Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Relationships:
The Gospels:
• Jesus has little to say about marriage in
the gospels. When he is asked about
divorce however he makes it clear that the
‘one flesh’ idea of Genesis underpins his
own (Matt 19). He makes clear that he
sees God’s hand the institution of
marriage, and perhaps removes the
relationship from the idea of a ‘property
owning arrangement’ that was common at
this time.
• Jesus also takes a dim view of divorce
and says that it is either impossible (Mark)
or permissible only in the matter of
adultery
(Matthew).
• Jesus
chose to
perform his first miracle at the wedding at Cana
in Galilee; this shows support for the institution.
St. Paul:
• St Paul was a Pharisee before he became a
Christian and some of his thinking about
marriage and sex is based in this background.
He inherited many ideas that the Jews were a
chosen people and were called by God to
distinguish themselves using (amongst other
things) the Holiness Code, as shown in the
book of Leviticus. This makes many forms of
sexual expression (often associated with the
worship of other fertility religions) off limits – prostitution, adultery,
homosexuality, bestiality etc.
• Paul had similar ideas about Christians – those who had chosen to be saved
by Christ’s sacrifice and accept salvation (given freely by grace) should
distinguish themselves by their ‘whiter than white’ sexual behaviour. As soon
as one becomes ‘in Christ’ one’s behaviour should be such that it does not
unite Christ with sin: therefore Paul forbids adultery and visits to prostitutes for
Christians.
• There is also the key point that he considered that the Parousia was imminent
and therefore people should be focused on preparing themselves for Second
Coming rather than the complication of being involved in a marriage
relationship.
• However St Paul does accept that people do have sexual passions and so
should ‘rather marry than burn’ (with passion) and so have a legitimate outlet
for these rather than fornicating. This is a rather dim view of married life – the
ideal is for celibacy and it is only for human weakness that marriage is to be
tolerated.
• Inside marriage the partners have a duty to one another – sex is associated
with sin and marriage is a way of containing this sinful possibility each partner
should give the other the means to relieve their sexual tensions so that they
can then concentrate on more important spiritual matters.
• Married life is however a forum where one can, ‘live unto the Lord’ and so a
Christian man should take a wife ‘in holiness and honour not in the passion of
lust like the heathen that do not know God.” (1 Thess 4:4-5)
Sexual Asceticism:
Early Christianity
• Despite Paul’s guarded blessing, early Christianity
regarded marriage with suspicion and in fact advocated
celibacy within marriage- unless procreation was
necessary. Some church fathers went so far as to claim
that true Christians did not feel sexual desire at all.
• This idea may have its view in the non-Christian ideas of
the Stoic philosophers. These argued that rulers should
rise above bodily desires and only have sex for the ‘sake of the city’ –
procreation only, since this was one way that one could have ‘self mastery.’
• Justin Martyr (a Stoic convert to Christianity) commended the faith to others
on these grounds, as containing the best of Graeco-Roman culture as well as
the ethical basis of Judaism. As a result monasticism and priestly celibacy
became common and it was even considered a guide to how holy one had
become by the lack of erotic dreams: “Tread under our foot the ghostly foe,
That no pollution we may know.” (Compline Prayer)
St Augustine:
a) Procreation of children
b) To ensure faithfulness between
husband and wife.
c) To be a SACRAMENT as a means by
which God’s grace can overcome sin
and ‘order’ or control the sexual urge.
Aquinas
Aquinas echoed many of Augustine’s views but placed less emphasis ion the idea of
containing sin and extended the natural law argument – claiming that the central
purpose of marriage lies in procreation and providing a stable environment to bring
up the children. Children need to be instructed by a man if they are to grow up well:
Now a woman alone is not adequate to this task; rather, this demands the work of a
husband, in whom reason is more developed for giving instruction and strength is
more available for giving punishment .. Hence, since among all animals it is
necessary for the male and female to remain together as the work of the father is
needed by the offspring, it is natural to the human being for the man to establish a
lasting association with a designated woman, over no short period of time. No, we
call this society matrimony. Therefore matrimony is natural for man, and promiscuous
performance of the sexual act, outside matrimony is contrary to a man’s good. For
this reason it must be a sin.
This is reflected in the way that, for example, in the UK it was within law for a
husband to use moderate force to chastise his wife until 1891. He does, however,
also have duties towards her in that natural justice demands that she should be
cared for until death, as with no more child-bearing years in her, Aquinas argues that
no one else would want her. Therefore God meant for humans to form partnerships
to allow procreation without sin and a stable family environment. Richard Dawkins,
among others, would argue with this out-dated type of biology being used as the
basis for moral strictures of this kind.
1) Canon law:
In medieval times the institution of marriage became central to society. This was the
time of Christendom – when the church was held to be the central authority in Europe
and its law makers (e.g., Peter Lombard) were interested in how they were to deal
with the problems that people had in marriages. For this reason the idea of the
‘conjugal debt’ was expanded – sex was a duty for each of the partners to keep the
other from sin, abstinence was now a legal obligation.
2) Courtly Love:
Lyrical poetry of this time enshrined this type of yearning affection between a man
and an unattainable upper class woman and became a paradigm for how people felt
relationships should be run. This raised the autonomy women and is the basis of the
idea of romantic love celebrated today.
3) The Reformation
Protestants rejected the principle of clerical celibacy and this led to re-evaluation of
marriage. Thomas Cramner (archbishop of the CofE) wrote a new marriage service
which stressed that mutual companionship was one of the reasons for getting
married. This was the first time that this had been acknowledged by Christianity.
1. Psychology: Freud
and many others
have shown that
sex is not simply a
biological matter
and a healthy
attitude to sexual
relationships,
especially what
one is taught about such things will seriously
affect one’s mental health in later life.
