History of Christian sexual morality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious_Hobbit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Curious_Hobbit

Guest
I always assumed that the church’s views on homosexuality, contraception, monogamy, masturbation, etc. have been explicitly defined since the early days. I thought it was safe to say that the church’s teachings on these things had been consistent from day 1. I recently watched a program on the History channel (not the most pro christian organization) about Christian sexuality which basically asserted that the sexual ethics of the church were inconsistent. I also read an article recently too.
fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html

The history channel basically asserted that sexual morality wasn’t clear and not until the 6th century with a book called “The Penitentials”, did the churches sexual ethics begin to take form. Among many things, the program said that Charlemagne had several wives and several mistresses and this was perfectly fine for a man of great stature at the time.

Here is a quote from that article I read.
“As late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there appears to be no conflict between a Christian life and homosexuality. Gay life is everywhere in the art, poetry, music, history, etc. of the 11th and 12th centuries. The most popular literature of the day even heterosexual literature, is about same¬sex lovers of one sort or another. Clerics were at the forefront of this revival of the gay culture. St. Aelred, for instance, writes of his youth as a time when he thought of nothing but loving and being loved by men.”

What are we to make of these things? I know the early church fathers had much to say about marriage, contraception, etc. so I don’t know why the program didn’t mention them. The program also claimed that St. Augustine considered marriage as second class, abstinence being the most Christian and respectable. I’ve read Augustine’s Confessions so I know that the view they presented of him is a bit of a straw man.

Can someone clear some of this up for me? Can someone refer me to a Christian historical perspective? Would these things be considered “development of doctrine”? I’m a little confused. Thanks!
 
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9
2 3 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
10
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11
That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality was never accepted. Neither have things like adultery or fornication. Contraception is a relatively new idea, and masturbation isn’t specifically mentioned in the Bible, but it is implied that it is wrong based on what is revealed about God’s character. Monogamy is the only way since you aren’t supposed to have sex before marriage or cheat on your spouse: that means you should only sleep with your married partner and no one else, until one of you dies and the live person re-marries.

There are some people who are desperately trying to re-write history in order to make it more friendly to modern-day liberal views. But the documentation is there. There are writings from many people in both religious and secular sources that will reveal the truth. Some things were believed for a long time but not defined until much later. Don’t let the liberal media brainwash you.
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
I always assumed that the church’s views on homosexuality, contraception, monogamy, masturbation, etc. have been explicitly defined since the early days. I thought it was safe to say that the church’s teachings on these things had been consistent from day 1. I recently watched a program on the History channel (not the most pro christian organization) about Christian sexuality which basically asserted that the sexual ethics of the church were inconsistent. I also read an article recently too.
fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html

The history channel basically asserted that sexual morality wasn’t clear and not until the 6th century with a book called “The Penitentials”, did the churches sexual ethics begin to take form. Among many things, the program said that Charlemagne had several wives and several mistresses and this was perfectly fine for a man of great stature at the time.

Here is a quote from that article I read.
“As late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there appears to be no conflict between a Christian life and homosexuality. Gay life is everywhere in the art, poetry, music, history, etc. of the 11th and 12th centuries. The most popular literature of the day even heterosexual literature, is about same¬sex lovers of one sort or another. Clerics were at the forefront of this revival of the gay culture. St. Aelred, for instance, writes of his youth as a time when he thought of nothing but loving and being loved by men.”

What are we to make of these things? I know the early church fathers had much to say about marriage, contraception, etc. so I don’t know why the program didn’t mention them. The program also claimed that St. Augustine considered marriage as second class, abstinence being the most Christian and respectable. I’ve read Augustine’s Confessions so I know that the view they presented of him is a bit of a straw man.

Can someone clear some of this up for me? Can someone refer me to a Christian historical perspective? Would these things be considered “development of doctrine”? I’m a little confused. Thanks!
Click to expand...
History Channel…has done some good things…and others that would require a change in the name of the channel.

