaching on homosexuality, although it has yet to impact on
the Church hierarchy. He points out that many sexual acts –such as sex in the non
fertile period cannot lead to reproduction. If the reproductive imperative in sex then
natural law no longer oppose homosexual sex. Kate Saunders and Peter Stanford
note that this is certainly an abuse of the Churches power and comments such as
‘backyard mongrels’ by Cardinal Glemp fuel intolerance. Arcigay an Italian Gay
rights group links the Church with acts of religious intolerance. They estimate 150 200 gay men are murdered because of there orientation.
In terms of the place of God in a homosexual relationship it is possible to apply the
individual Christian teaching of Timothy Radcliffe. He claims a sexual ethic can be
derived from Jesus’ gift of himself at the last supper. Rather than beginning with the
question what is permitted and what is forbidded? Radcliffe argues the important
questions are ‘what does my behaviour say? How does my behaviour affect human
communion?’ Jesus expresses his communion with God by giving his body through
his sacrifice on the cross i.e. giving his body, ‘so’ he writes ‘our sexual relationship
should be expressive of the gift of oneself to another.’ As such this gift of sex cannot
be cannot be a casual , violent or the exercise/abuse of power but in the profound
expression of what it means to be human. It seems clear this act of communion with
God at the heart of the relationship should be open to homosexual as well as
heterosexual couples. Then it encourages communion and therefore respect and
responsibility to all.
Examine how one religion of your choice views marriage as a sacred event.
This essay will focus on how Marriage is seen as a sacred event within the Christian
Faith with particular focus on the Roman Catholic Tradition. It will also touch on the
non-catholic denominations and how they view marriage as Sacred. Marriage is
sacred as it is a gift from God. It is one of the sacraments in Roman Catholicism and is
for the purpose of procreation. It is a covenant in Protestantism and a mystical union
in the Anglican Church. The Bible teaches marriage as a good way of life; the family
unit promotes social stability.
The sacredness of the institution of marriage can be seen from the ceremony and its
symbolic representations. The vows in marriage have an emphasis on marriage for
life (‘until death’) and also faithfulness (‘to love and cherish ... in sickness ... until
death’).
During the ceremony the bride wears white as a symbol of chastity. The vicar/priest
advises the congregation as to the purpose of the gathering, in the presence of God.
Before the couple takes their vows, they and the congregation are asked if there is
any reason why they should not be lawfully married. The bride and groom exchange
vows that are spoken before God. The marriage is affirmed in the statement: ‘That
which God has joined together let no one separate’. Hymns and a brief sermon about
love underline the seriousness of marriage. Sometimes the Eucharist is celebrated.
These sign and symbols all highlight the sacredness
Other aspects of the ceremony are shown within in the Catholic Church; they
highlight why the marriage is sacred. The couple are greeted by the priest in front of
the congregation. This shows the community aspect of the sacrament. When we see
examples of all of the sacraments in scripture, we see the sacrament being shared
with a community or congregation for example at the wedding of Cana the marriage
is being celebrated by a group of friends and family. The fact that the marriage takes
place in front of witnesses also shows that marriage is a sign for the world, and as a
sign for the world the wedding is sacred.
The sacredness of the wedding is also shown as it is a sign of Gods love for the
Church. The celebration of marriage with a community of friends and family, shows
this love, with the couple to be married, being a visual demonstration of it. The
couple’s love, mirrors God’s love for the church. Within the greeting, God’s love of
marriage and for the church is shown in the words “Christ abundantly blesses this
love”. The greeting also makes reference to the permanent nature of marriage in the
words “mutual and lasting fidelity”.
As such the sacredness of the marriage is also shown by the unconditinal love of God
and the couple. Love is also referred to in the first sentence of the greeting, and is
the most important aspect of the marriage. The love between the couple, their love
for God and God’s love for the couple and the church.
However within the Roman Catholic Faith the main reason it is seen to be sacred is
because it is a Sacrament.
“Something is properly called a sacrament because it is a sign of God’s grace, and is
such an image of invisible grace that it bears its likeness and exists as its cause.”
Lomard, P cited in Thompson, R (2006)
As a sacrament of vocation, the Catholic Church believes that God is at the centre of
every marriage. Vincent Nichols explains in the article ‘Family’s Sure Foundation’ that
marriage is not just a personal choice but a call from God to express his love and to
live out the church’s teaching, through their union as man and wife. Furthermore,
marriage is a covenant between the couple and God, which mirrors the covenant
that God made with the Israelites during the Exodus. A covenant is a binding
agreement that cannot be broken. The couple agree to be married for the rest of
their lives and agree to maintain their covenant with God as a married couple. Article
seven of the catechism of the catholic church describes the matrimonial covenant
that is for “the whole life” and also for procreation. The permanent nature of
marriage shows that it is something which can never be destroyed and as such is
sacred. This occurs when the couple make their vows in front of the priest at which
point they become a new creation and united to God.; the marriage is there
indissoluble (it can never be undone)
In the Eastern Orthodox Church marriage is seen as a Sacred Mystery (sacrament),
uniting men and women in eternal union before God. This Church also sees marriage
as an icon of the relationship between Jesus and the Church – like the use of
marriage as an analogy to describe the relationship between God and Israel by the
Old Testament prophet Hosea. Unlike Western Christianity, Eastern Christians do not
see the couple as giving each other the sacrament, rather it is seen as the action of
the Holy Spirit acting through the priest and so only a priest or a bishop may perform
the Sacred Mystery.