2. Life expectancy and contraception: Since the
Victorian age the world’s population has
increased dramatically, as has life expectancy.
This meant that smaller families became the
norm in western
countries, this
was a result of
abstinence and
coitus interruptus
initially, however
as contraception became more and more effective
churches had to deal with the fact that their members were using such
methods to enjoy sex for pleasure. All churches initially banned these methods
(e.g. CofE stated this in 1908) but eventually gave these methods their
blessing (CofE approved this officially in 1932, and again more emphatically in
1958 stating that the size of the family was firmly up to the conscience of the
Christian couple).
3. Since this uncoupling of the link
between sex and marriage by
means of efficient contraception
led to a different understanding of
the purpose of marriage that built
on previous understandings: In the
preface to the marriage service it
is made clear that there are 3 main
purposes to marriage now-
children, companionship and
unitive sex. It is considered the
right relationship for sexual
relations to take place and this
intimacy is said to be good in that
it draws together the couple and strengthens their relationship.
4. This key development in the Protestant churches has led inevitably to the
current debates about the permissibility of same sex relationships and sexual
expression between persons within exclusive and loving relationships not
formalised in marriage.
Therefore there are various rules that are imposed on personal relationships by the
institution of Christian marriage. It is a contract that is made between three parties –
the couple and God, it is intended to help people grow close together and form stable
families. The promises they make to God and to one another are to a permanent and
exclusive relationship. The penalties for breaking these promises are to sin against
God and to hurt each other. Divorce is therefore a difficult subject – especially if one
takes the view that marriage is a sacrament by which God has made the couple
become ‘one flesh’ – as Roman Catholics do.
They can therefore not allow a divorce to take place.
The nearest equivalent is an annulment- this is where
the marriage is declared to have been void since there
was (at least one of 12) impediments to its validity as a
marriage. These are: if man was not at least16 and
wife not at least 14, if either is impotent, if either is
already married, if one has not been baptized, if either
has previously made a vow of chastity, if either are in
holy orders, if either has been forced into the marriage,
if either has murdered their spouse in order to marry
again, if they are blood relations, if they are directly
related through the law, if the couple are living together
after an invalid marriage ceremony, if adopted children
(though unrelated) marry one another. If a Catholic
couple was to get a civil divorce they could not remarry
in church and run the risk of being excommunicated.
R Jones in Groundwork for Christian Ethics argues that these have often been used
as a convenient way to allow couples to divorce by the back door, whereas the
Catholic psychiatrist Jack Dominian takes a liberal view but
prefers the idea of annulment to divorce since he says that
the church should look more carefully into what the
minimum conditions are to call a relationship a marriage
and then to rule a marriage nullified if no such marriage
were to exist.
1) Christian marriages are not distinctive – they are not sacraments and do not
remove sin. Rather they are simply where a man and woman make promises
to one another about their future fidelity and desire to have children.
2) Marriage is not exclusively Christian. Rather it is simply the name given to the
institutionalization of the natural human desire for couples to live together.
3) Marriage is a mystery or allegory of the relationship between Christ and his
Church. This is seen in the moment where the marriage is solemnized by the
priest giving the couple God’s blessing- from this point onwards they dedicate
themselves to one an other and another stage in their spiritual life, as
approved by God and try to live out their lives together with commitment and
dedication such as Christ has for the church.
Divorce is allowed on the basis of adultery (Based on Matt 5:32) but should not be
considered to be easy. Remarriage can be allowed for the party who was not
guilty in the previous marriage breakdown. The C of E follows a similar line and
has become more forgiving in their attitudes to remarriage in recent years- it is left
to the discretion of the parish priest as whether they wish to perform a second
marriage ceremony for that person.
Marxist views:
Frederick Engels (1820-1895) and Karl Marx (1818-1883) regarded the Victorian
model of a Christian marriage to be symptomatic of what was wrong with society.
They regarded it as a materialistic, possessive institution, driven by greed and
class considerations that continue to keep the structure of society in place and
thereby stop true freedom and revolution from taking place.
Critique of feminism
a) Lesbian Separitism:
Less radical feminists and non-feminists, on the other hand, insist that such a
posture is unnecessary and also limits women’s choices and denies even the
theoretical possibility of engaging in non-exploitative consensual heterosexual
activity. It portrays men as incapable by nature of anything other than oppression
and exploitation. The separatist view seems flawed because while it begins in a
general disparagement of the idea of an ahistorical human nature, it ends in
reliance upon just such a notion.
Utilitarianism:
This view, based usually on the ideas of J.S.Mill (1806-1873), looks to the
consequences of a marriage in order begin philosophizing about it. The terms of the
marriage/relationship are to be decided by the couple themselves as they, as rational
beings, are able to decide what they want to maximize their happiness in such a
relationship.
Open Marriages:
This idea claims that, provided there is honesty between the
partners then one can have a non-exclusive marriage
relationship where both partners can look outside the marriage
bed for sexual satisfaction. They argue that both partners will
be happier in that their needs are satisfied and they are treating
one another like adults in doing so, on another level their
relationship may be deepened from knowing that their long
term emotional needs are met by their life partner.
However, provided that there are liberal divorce laws, Russell still had high praise for
the institution, ‘I believe marriage to be the best and most important relation that can
exist between two human beings.’ You could say that Russell’s vision is increasingly
realized in secular society as it becomes more and more common to marry more
than once in life and conduct a series of sexual relationships without any intention of
marriage. Russell says that from a
humanist position such an attitude
does not undermine the institution of
marriage but accepts that the
happiness of the individual needs
freedom to adapt and change to new
circumstances in life.