Starting from Scripture (like Paul…) through the early Church Fathers…up to today…things like adultery, homosexual practice and “life”, fornication, contraception, lust and other sexual morality has been the same…yes there can be development of doctrine…where things are more deeply understood etc or new aspects seen etc…but for example “homosexual practice” has been seen as sinful from the get-go…
 
stephe1987 said:
Contraception is a relatively new idea.
Click to expand...
Actually not…it was condemned in scripture…onwards…in the early writings of the Church etc…(now some forms did not “work so good” …such “herbs and potions etc” but such was condemned non the less)
 
The History Channel rarely allows for a Catholic viewpoint unless we are being depicted as the butt end of an ***.

I watched that program and then did a google search on one of the professors I continually see on their channel. That particular professor was / is a member of the Jesus Seminars.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

The History Channel, time and again shows itself to be anti-biblical to increase controversy and viewership and anti-Catholic in their treatment of issues.
 
stephe1987 said:
Homosexuality was never accepted. Neither have things like adultery or fornication. Contraception is a relatively new idea, and masturbation isn’t specifically mentioned in the Bible, but it is implied that it is wrong based on what is revealed about God’s character. Monogamy is the only way since you aren’t supposed to have sex before marriage or cheat on your spouse: that means you should only sleep with your married partner and no one else, until one of you dies and the live person re-marries.

There are some people who are desperately trying to re-write history in order to make it more friendly to modern-day liberal views. But the documentation is there. There are writings from many people in both religious and secular sources that will reveal the truth. Some things were believed for a long time but not defined until much later. Don’t let the liberal media brainwash you.
Click to expand...
In this article, the author says this:

“We do, however, find three places*-I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:26*27**which might be relevant. Again, I’ll be brief in dealing with these. The Greek word malakos in I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1 :10, which Scholars in the 20th century have deemed to refer to some sort of homosexual behavior, was universally used by Christian writers to refer to masturbation until about the 15th or 16th century. Beginning in the 15th century many people were bothered by the idea that masturbators were excluded from the kingdom of heaven. They did not, however, seem to be too upset by the idea of excluding homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven, so malakos was retranslated to refer to homosexuality instead of masturbation. The texts and words remained the same, but translators just changed their ideas about who should be excluded from the kingdom of heaven”

Do you know if any of this is true? I’m just playing devil’s advocate here so I can try to learn more. Also I agree with Bookcat, the issue of contraception was discussed by the early church fathers and the act of Onan in Genesis is the scriptural basis I think.

I’m interested in the issue about Charlemagne. The program said he had many wives and many mistresses and this was not unusual because the doctrine of marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman for a life time was not yet clearly defined. I’m just wondering if this is true or if there are some details being left out.
 
The Charlemagne issue interests me because I came across something in Aquinas that seemed to hint that life time commitment in marriage wasn’t absolutely necessary. Here’s a passage from Aquinas that caught my attention.

I answer that, Without any doubt we must hold simple fornication to be a mortal sin, notwithstanding that a gloss [St. Augustine, QQ. in Deut., qu. 37 on Dt. 23:17, says: “This is a prohibition against going with whores, whose vileness is venial.” For instead of “venial” it should be “venal,” since such is the wanton’s trade. On order to make this evident, we must take note that every sin committed directly against human life is a mortal sin. Now simple fornication implies an inordinateness that tends to injure the life of the offspring to be born of this union. For we find in all animals where the upbringing of the offspring needs care of both male and female, that these come together not indeterminately, but the male with a certain female, whether one or several; such is the case with all birds: while, on the other hand, among those animals, where the female alone suffices for the offspring’s upbringing, the union is indeterminate, as in the case of dogs and like animals. Now it is evident that the upbringing of a human child requires not only the mother’s care for his nourishment, but much more the care of his father as guide and guardian, and under whom he progresses in goods both internal and external.** Hence human nature rebels against an indeterminate union of the sexes and demands that a man should be united to a determinate woman and should abide with her a long time or even for a whole lifetime. Hence it is that in the human race the male has a natural solicitude for the certainty of offspring, because on him devolves the upbringing of the child: and this certainly would cease if the union of sexes were indeterminate.