To the Church of England Marriage is sacred because it is a means of Grace. They
make it clear that it is the most stable way a couple can enjoy an effective long term
committed relationship. To paraphrase the Bishops report; to this complex human
situation, which in part or constantly recurs in history, Christian teaching about
marriage offers two things: first guduance based, based on God’s revelation in
Scripture and Christian experience as to the way of life within the full physical
expression of our sexuality can best contribute to our own to our own maturity and
santification and that of others; and secondly, a direction in which other sexual
relationships can and should move, if they are to serve more effectually the the true
fulfillment of those concnerned. By this the Bishops mean that Christian marriage is a
life of commitment, sacrifice, loyalty, lack of pride and openness. It is these
sacremental qualities in whuch God’s sustaining Grace becomes possible. The
Bishops conclude that marriage is the ‘means of grace making us more like Christ
both in ourselves and the dealing of the world around us.
In summary all the Christian Churches place the highest importance on marriage and
see it as a sacred institution. In particular this is exemplified by the Roman Catholic
by the fact they reject any possibility of divorce.
Examine the teaching of one religion on polygamy/polyandry.
This essay will examine the Biblical teaching on polygamy, which does contain
examples of it occurring. It will then move onto current Church teaching which
maintains the importance of monogamy and therefore rejects polygamy. There are
however more individual based teachings which see the benefits of polygamy and
several branches of Christianity which accept it.
Christian teaching in general rejects the concept of husbands having more than one
wife. Technically the practice of a male marrying more than one female is polygamy,
that of a woman marrying a number of male spouse’s polyandry. Polyandry is not
really a feature of Christianity, the Bible or of any Hebrew culture. The closest to
this is when a woman has a relationship outside of marriage but this is technically
superseded by the sin of adultery.
The main reason for the rejection of polygamy is the importance of monogamy to
Christians. Marriage is seen by Christians as sacred and monogamous. This view of
marriage has developed over time. The Bible teaches marriage as a good way of life.
There are many examples of this teaching throughout both the Old and New
Testaments. There are, however, no details of wedding ceremonies given within the
Bible.
Marriage to more than one spouse simultaneously, did happen in Old Testament
times: Abraham had a child with Hagar, his wife’s servant; Jacob was in love with
Rachel but was tricked into marrying her sister Leah first; and David inherited wives
from Saul and Solomon and was led astray by his many wives into worshipping other
gods. It was not considered ideal, but it was a realistic and practical way of dealing
with hard times such as famine, female infertility and widowhood. Although Genesis
seems to condone polygamy and the use of concubines for reproduction, this is seen
to be a matter of social context and is not pursued as an ideal, although the Mormon
Church today still allows polygamy (although even they are moving away from this
idea.) All wives were considered equal to some extent, and first-born sons should
inherit.
There are three passages in the New Testament pastoral epistles (1Timothy 3:2,
1Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6) which state that church leaders should be the "husband
of but one wife." This has been read by some Christians as a prohibition of polygamy,
but others argue that it may simply be dismissing divorce.
Most Christian theologians teach that in Matthew in keeping with Genesis Jesus
explicitly states a man should have only one wife when it is said a couple should be
united as ‘one flesh.’
A further reason that Christians reject Polygamy is that it is rejected by leaders in the
Early Church. Tertullian, who lived at the turn of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, wrote
that marriage is lawful, but polygamy is not:"We do not indeed forbid the union of
man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for
the replenishment of the earth and the furnishing of the world and therefore
permitted, yet singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife,
one woman, one rib."
Polygamy was also prohibited by St Augustine, who wrote that, although it was
necessary to have children, polygamy was no longer acceptable as Christians should
follow the Roman custom of monogamy. The New Testament authors also saw
monogamy as the right way for church leaders to live: ‘Now a bishop must be above
reproach, married only once’ (1 Timothy 3:2a). The Catholic Catechism 1993 teaches:
However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law … because it is contrary to the
equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a
love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive. (§2387)
When Pope John Paul II was alive he also rejected Polygamy in a Youth Mass in
Nairobi. He delivered his a spirited defense of the Roman Catholic teaching on
monogamous marriage and sexual ethics Polygamy, was and still is widely practiced
in many parts of Africa, including rural Kenya, John Paul declared that Polygamy
``directly negates the plan of God,`` In a more recent (July 2012) dismissal of civil
partnerships the Catholic Church reiterated its disapproval of polygamy. The
Catholic Church in Italy has declared that the introduction of civil partnerships
demanded by gays, lesbians and their supporters could "legitimize polygamy". This
highlights the Church does not legitimize it!
