Did St. Paul have a skewed and unhealthy view of sacramental sexuality?

[setter]

The marriage preparation ministry team that I work with are all warmly endorsing and circulating the DVD presentation by Dr. Kathleen O. Chesto “The Sacrament of Matrimony: Past, Present, Future”.

In her teaching talk, Dr. Chesto cites 1 Corinthians 7: 8 as the all inclusive way to understand St. Paul’s view of sexuality as distorted and the pervasive effect that his view had on the first millenium and beyond on the Church’s one sided view (procreative) of human sexuality and married love.

Here is a specific excerpt of what Dr. Chesto stated in her DVD teaching talk:

“Paul taught that the only reason to marry was to control sexual desire, even though his view had been shaped by his own celibacy and his belief that he was living in the end times when Jesus was coming soon. It was still his view (strongly enuciated) that shaped the Church’s teaching on marriage …that marriage was necessary and good, but that sex was basically sinful”.

She repeatedly summarized her teaching segments with “The Church still has a long way to go” and “It is our role as married people to teach the Church the holiness of our vocation”, and empasized “his interpretation” (St. Paul) and “The Church’s intepretation” of married sexuality. She made no mention once of JPII or his Theology of the Body.

Her teaching talk came across as negative toward the Church heirachy and I believe this negative tone can only be counter productive in reaching the often unchurched young adult engaged couples that we work with.

So, is this Dr. Chesto accurate in that St. Paul (and the Church) has a skewed, unbalanced and unhealthy view of sacramental sexuality?

 

[BlaineTog]

Looking briefly over Paul’s letters, it looks to me like he actually gives good advice, but as one who hasn’t been in love. Getting involved with another person is really tough, and the temptation to place them above God can be terrible, but that it’s ultimately worth it is something you’d have a really hard time speaking about without having experienced it.

(Oh, and he didn’t say that marriage is “basically sinful” but “not sinful, just potentially dangerous and likely painful”).

 

[puzzleannie]

Paul can hardly be accused of considering married sexuality sinful, as he uses it as an analogy for Christ’s love for his Church and the relationship between Christ and the Church. Chesto’s analysis is wrong, but taken from some of the most popular scripture writers and teachers active in the Church today, sadly.

 

[Newbie2]

So, is this Dr. Chesto accurate in that St. Paul (and the Church) has a skewed, unbalanced and unhealthy view of sacramental sexuality?

Well, skewed, maybe. We are all influenced by our cultures and our times. Unbalanced and unhealthy? Well, maybe from a skewed point of view.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Paul’s letters weren’t skewed – they were inspired. But from a modern, politically-correct viewpoint, they aren’t very palatable – so they must be wrong!

 

[quasimodo]

Important points to remember when reading Paul:

1. you are reading someone else’s mail. You are not aware of everything that transpired between Paul and his audience before the letter was written - or after
2. They were written with many things assumed, the common assumptions of his age and culture, common modes of expression and word use - we are not aware of all these things
3. you are not reading Paul’s full teaching. You are frequently only reading the corrective Paul was providing to his communities as they strayed. His previous in-person teaching is assumed and usually not included in the letters. We don’t fully understand the issues he was addressing

So, it is best to read Paul in light of the Gospels and with the mind of the Church

 

[vern_humphrey]

Important points to remember when reading Paul:

1. you are reading someone else’s mail. You are not aware of everything that transpired between Paul and his audience before the letter was written - or after
2. They were written with many things assumed, the common assumptions of his age and culture, common modes of expression and word use - we are not aware of all these things
3. you are not reading Paul’s full teaching. You are frequently only reading the corrective Paul was providing to his communities as they strayed. His previous in-person teaching is assumed and usually not included in the letters. We don’t fully understand the issues he was addressing

So, it is best to read Paul in light of the Gospels and with the mind of the Church

As opposed to reading Paul in the light of Political Correctness and with the mind of current social trends.

 

[guanophore]

Important points to remember when reading Paul:

1. you are reading someone else’s mail. You are not aware of everything that transpired between Paul and his audience before the letter was written - or after
2. They were written with many things assumed, the common assumptions of his age and culture, common modes of expression and word use - we are not aware of all these things
3. you are not reading Paul’s full teaching. You are frequently only reading the corrective Paul was providing to his communities as they strayed. His previous in-person teaching is assumed and usually not included in the letters. We don’t fully understand the issues he was addressing

So, it is best to read Paul in light of the Gospels and with the mind of the Church

This is a very good point. Paul was writing to them after he had learned that there was rampant sexual immorality going on, and of course was correcting. In Corinth, they never had a Jewish background for understanding the meaning of marriage. Polygamy was still practiced, there were Temples with prostitutes, and other Greek/Roman practices (homosexuality) that were issues peculiar to the culture.

 

[utunumsint]

She repeatedly summarized her teaching segments with “The Church still has a long way to go” and “It is our role as married people to teach the Church the holiness of our vocation”, and empasized “his interpretation” (St. Paul) and “The Church’s intepretation” of married sexuality. **She made no mention once of JPII or his Theology of the Body. **

The part I bolded makes me think she is either ignoring JPII’s teachings, or ignorant of them. In either case, she is clearly not addressing a very important piece of the puzzel. JPII’s theology of the body provides an anthropological fleshing out of the church’s teachings as articulated in Humane Vitae.

You might want to suggest an alternative source of teaching matterial. Maybe something from Christopher West.