The fact that he says “long time or even for a life time” concerns me because it sounds like he is suggesting that a lifetime commitment isn’t absolutely necessary. I think that he might just mean that from this particular analysis of marriage from a natural law perspective, the Christian marriage of a lifetime commitment is defensible. What are your thoughts?
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
In this article, the author says this:

“We do, however, find three places*-I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:26*27**which might be relevant. Again, I’ll be brief in dealing with these. The Greek word malakos in I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1 :10, which Scholars in the 20th century have deemed to refer to some sort of homosexual behavior, was universally used by Christian writers to refer to masturbation until about the 15th or 16th century. Beginning in the 15th century many people were bothered by the idea that masturbators were excluded from the kingdom of heaven. They did not, however, seem to be too upset by the idea of excluding homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven, so malakos was retranslated to refer to homosexuality instead of masturbation. The texts and words remained the same, but translators just changed their ideas about who should be excluded from the kingdom of heaven”

Do you know if any of this is true? I’m just playing devil’s advocate here so I can try to learn more. Also I agree with Bookcat, the issue of contraception was discussed by the early church fathers and the act of Onan in Genesis is the scriptural basis I think.

I’m interested in the issue about Charlemagne. The program said he had many wives and many mistresses and this was not unusual because the doctrine of marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman for a life time was not yet clearly defined. I’m just wondering if this is true or if there are some details being left out.
Click to expand...
Just simply “consider the source”. The author of the article is obviously not a good source for good “exegesis”…

I would not waste my time on this 🙂

Jesus very clearly talks about marriage being between one man and one woman…and Paul very clearly speaks of homosexual sinfulness as excluding (along with other mortal sins) one from the kingdom of heaven (obviously one could repent etc…)

The Church is clear…and was clear about sexual matters…it was one of the very things that made the Early Christians stand out in their contemporary society (and it does today too…)

(and do not worry…St. Thomas was not supporting divorce or temp marriages…he just lays out his arguements…bit by bit)
 
Well thank you for the advice! It’s good to hear a fellow Catholic feel confident about these things.I always try to find opposing view points historically and philosophically to try and learn.
 
stephe1987 said:
Contraception is a relatively new idea
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. Attempting to have sex without responsibility has been around for a long time and is documented in the Bible with the sin of Onan.

All other manner of lewd behaviour also appears to have been around for quite some time, with plenty of Biblical references.

Plus que ça change… we’ve been a fallen species since Adam and Eve, only the technology has let us sin more efficiently.
 
**Mt 19:13-14 ***“Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked them, but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” *
Onan is a good reference for contraception, but I like the dual meaning of the above passage…
Curious_Hobbit said:
I’m interested in the issue about Charlemagne. The program said he had many wives and many mistresses and this was not unusual because the doctrine of marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman for a life time was not yet clearly defined. I’m just wondering if this is true or if there are some details being left out.
Click to expand...
*Mk 10: 5-9 But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation,
God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate. *

This passage does not mention three, four, five or greater. In order to add wives you would have to seperate the husband from the current wife, which this passage clearly prohibits. The two are now one… pretty clear that per Christ, God’s intent since Adam and Eve was a pair that he made male and female.
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
In this article, the author says this:

“We do, however, find three places*-I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:26*27**which might be relevant. Again, I’ll be brief in dealing with these. The Greek word malakos in I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1 :10, which Scholars in the 20th century have deemed to refer to some sort of homosexual behavior, was universally used by Christian writers to refer to masturbation until about the 15th or 16th century. Beginning in the 15th century many people were bothered by the idea that masturbators were excluded from the kingdom of heaven. They did not, however, seem to be too upset by the idea of excluding homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven, so malakos was retranslated to refer to homosexuality instead of masturbation. The texts and words remained the same, but translators just changed their ideas about who should be excluded from the kingdom of heaven”
Click to expand...
Wow, I’ve never heard this before; this is interesting! Romans 1:27 clearly can only refer to homosexual acts, but if the other passages originally meant masturbation, that would be an exegetical breakthrough! My hunch is that the word has a dual meaning, since masturbation is really a kind of homosexuality and vice versa.
 