In his book Plural Marriage for Our Times: Philip L. Kilbride points out that there are
individual Catholic Theologians who teach that the Church needs to reconsider this
teaching on polygamy. Father Michael Kirwen points out that firstly polygamy was
widespread in the Bible and secondly that although it makes ‘little sense’ in a
European based approach to sexual ethics, it is commonplace within African Culture.
Father Eugene Hillman supports this by pointing out that the ‘Council of Trent’ (the
Church Council which rejected Polygamy) did not consider non-western culture. As
such he argues Catholic Teaching needs to be reconsidered.
This view is also held by mainstream Protestant Churches. In 2008, the Lambeth
Conference clearly dismissed polygamy there is a universal standard – it is
understood to be a sin, therefore polygamists are not admitted to positions of
leadership including Holy Orders, nor after acceptance of the Gospel can a convert
take another wife, nor, in some areas, are they admitted to Holy Communion. This
makes it clear that it is necessary to reject polygamy.
In summary; although there are exceptions e.g. The Lutheran Church of Liberia
(which began allowing plural marriage in the 1970s). It is clear in general
Christianity rejects polygamy. The only time this becomes an issue for Christians is
when there are tensions between the traditional Christian teaching on marriage, and
traditional polygamy in some parts of Africa. Although individual theologians have
sought to change the traditional teaching it has had little impact on the hierarchies
with the various Churches.
Examine what one religion teaches about sex outside marriage.
The essay will begin by examining the teaching on adultery which Christian’s agree
on. The essay will then examine the traditionalist Christian approach to pre-marital
sex; it will use the Catholic Church to exemplify this teaching. Finally it will examine
more liberal Christian teaching on pre-marital sex (given the various types of
premarital sex it will focus on cohabitation) and examine the reasons for their
beliefs.
Christians would say that marriage is the only place that sexual activity is endorsed –
using for justification Genesis 2:24: ‘Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother
and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.’ The overwhelming majority of
the Christian Church teach that Sex outside marriage; in the form of adultery; is
morally wrong. They would point to the teachings of St. Paul who sees adultery and
other forms of sex outside marriage as wrong:
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the
greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
This teaching is further supported by the teaching of Jesus in the New Testament.
Jesus says ‘You shall not commit adultery.’.. I say to you that everyone who looks at a
woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right
eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. Although many Christians would
be prepared to forgive an adulterer; it does seem that no right minded Christian
would view it as acceptable behaviour. Given the clarity in this teaching I will focus
on the issue of pre-marital sex, I will use the Catholic Church to exemplify this
teaching.
As Michael Wilcockson points out; The Catholic Church teaches that pre-marital sex
is wrong and constitutes the sin of fornication. This teaching has at its roots the
teaching of St. Paul and Augustine of Hippo; both of whom see celibacy as the ideal
but that sex within marriage is acceptable. Paul also assumes virginity before
marriage in 1 Corinthians. Sex in the Catholic Church expresses the covenant
relationship of ‘one flesh’, which is marriage. Sex before marriage assumes that sex is
being practised for reasons other than life-long fidelity i.e. pleasure and therefore is
wrong. The theologian Edward Pratt points out that traditional Christian teaching
places emphasis first on the relationship and considers that too much is made of Sex.
‘Sex is a good servant but a terrible master...dissatisfaction with sex may itself be the
reason as couples have discovered they are not achieving the unrealistic goal of
perpetual sexual bliss which is held up as the target by some opinion formers today.’
As such ‘pre-marital sex’ causes couples to focus on the physical aspect of
relationships rather than companionship which is crucially important to the covenant
relationship of ‘one flesh.’
Wilcockson again points out that the Roman Catholic Church teaching highlights that
co-habitation/pre-marital sex does not (whereas marriage does) bring Christian
qualities i.e. the disciplined life of responsibility which shows agape’ like the self
sacrifice of Christ for others. This self sacrifice is shown by those partners who are
restrained and wait to be married before sex. This also teaches them to be
disciplined within marriage and faithful to their partner.
Furthermore the natural law teaching of Catholicism stresses the importance of
‘procreation’ within any sexual relationship. The moral reasoning of natural law
teaching shows that pre-marital sex is illicit because any relationship which firstly
does not intend to produce children and secondly cannot produce the purpose of
sexual intercourse. Pope John Paul II expressed in Familaris Consortio and in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church. ‘The expression free union’, is fallacious: what can
the union mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each
exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or the future? The expression
covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such,
or inability to make long term commitments. All these situations offend against the
dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense
of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law.
