Part-Time Pundit

Let’s Talk About Sex II: Christianity, Sex, and Love

Disclaimer: This is yet another draft. It’s generally written from the Catholic perspective, but likely matches up with various orthodox Christian interpretations. All comments are appreciated; all errors are mine. To be fair, I’m less than happy with this and it need more work, I’m not sure I really said what I set out to say.

Two recent articles have motivated me to finally write this. The first is the Dawn Patrol’s report on the Planned Barrenhood key chains and the second is Planned Barrenhood’s discussion on the difference between their view of sex and the “absolutist” (read as Christian) view of sex. This is typical of the certain sectors of liberal sex ideology to say that Christian’s hate sex and they are celebrating life and love and all that is light with sex. The problems with this are that (1) it wildly misrepresents the Christian view of sex and (2) they really don’t believe their own statements on sex as a celebration.

Below is how they show the differences between the views of sex:

Fixed (F) or Absolutist World View vs. Relativist (R) World View:

F. Sexuality is basically animal passion and lust, genital, and must be controlled.
R. Sexuality is a natural and positive life force with both sensual and spiritual aspects.

F. The main goal of sex is marriage and reproduction.
R. Sex does not have to be confined to marriage; pleasure, love, and celebration are goals in themselves.

F. Sex is only acceptable in heterosexual marriages.
R. Tolerance or acceptance of same-gender relationships.

F. Masturbation, oral sex, same-gender relationships, and contraception all thwart God’s purposes for sex and are forbidden.
R. God’s purpose for sex is to celebrate life; masturbation, oral sex, and same-gender relationships can express the celebratory and communion nature of sex.

F. Strict gender roles in relationships with male active and superior.
R. Flexible, egalitarian gender roles.

F. Emphasis on sex as genitality and on genital acts.
R. Emphasis on people and their relationships rather than on what they do genitally.

In several of these cases it is my belief that they have it backwards. They attribute their own beliefs onto Christianity in this straw-man attempt to justify their brand of sexual ethics. For instance, the focus on sex as genitality is certainly no Christian position, nor is the idea that sex is animal passion and lust. It wasn’t a Christian band that came up with the lyrics, “You and me ain’t nothing but mammals so let’s do it like the do it on the Discovery Channel.” (It’s from the Bloodhound Gang in an album called “Hooray for Boobies”).

Going into bookstores lately I’ve noticed something about this brand of liberal sexual ethics. They say that sex is spiritual, emotional, communal (skipping past the interesting yet unconvincing theory that masturbation is a communal celebration), etc, but the books and content they put out on the subject focuses purely on the physical. There is book after book, article after article, teaching readers about the latest position or technique to make your partner crazy. For an ideology that claims to say that it recognizes the spiritual and emotional components of sex it certainly seems to talk about nothing else but the physical. In any store remotely identifying itself as Christian you won’t find collections of sex toys for purchase. There’s a good reason. If you have to resort to power tools and contortionism to enjoy sex, you aren’t doing it right. For an ideology that is always searching and striving for the ultimate orgasm, they’ve never been less sexually fulfilled.

The point of contention at its deepest level is really a disagreement about love. Christians have one view; the liberal sexual ideology crowd has another. When Christians talk about love, they talk about a relationship between people first and foremost. That is why in Christian relationships, courting and getting to know one another takes place before sex (ideally). In the other camp, love is about sex first and foremost. That is why they generally have sex before any real relationship exists (i.e. one-night stands). In the September 2005 issue of Foreign Policy magazine, economist Jacques Attali predicts the death of monogamy because “at long last, we will recognize that it is human to love different people at the same time.” What he means is sex. If society is so ready to disregard monogamy why is infidelity still such a large cause of the many divorces we see? When Christians talk about loving many people it doesn’t require or necessitate sexual relations with those people.

Enough of talking about what other people think about sex, the point here is to talk about what Christianity says about sex, and love in general. If you ask about anyone what is the most intimate sign of love (particularly romantic love) you will almost universally get sex as a response. Ask people what would be the most intimate sign of love between married people; you’ll likely get the same answer. So the first question to answer is what is love; particularly romantic love.

As Christians, our example is obviously Jesus Christ. I brief synopsis of Jesus’ saving work can be put this way: In the fullness of Time, God the Father gave His only Son, who in turn, gave up His life on the cross for us. The love of Jesus can be seen by what he does for us and what he gives us. Jesus doesn’t show His love by allowing us to give something to Him; he initiates the relationship by His gift. This brand of love is characterized first and foremost by giving.