Lev 18:22

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Lev 20:13

13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Jude 7

7 Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Rom 1:26-27

26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

1 Cor 6:9-10

9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law,
9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
10 the unchaste, sodomites, 5 kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
The history channel basically asserted that sexual morality wasn’t clear and not until the 6th century with a book called “The Penitentials”, did the churches sexual ethics begin to take form. Among many things, the program said that Charlemagne had several wives and several mistresses and this was perfectly fine for a man of great stature at the time.
Click to expand...
This happened a lot but that didn’t mean that the Church condoned it.
Here is a quote from that article I read.
“As late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there appears to be no conflict between a Christian life and homosexuality. Gay life is everywhere in the art, poetry, music, history, etc. of the 11th and 12th centuries. The most popular literature of the day even heterosexual literature, is about same¬sex lovers of one sort or another. Clerics were at the forefront of this revival of the gay culture. St. Aelred, for instance, writes of his youth as a time when he thought of nothing but loving and being loved by men.”
Click to expand...
I’d really like to know where they get this silliness from. Where is the actual evidence? They only refer to St. Aelred (or is it Alfred) but they probably took that all out of context. I studied Medieval history and I have seen NOTHING in the art, poetry, music, etc that would indicate a rise in “gay” culture on the scale that we see today. Again, where is the actual evidence for it? I am so tired of these revisionists pull this kind of stuff. Sadly, too many people believe it because it comes from an “academic”.
What are we to make of these things? I know the early church fathers had much to say about marriage, contraception, etc. so I don’t know why the program didn’t mention them.
Click to expand...
They wouldn’t want to because then it would take any legitimacy out of their argument for a more wanton attitude toward deviant sexuality. Granted, the Middle Ages were not prudish. They definitely weren’t pre-Victorians and the men’s clothing in some parts of Europe were scantily clad but that still didn’t mean that there were rampant homosexuals that flaunted themselves. Of course there were homosexuals but it wasn’t condoned by the Church nor in the general public.
The program also claimed that St. Augustine considered marriage as second class, abstinence being the most Christian and respectable. I’ve read Augustine’s Confessions so I know that the view they presented of him is a bit of a straw man.
Click to expand...
This was a view that some of the saints held. In fact it is the case that the Church holds celibacy in great esteem but the Church isn’t against marriage nor is it considered second class. Remember that it is a sacrament.
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
I always assumed that the church’s views on homosexuality, contraception, monogamy, masturbation, etc. have been explicitly defined since the early days. I thought it was safe to say that the church’s teachings on these things had been consistent from day 1. I recently watched a program on the History channel (not the most pro christian organization) about Christian sexuality which basically asserted that the sexual ethics of the church were inconsistent. I also read an article recently too.
fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html

The history channel basically asserted that sexual morality wasn’t clear and not until the 6th century with a book called “The Penitentials”, did the churches sexual ethics begin to take form. Among many things, the program said that Charlemagne had several wives and several mistresses and this was perfectly fine for a man of great stature at the time.

Here is a quote from that article I read.
“As late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there appears to be no conflict between a Christian life and homosexuality. Gay life is everywhere in the art, poetry, music, history, etc. of the 11th and 12th centuries. The most popular literature of the day even heterosexual literature, is about same¬sex lovers of one sort or another. Clerics were at the forefront of this revival of the gay culture. St. Aelred, for instance, writes of his youth as a time when he thought of nothing but loving and being loved by men.”

What are we to make of these things? I know the early church fathers had much to say about marriage, contraception, etc. so I don’t know why the program didn’t mention them. The program also claimed that St. Augustine considered marriage as second class, abstinence being the most Christian and respectable. I’ve read Augustine’s Confessions so I know that the view they presented of him is a bit of a straw man.

Can someone clear some of this up for me? Can someone refer me to a Christian historical perspective? Would these things be considered “development of doctrine”? I’m a little confused. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I can believe that the Church Fathers had a low view of marriage. After all, the early Christians seemed to think that Jesus was coming back soon.

But they were hardly tolerant of things like homosexuality.
 
Well, from what I understand, the Church has taught that things like contraception, abortion, and homosexual acts are sinful from the beginning. Here are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers which make this clear:

Contraception

“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]). - Clement of Alexandria

“[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]). - Hippolytus

“They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption” (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]). - Epiphanius of Salamis

Abortion

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (*Didache *2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

“The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (*Letter of Barnabas *19 [A.D. 74]).

“What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it” (*A Plea for the Christians *35 [A.D. 177]). - Athenagoras

Homosexual Acts

“Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them” (ibid., 1:9). 3rd Century AD - Cyprian of Carthage

“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]). - Eusebius of Caesarea

“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]). - Augustine
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top