The Catholic Church does not recognise any form of gay marriage and would consider
any practice of homosexual sex to be ‘sex outside marriage.’ There are absolutely no
grounds for considering homosexual unions and the act of homosexual sex to be in
any way similar or even remotely similar to God's plan for marriage and family.
Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.
Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a
genuine affective and sexual complementarily. Under no circumstances can they be
approved".
The Catholic Church further affirms this through referring to scripture. Sacred
Scripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity; as put forward in the
letters of Paul. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude
that all those who are homosexual are personally responsible for it, but it does attest
to the fact that homosexual acts, are "intrinsically disordered”. This same moral
judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously
accepted by Catholic Tradition. Clearly many thinkers would consider this thinking to
be prejudiced. Cleary the church would regard homosexual as sex outside marriage;
and its teaching rejects it because it is not open to procreation and purely for
pleasure.
The traditional Evangelical Christian view of marriage is in line with the Catholic
approach. Their view that it is an important part of society. Marriage is seen as the
ideal place for children to be raised. It is also the only place foe sex which purpose is
to reproduce. Cohabitations and pre marital sex for many conservative Christians is a
sin which degrades society. Children need a stable family and household to grow up
in as such pre- marital sex goes against this idea that marriage is the ideal.
The radical Christian alternative to Christian Traditionalists is described by
Wilcockson; as being liberal inclusivists. Their teaching places less emphasis on the
ceremony of marriage and more on the quality of the relationship itself. Whilst it
might be true that many cohabitation/pre-marital relationships are sinful, egocentric
and exploitative it doesn’t follow that they all are. Each relationship has to be judged
on its own merits.
The liberal teaching points out that virginity is not itself a prerequisite for a
successful marriage. What virginity symbolises is faithfulness, commitment and
purity of intention. St. Paul speaks of sexual control. Sexual faithfulness may be
equally expressed in cohabitation before marriage as in marriage itself; the view of
the traditionalist on sexual abstinence makes disproportionate fuss about sex. Liberal
Christian theology teaches that the view of the body as the source for sin through sex
belongs to a very different view of the self. Sexual drives are seen to be part of the
instinctive natural self not sin; the body is no longer a vessel purified by a good soul.
This suggests that the telos or purpose of sex is not primarily to procreate, as the
natural law tradition argues, but principally an expression of committed love.
The liberal theologian teaching differs from the traditional view presented by St.Paul
and St. Augustine who argued the marriage was for the containment of sin. A
relationship can only be judged sinful if it is exploitive, abusive, selfish-attributes
which St. Paul himself described as opposed to Christian love. The Christian view of
marriage has always depended on the free consent of the two persons; and that may
be equally so of those who cohabit and have pre-marital relations faithfully; as those
who choose formal recognition.
However liberal teaching also recognises that not all cohabitation relationships can
be Christian. Casual cohabitation, like casual sex, cannot fulfil the degree of
commitment which ‘cleaving’ (being faithful) suggests. But an unconditional
cohabitation based on Christian agape’ love though unconventional is a marriage in
all but name. Whilst present laws exist it may be expedient for a couple to marry to
ensure the full benefit of rights for each of the couple and their children. A priest or
minister need only look at the quality of the relationship to judge whether the
blessing of the church confirms what has already been established. Pre-marital sex
within this liberal teaching is affirmed.
Furthermore the liberal point of view is put forward by; Philip Reynolds & John
Collingwood who teach that, getting married was a process rather than a simple act –
marriage was initiated by betrothal and consummated by sexual intercourse. Any
liturgical ceremony might occur at various points between courtship and betrothal.
This is a quite different understanding of marriage from the way it is seen today:
marriage is a religious or legal ceremony taking about 30 minutes. This came about
as a result of the Marriage Act of 1753, which was intended to stop clandestine
marriages into the aristocracy. This led to the end of the importance of betrothal,
and the event of the wedding became all-important. Needless to say, this legislation
was seen at the time as a massive intrusion by the state into people’s personal lives.
So our idea of marriage with a ceremony is a fairly recent and state-imposed
understanding; previously cohabitation had been seen as marriage. As such many
relationships we consider to be pre-marital sex e.g. sex during engagement would
have been actually considered a marriage historically.
To sum up after examining the teaching of both the traditionalist and liberal Christian
it seems there are logical arguments present in both approaches. But it also clear
there are wide ranging differences within Christianity. It is clearly a ‘broad church.’
The Concept of love (different styles: brotherly, physical,
Christian agapé), family and children
The word love can encompass a variety of expressions – it is such an important
concept within Christian ethics yet there is no real single and precise definition of
what love actually is. Even within families and sexual relationships there are many
layers of love and different expressions of it.