The state of mankind when He died on the Cross wasn’t particularly swell. The Jews repudiated Him, His apostles deserted Him, and He was put to death like a criminal. Jesus’ gift of salvation comes to us in our sin. In other words, Jesus’ love is unconditional. This brand of love is characterized by it being unconditional.

This is a good description of love in general; however that doesn’t clarify romantic love specifically. For that we can turn to the much maligned Ephesians 5. In turn it talks about marriage from the perspective of the wife and the husband. Wives are to give obedience to their husbands. Husbands are to give their lives up for their wives. There is no discussion on the conditions for that (aside of an implied valid marriage) just that it should be done. Likewise, it’s a gift.

This is also illustrated in the typical wedding vows of Catholic (and I imagine most Christian) weddings. Phrases like “for richer or for poorer”, “in sickness and in health”, “til death do us part” all can be summarized like this. I will love you and be your spouse no matter what conditions arise until one of us dies. Marital love is unconditional.

The most beautiful expression of this is the expression used both in Genesis and Ephesians to describe marriage, “the two shall become one flesh”. To be more accurate and not allow ourselves to be hamstrung by the English translation, it isn’t a physical unity that is being referred to but a complete union, body, soul, mind, and heart. In short, the union is complete. Marriage is something that is more than just a physical reality as illustrated by the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes it as the highest form of spirituality, a Sacrament.

Sacraments, in order to be valid require correct form and correct matter. This is of particular interest to the point because of the form and matter of the Sacrament of Marriage. The form is the free consent to marriage as an indissoluble union. The matter is the consummation of marriage, or sex. Not only does the Catholic Church no consider sex to be some base or animalistic instinct to be controlled, it is an essential component to the Sacrament and a highly spiritual act at that.

To follow the train of thought, the ultimate act of marriage is almost universally considered to be sex. As such, one would expect that sex should reflect the marital reality as a complete unconditional gift of love. At this point, this view of sex is totally irreconcilable with how it is presented by the liberal sexual ideology crowd. This view doesn’t restrict sex to the physical realm, nor dismiss the physical realm as something dirty to be discarded but it is an integration of the entire human person with the entire person of the spouse. This is a crude summary of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

As a final point, there are those of the liberal sexual persuasion who argue that sex is beautiful in special in the way they practice it. Something that is special is characterized by its rarity. My wife is special because she’s the only one of her kind; there is not another person that is her clone. When one sleeps with 10 people, 50 people, 100 people, can one say that those encounters are special? Is it still special when you can’t remember all their names? When you don’t call them anymore? How can something be beautiful when it is treated with the same regard as a handshake?

The drive to continue new and different forms of physical expression of sex tends to indicate a focus on that aspect. If sex is little more than assembly line love, of course one will get bored. When sex is a celebration of love, as it should be in the Christian sense, one doesn’t need to make weekly sojourns to the adult book store for a new toy. No one gets tired of being truly loved. That’s not to say that only the missionary position is permitted, but the focus on the “latest fad” in technique betrays something that ends up ignoring the other dimensions of sex and perhaps ends up being sex as a taking instead of a giving. Contraception converts an unconditional act of love to a conditional act (only if we can avoid children). Then of course, the random sexual encounters can’t be understood as love in any real sense.

As one final point, it certainly isn’t the Christian position that the only expression of marital love is sex exclusively. There are a myriad of general ways and even more ways specific to the couple where one can express love. Fostering those expressions which speak to the emotional (generally) dimensions of ourselves are what helps couples to feel connected and in love outside the bedroom, and quite frankly, to also feel those things inside the bedroom. No one wants to feel like merely a sexual object and without those other expressions of love, it very quickly begins to feel that way. The idea that sex should be the only way one expresses love does great harm to marriages.

It is only in the complete unconditional loving gift of self in the sexual act where one can truly experience the beauty and spirituality of sexuality. This is the orthodox Christian position, despite the claims to the contrary. Something special, sacred, and beautiful need not be shouted from the rooftops for all to hear but it’s high time that Christians speak up to counter this idea that we hate sex and think it is something base. It’s certainly high time that we counter this radical sexual liberation philosophy that has ended up so handicapping men and women that they no longer know how to relate to each other except genitally. It’s time to stop letting Planned Barrenhood have the only say in what sex is and what it should be.

January 13th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Pro-Life, Religion | 3 comments