God bless,
Ut

 

[setter]

Important points to remember when reading Paul:

1. you are reading someone else’s mail. You are not aware of everything that transpired between Paul and his audience before the letter was written - or after
2. They were written with many things assumed, the common assumptions of his age and culture, common modes of expression and word use - we are not aware of all these things
3. you are not reading Paul’s full teaching. You are frequently only reading the corrective Paul was providing to his communities as they strayed. His previous in-person teaching is assumed and usually not included in the letters. We don’t fully understand the issues he was addressing

So, it is best to read Paul in light of the Gospels and with the mind of the Church

Thank you for helping to consider the context of the verse that Dr. Chesto was using as her sole reference for why the Church needs to get a healthier understanding of sacramental sexuality.

I always get suspicous when a gray head woman (Dr. Chesto) is scolding and correcting the Church in a dismissive and condescending voice tone and gestures.

 

[setter]

Important points to remember when reading Paul:

So, it is best to read Paul in light of the Gospels and with the mind of the Church

Follow up question: Did the early Church rely largely on St. Paul’s writings to determine the norms for the meaning and purpose of human sexuality and married love?

 

[setter]

The part I bolded makes me think she is either ignoring JPII’s teachings, or ignorant of them.

As a gray haired PhD specializing in religious education, family life, and spirituality (I googled her bio), she must have ignored or rejected the competing premise of JPII’s writings on married love and human sexuality.

In either case, she is clearly not addressing a very important piece of the puzzel. JPII’s theology of the body provides an anthropological fleshing out of the church’s teachings as articulated in Humane Vitae.

Agreed …this is the teaching Church, and not her or the laity teaching the Church, for goodness sake!

You might want to suggest an alternative source of teaching matterial. Maybe something from Christopher West.

God bless,
Ut

You can search my other related threads, but many of those more established and with greater positions of influence in the ministry team (all gray heads) have openly warned against and expunged any reference to Christopher West’s material as “judgmental” and “unhealthy” in his interpertation and presentation of JPII’s TOB – but they offer no alternative sources, nor have they actually listened to CW’s material or read JPII’s TOB …a real head banger.

 

[utunumsint]

As a gray haired PhD specializing in religious education, family life, and spirituality (I googled her bio), she must have ignored or rejected the competing premise of JPII’s writings on married love and human sexuality.

Agreed …this is the teaching Church, and not her or the laity teaching the Church, for goodness sake!

You can search my other related threads, but many of those more established and with greater positions of influence in the ministry team (all gray heads) have openly warned against and expunged any reference to Christopher West’s material as “judgmental” and “unhealthy” in his interpretation and presentation of JPII’s TOB – but they offer no alternative sources, nor have they actually listened to CW’s material or read JPII’s TOB …a real head banger.

Sounds like a generational problem that will (hopefully) right itself with the next generation (ours). They came from an era, where they were probably told, and expected that the church would reverse its teachings on human sexuality and liberalize everything (birth control, abortion, etc…). Apparently they still hold onto that belief.

On the other hand, CW is not above critique. I find he peppers a great deal of personal theories and interpretations along with JPII’s TOB, sometimes making it hard to distinguish what comes from him and what comes from the Holy Father. Although, to be fair, he usually tells everyone when he is theorizing.

As for an alternative “popular” popularizer of JPII’s TOB, I really can’t think of anyone either. JPII’s TOB is really something quite new on the scene (relatively speaking). The church and the laity as a whole still need to digest it. But as CW and others have pointed out, it is really a groundbreaking development in the church’s teachings that will have profound effects on generations to come…unlike our friend Dr. Chesto.

Maybe you could suggest a study of the Pope’s Love and Responsibility, or some kind of study guide, if such a thing exists. I have read the book, and I thought it very good. I found an article on the book that may help. I’m sure there are other such articles that could be tailored to your use.

God bless, and good luck.
Ut

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The marriage preparation ministry team that I work with are all warmly endorsing and circulating the DVD presentation by Dr. Kathleen O. Chesto “The Sacrament of Matrimony: Past, Present, Future”.

In her teaching talk, Dr. Chesto cites 1 Corinthians 7: 8 as the all inclusive way to understand St. Paul’s view of sexuality as distorted and the pervasive effect that his view had on the first millenium and beyond on the Church’s one sided view (procreative) of human sexuality and married love.

Here is a specific excerpt of what Dr. Chesto stated in her DVD teaching talk:

“Paul taught that the only reason to marry was to control sexual desire, even though his view had been shaped by his own celibacy and his belief that he was living in the end times when Jesus was coming soon. It was still his view (strongly enuciated) that shaped the Church’s teaching on marriage …that marriage was necessary and good, but that sex was basically sinful”.

She repeatedly summarized her teaching segments with “The Church still has a long way to go” and “It is our role as married people to teach the Church the holiness of our vocation”, and empasized “his interpretation” (St. Paul) and “The Church’s intepretation” of married sexuality. She made no mention once of JPII or his Theology of the Body.

Her teaching talk came across as negative toward the Church heirachy and I believe this negative tone can only be counter productive in reaching the often unchurched young adult engaged couples that we work with.

So, is this Dr. Chesto accurate in that St. Paul (and the Church) has a skewed, unbalanced and unhealthy view of sacramental sexuality?

No,St. Paul did not. And no one who disses him is worth a minutes’ notice.​

 

[Ron_Conte]

All of Sacred Scripture is Christ speaking to us.

The claim that Paul’s words in Scripture contain errors on faith or morals is the same as claiming that the Holy Spirit is teaching falsehoods to the Church. Certainly, any passage of Scripture needs to be interpreted as a part of the whole Faith. But anyone who dismisses any passage as being contrary to truth, salvation, faith, and morals is someone whom we should all dismiss as contrary to the same.

 

[THurifer2]

I was forced to watch an old Kathleen chesto video for a class a few years ago…after ripping the sacrament of confession…She ended her video by saying, “…but there is hope…perhaps the church will finally get it right…”

When she said that I spit coffee out my nose.