In common English love means a sentiment of strong attachment towards a
particular object or person. In the Hebrew of the Old Testament the commonest
word for love ‘ahebh matches the English meaning – neither language has a separate
word for erotic love. In both languages, the word gets its most characteristic
overtones from the fact that the strongest and most enduring form of personal love
is that between a man and a woman. The Septuagint (The Greek translation of the
Old Testament) translation of ‘ahebh is agapan taken from the noun agape, a term
which we will discuss in more detail later in this essay.
The Greeks had several words to express different types of love. Eros is the love of
sexual attraction and so is not deep and meaningful. Storge is the love found in
families between the different family members. It is a much stronger type of love
and involves commitment. Philia is what might be called brotherly love. This is not
brotherly in the sense of family but in the sense of kinship – it is the type of love that
makes us want to help others and see others as needing love. Agape is the highest
form of love, an unconditional love for others in spite of their weaknesses. It is the
love that puts the needs of others as a priority.
Within a Christian context the most familiar is the word agape which is specifically
used of Christian love, often translated as charity, and even God as in the phrase
‘God is love’ in 1 John 4:8. In the teaching of Jesus love is God and is displayed in his
goodness to all his creation (omni-benevolence), in his free forgiveness for the
repentant sinner and in his redeeming activity. Christians are called to imitate this
divine love by doing good to all, by forgiving as we have been forgiven and by
responding to the call of anyone in need. Agape is entirely unselfish, seeking only the
good of others. It is the reproduction of God’s own love for humanity.
‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has
greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends’ (John 15:12–13).
For John, the new commandment is that we love one another: this mutual love of
Christians is to be the proof for all people that we are Christ’s disciples. For St Paul,
love is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit because it serves for the ‘building up’ of the
Christian community. He places great emphasis on ‘love of brethren’. The Church and
its members are bound in a new covenant, sealed in Christ’s blood, to be true in love
to God and their brethren (each other). It is the nature of love to be the supreme
unifying power.
Soren Kierkegaard in his Works of Love (1847) contrasted Christian love with the love
between man and woman or friend and friend, which is selective, concentrated on a
particular person or persons preferred to all others. Such love, depending as it does
upon the presence of certain qualities in the one loved, is for Kierkegaard a disguised
form of the love of self and is exposed to alteration and failure. Christian love does
not choose its object but goes out to the neighbour who is everyone. This could be
witnessed in more modern times through the actions of great Christians such as
Mother Teresa.
Joseph Fletcher in his book Situation Ethics (1966) claimed that the only intrinsic
value is love or agape. Fletcher’s argument attempted to lessen the legalism of the
Church and to allow a more humane response to circumstances. Followers of
situation ethics will set aside rules in a situation if love seems better served by doing
so. The Situationist follows a moral law or violates it according to love needs’ e.g.
lying is justified if love is better served by it. Situation ethics identifies its roots in the
New Testament. St Paul – ‘Jesus abolished the law with its commandments and legal
claims’ (Eph 2:13-15)
For most Christians the place where they learn to love is within the family, where
children learn that love involves companionship and forgiveness, protection and
support, so that family life is established as part of making a stable society. Pope
John Paul II said:
All members of the family, each according to his or her own gift, have the grace and
responsibility of building day by day the community of persons making a family a
school of deeper humanity. This happens where there is care and love for the
children, the aged and the sick; where there is a sharing of goods, of joys and of
sorrows. (Familiaris Consortio §21)
The New Testament teaches that Christians should show the same love that they
have within the family to everyone:
Do not speak harshly to an older man, but speak to him as to a father, to younger
men as brothers, to older women as mothers, to younger women as sisters – with
absolute purity. (1 Timothy 5:1–2)
Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother. (Mark 3:35)
Christian love, therefore, cannot be perfected without the warmth of personal
affection which is the cement of unity between parent and children, brothers and
sisters. The Church believes that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is what gives
warmth to people’s service of one another and to their loyal obedience to the law of
God
Agape then remains the centre and ideal of Christian love. According to the work of
Francis Watson (Professor of New Testament at the University of Durham), men and
women are interdependent: ‘Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of
man or man independent of woman (1 Corinthians 11:11); they belong together
within the Christian community and outside of it.’
Because religious teaching is rooted in history, is it ever
relevant to people today?
INTRO
This essay will consider the reasons why many people consider Christian teaching,
which is rooted in scripture and the Early Church, to be relevant today when
discussing issues of sex and relationships; and the arguments which consider that it
has no relevance today. The essay will ultimately conclude that the teaching has
some relevance; but how much relevance depends greatly on individual Christian
denominations and the sources that they rely upon to make ethical decisions.
NO
It certainly seems that the values of modern western society in relation to sex are a
long way from those of religion. Religion, for the most part, seems to suggest that
sex before marriage is wrong, that many particular kinds of sexual act are wrong if
they are not directly related to reproduction and that many types of sexual
relationships are wrong, such as gay and lesbian relationships. Modern liberal
western society seems to challenge each of these things with a basic idea that as long
as people consent to what is going on, and no one else is harmed, they are
acceptable. It appears therefore that, for the majority of people living in western
society today, the ethics of utilitarianism is morally preferable to any religious ethic.
We are living in a much more secular society than we were even 50 years ago. The
Church has lost a lot of influence over people’s decision making in more recent times
and so the ethics of Christianity are no longer relevant to everyone today.
It is possible to argue that religion essentially offers an old-fashioned pre-scientific
view of the world which has none of the advantages of modern ideas of human
physiology, genetics and political ideas of human equality. According to this view,
religion is quite simply wrong about its view of the world and has nothing to offer
people in the modern world. St Pauls emphasis on celibacy being the ideal in the
New Testament is now contradicted by scientists such as John Wass, Professor of
Endocrinology at Oxford University, who argues that ‘celibacy is a totally abnormal
state’ due to the way in which men are driven by testosterone to want sex. Another
example of modern science questioning the relevance of religious teaching in the
sexual arena can be found in the Supreme Court in British Columbia (Canada) which
has been asked to review its centuries old law which forbids polygamy. It has called
upon the research of sociologists and evolutionists in an attempt to rule whether
polygamy is a more natural human state than monogamy. Helen Croydon writing in
The Independent in April this year claims that long-term love suits us well but lifelong does not – which brings her into conflict with the ethics of almost all Christian
denominations that marriage should be exclusive and permanent – ‘until death do us
part’. She does however accept that a monogamous lifestyle is a sacrifice some
should make for the sake of the raising of children.
Furthermore the Bible was written at a time when the status of women and those of
a homosexual inclination was extremely low. Both these groups were openly
discriminated against. The teachings of St. Paul exemplify this point; for example he
wrote that women should not speak in Church. No one could see this teaching as
relevant because it is discriminatory-particularly in a society which sees itself as
democratic. The Biblical teaching is vague, and often contradictory, for example
Adultery is condemned as punishable by stoning in the Old Testament yet King David
was a serial adulterer. This further demonstrates that Christian teaching based on
scripture and the teaching of the Early Church cannot be relevant as it is unclear
what the teaching actually is!
Many secular thinkers such as Richard Dawkins would use the spread of STI’s as a
reason to reject a traditional Christian approach as being relevant. They would argue
that the most effective way of reducing STI’s is through the use of condoms. When
the Bible was written the authors had no real notion of the spread of STI’s, or the use
of condoms to prevent infection spreading. As such the Biblical teaching, and any
tradition based on this is completely outdated, which completely undermines any
argument which suggests such teaching is relevant today. Nature evolves yet natural
law is fixed for it is a deontological and absolute theory. Any sexual act which is not
open to the possibility of procreation is in accordance with Natural Law wrong/sinful
and always will be and for this reason many find its teaching irrelevant today.
YES IT DOES HAVE RELEVANCE AS THE TEACHING HAS BEEN UPDATED SINCE
BIBLICAL AND EARLY CHURCH TIMES
Conditions in the modern world are changing rapidly and, as a result, modern
opinions towards sex and relationships are also changing. However this has
influenced traditional religious teaching also and some would argue as a result that
Christian teaching may have relevance today. Perhaps it is this fact that the ‘word of
God’ can be reinterpreted in modern times which keeps it teachings relevant. The
Dialogue Article ‘’Sex and Marriage in the Christian Tradition‘’ points out how the
Church of England has at times adapted its teaching in light of changes in society.
This is only possible if scripture is revisited and re-evaluated in light of changes in
science, technology and society. Without this change in Doctrine on divorce and
contraception, amongst other issues by the Church of England, it would have become
increasingly irrelevant to an increasingly secularised community. Other Christian
teachings (including the teaching of Vatican 2 in the Roman Catholic faith) believe
that the teachings in the New Testament, although inspired by God, were written in
a way which reflected the ‘sitz-im-leben’ or ‘life setting’ of the author. As such
scripture can be reinterpreted by believers today in light of new understanding and
belief.
The Catholic Church, and in particular traditional evangelical Christians would be
stronger in their belief that Church teaching on sex and relationships has relevance
today. They would most likely reject the Church of England argument above and
maintain that scripture has inspired ‘Christian teaching’ that has stood the test of
time because it is moral. The Bible and Early Church Fathers, particularly in the
Catholic tradition, has developed doctrine that demands high moral standards.
Clearly the interests of the wider community are served rather than that of the
individual through this moral stance e.g. refusing to recognise divorce, and
preventing promiscuity through the churches rejection of pre-marital sex, are all
good for the wider community. Furthermore the teaching that extra-marital sex is
immoral, serves the community, as following this law would reduce the spread of
STI’s.
It is also possible to point to traditional teachings that the various denominations
generally agree on. An example of this is the teaching that adultery is wrong. All
Christians view the Bible as the word of God and as such ‘God given’, it therefore
must be relevant to religious believers today at least. Some would recognise its
relevance for non-believers too when measuring the impact adultery has on divorce
rates, society and most importantly the lives of children affected by parental
separation.
From the above discussion I feel it is simple common sense to conclude that the
religious teaching has no relevance to non religious people today. Furthermore; the
evidence considered suggests there is no single Christian or Biblical teaching on Sex;
and as such cannot be considered relevant to Christianity as a whole. However, it is
possible that the anti-realist approach in Philosophy offers a potential solution to this
debate. This is simply that the teaching is only relevant within the specific believing
community/denomination. For example, the Biblical teaching quoted by the
Catechism of the Catholic Church is relevant to that particular community i.e. the
Catholic tradition. In summary the teaching of a particular denomination is only
relevant to followers of that particular denomination; it is only relevant to that
believing community.
Modern society sets its own code of behaviour, and religion simply adapts to these
standards.’
To what extent is this true?
This essay will examine this question by focusing on the approach of the Church of
England (Anglican Church) and the Roman Catholic Church. The society it will focus
on will be the UK. The essay will consider examples of when Christianity can be said
to follow the standards set by society; but will ultimately conclude that the Roman
Catholic Church proves that religion does not always simply adapt to the standards
set by modern society.
Adrian Thatcher in Dialogue points out that marriage as a ‘..religious institution, it is
particularly susceptible to social change.’ He points out the tension that developed
in the 20th century led to the Church of England adapting it’s teaching to fit in with
the demands of society. For example in the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican
Communion of Churches in 1930, the decision was taken to accept the use of
contraception which occurred in line with the changes in attitudes in secular society.
Further to this, within the Church of England Michael Wilcockson points out there
has clearly been a softening of their rejection of remarriage since the start of the 20th
Century. The 1998 Lambeth conference accepted that remarriage is to be separated
from promiscuity; and since this document (in 2002) it became possible to remarry in
the Church of England (at the discretion of the priest). Clearly this appears to be an
example of the Church adapting, albeit slowly, to social changes which had occurred
years earlier in the 1960’s, when (as described by Adrian Thatcher) the liberalization
of divorce laws alongside the reliability of contraception transpired in the UK.
Also the Church of England in it’s response to the government on ‘civil partnerships’
although stressing that any sexual activity outside marriage falls short of the
Christian ideal (sex inside marriage) it did recognise that relationships of this nature
need to be protected by law. To quote John Sentamu ‘We supported Civil
Partnerships [the bishops in the House of Lords], because we believe that friendships
are good for everybody.’ This is a clear softening of their earlier teaching that
homosexual sex should be completely rejected. This mirrors their earlier reaction to
cohabiting couples; which although again falls short of the Christian ideal; was also
accepted. The Church clearly recognises that couples do need to be protected by
law. Both of these changes in attitude demonstrate that the Church of England and
perhaps Christianity as a whole do react and ultimately fall in line with the code of
conduct set by modern day society.
John Sentamu the Bishop of York illustrates however, that on occasions the Church
does not simply blindly follow the codes of behaviour set by society. "We must not
torture the English language. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman
and that's marriage.’ On this issue of same sex marriage the Church of England
appear to be rejecting the standards set by society today and the government in
particular. Sentamu explained that they disagreed on the need to change Civil
Partnerships into marriage. ‘That’s not the role of government to create institutions
that are not of its gifting. I don't think it is the role of the state to define what
marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can't just [change it] overnight,
no matter how powerful you are. We've seen dictators do it, by the way, in different
contexts and I don't want to redefine what I call very clear social structures that have
been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in
a particular way.’ This stance clearly shows that Christianity on this occasion does
not accept the standards of society; and stresses the firmness of this belief. This
position of rejecting the norms of society also appears to be more in common with
the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of the Christian hierarchy.
The rigidness of Roman Catholic Teaching is such that in the face of a dramatic
change in attitude towards sex in the UK that its doctrine has remained constant.
This is despite receiving severe criticism from many quarters. For example in regard
to their rejection of contraception despite the spread of AIDS in Africa. Successive
popes have strongly opposed any relaxation of church policy. John Paul II's 1995
document ‘Evangelium Vitae’ ruled contraception (and abortion) as slayers of
potential children whom God intended to create. In 2007 Benedict himself inveighed
against the "dangerous individualism" of Italian Catholics for not having enough
children and, on a flight to Africa last year, he claimed – in defiance of virtually all
informed medical opinion – that condom use could actually make the Aids epidemic
worse by increasing sexual activity. Pope Francis has not shown any sign of changing
the church position. As such it seems clear that the Church does not adapt to modern
day standards.
Further to this; in the most recent challenge to Church teaching in the UK; the
Church has reinforced its teachings. A number of Bishops including Vincent Nichols
wrote to parishioners encouraging them to ‘speak out’ against the recent
government bill to legalize same sex marriages. They condemned the bill accusing it
of attempting to redefine marriage. As such it is clear that the Catholic Church does
not adapt its teaching to conform to the beliefs of modern society.
In conclusion although it is clear some more liberal versions of Christianity often do
adapt their teaching to reflect the behavior of society; it is clear however that even
they do not adapt, unless they consider it to be the moral thing to do. More
traditionalist Christians take an even harder line stance by its hierarchy refusing to
adapt to society as they feel their teaching is inspired by God.
Should religion concern itself with sexual behavior?
The image of a minister in a pulpit speaking which are sinful and reproaching the
state of things today as regards to sex brings different reactions. For some this is
religion playing an important role in holding society to account. For others this is
religion encroaching too far into their personal and private lives. Both views can be
considered valid. This essay will examine both points of view, but will ultimately
conclude if religion that John Stuart Mill offers a way forward in the debate.
One reason is that religion concerns all aspects of life. If religion is to set a standard
of behavior then why should sex be exempt from it? Cleary some aspects of sex e.g.
rape are immoral and always need to be addressed. Clearly the Church should be
prepared to speak out about an issue like this. Religion cannot turn a blind eye to
this. In Christianity also Jesus’ spoke out against certain sexual behaviour such as
adultery. Christians should be prepared to do the same ie. follow his example.
Furthermore religion should be able to celebrate sexuality; it does not always see it
as taboo. For example in Christianity ;sensuality is celebrated in Genesis’s Song of
Songs as it shows the erotic nature of love which accompanies the profound
commitment of love as the bride tells the bridegroom, ‘I held him and would not let
him go ‘til I had taken him to the room of the one who had conceived me’. This
notion presents an ideology that religion is not opposed to being sexual and upheld
the notion of Eros which allows for the identification of moral bonds in human
relationships. In general, it would that society are happy for the Church/religion to
concern itself with sex, as long as it is not prescribing behaviour to follow. Therefore
there is little objection to the Church celebrating sexuality.
However many believers feel it is necessary to go further than simply praising sexual
behaviour. In a world of declining moral standards religion offers an ideal standard
of human nature which human can aim for. These standards can benefit society. For
example rejecting promiscuity can have a positive impact on society i.e. fewer people
hurt by broken relationships or one night and stands and also the likelihood of a
reduction in the spread of STI’s.
Modern liberal western society seems to challenge this view (that the Church should
not concern itself) with the basic idea that as long as people consent to what is going
on, and no one else is harmed, they are acceptable. It appears therefore that, for the
majority of people living in western society today, the ethics of utilitarianism is
morally preferable to any religious ethic. We are living in a much more secular
society than we were even 50 years ago. The Church has lost a lot of influence over
people’s decision making in more recent times, and so should not concern itself with
their business.
Also; on those occasions where religion has concerned itself with sex it has caused
deep rooted problems. The prime example of this is the Catholic Teaching on
contraception. This has attracted widespread criticism due to the spread of STI’s and
particularly AIDS in Africa. If the Church did not concern itself with these issues
perhaps lives would have been saved. It seems extremely difficult to see why the
Church should concern itself with sex given the damage it has done.
Another damaging reason why religion, and particularly the Church should not
concern itself with sexual behaviour, is because it can be seen to be discriminative.
The Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality is an example of this. Kate Saunders
and Peter Stanford note that this is certainly an abuse of the Churches power and
comments such as ‘backyard mongrels’ by Cardinal Glemp fuel intolerance. Arcigay
an Italian Gay rights group links the Church with acts of religious intolerance. They
estimate 150 -200 gay men are murdered because of there orientation. Again it does
seem extremely difficult to see why the Church should concern itself with sex given
this position.
Furthermore the hypocrisy of the the ‘covering up’ of the actions of pedophile priests
in the Roman Catholic Church can never be justified; particularly when the guilty
priests are prescribing behaviour for others. This hypocrisy has also been evident in
the recent debate over ‘same sex marriage’. Cardinal Keith O’Brien was forced to
resign after accusations regarding his celibacy, or lack of it with other seminarians
(during his time training to be a priest.) Days before his resignation he had penned a
letter condemning same sex marriage. It seems fair to say the Church should have its
own house in order before it condemns the actions of others.
If the Church/religion can attain its own moral criteria then perhaps John Stuart Mill
can bring an answer to the above question. He argued that any action including sex
can be justified; as long as it takes place in private and between consenting adults
and if it does not impact on society. Using this argument the Church should not
interfere with an individual sexual behaviour unless it impacts on the wider public.
The Church would be unable to comment on people private lives, and therefore they
would remain private. However if sexual behaviour was causing a threat, which
impacted on the public realm they would be free to speak out against this. Perhaps
this is a useful ‘middle ground’ which would suit both sides of the debate.