Category: Sex And Society

Posted on

Open To Thinking: Gays and Justice in the Catholic Church

by Nick Patricca

cropped-794px-St_Marys_Abbey_Church_York.jpg

Why do so many gay people remain loyal to the Catholic Church?

A dear friend of mine who is a Catholic priest brought this question up during dinner when I was trying to decide upon a topic for my September op-ed in WCT. I have worked with and in Catholic organizations my whole life and it is stunningly obvious that LGBTQ persons have always been involved in the life, work and mission of these Catholic communities. Yet, I had never thought through the why’s and why-not’s of this fact.

My priest friend honed this question to a sharp point to prod my interest. I paraphrase him: ‘Without the gays and women and other groups routinely abused by the institutional Church—such as divorced people and couples who practice birth control and partners in non-church sanctioned marriages—our pews would be empty!’

I remembered how my mother had to suffer several bouts of cancer before the ‘Church’ would permit a hysterectomy, and how one of my aunts would not go to communion because she practiced birth control to protect her health and the well-being of her family. I remembered their steadfast work for their parish throughout their lives.

[Aside: I had another aunt who loudly scolded women who complied with destructive church rules: “Those are laws made by men not by God.” She also terrorized the pastor—a really good man—by sitting in the front pew directly under the pulpit with an old-fashioned alarm clock with large bells on either side which she boldly wound up and set to 10 minutes.]

My priest friend was not finished with me. Again I paraphrase him: ‘What about the arbitrary firing of gay people who have worked for years and years openly and successfully for Catholic institutions only to be told that they are no longer welcome and that they are not ‘good’ Catholics or worse ?’ He cited the case of J. Colin Collette who is suing on civil-rights grounds the Archdiocese of Chicago and Holy Family Catholic Community in Inverness for ‘wrongful and unlawful dismissal’ from his position as music director at Holy Family. The archdiocese sought to have the case dismissed on ‘ministerial exception’ grounds. On July 29, 2016, a federal judge in Chicago rejected this procedural motion and allowed the case to proceed. ( newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/tag/colin-collette/ ).

Let us take a closer look at the Collette case. After 17 years of praiseworthy service as music director—attested to by the vigorous support of many members of the Holy Family Community—J. Colin Collette was fired from his position in the summer of 2014 because he announced on Facebook his intention to marry his same-sex partner William Nifong.

As I understand the matter, Holy Family dismissed Collette for ‘publicly planning to enter into a non-sacramental or non-church sanctioned marriage’ because as director of music Collette is in a ‘ministerial position’ and must ‘as such’ represent the teachings of the Catholic Church. The ‘public’ part of this reason is noteworthy since it seems the Holy Family parishioners were well aware of Collette’s sexual identity.

Throughout this dispute, Collette has resolutely affirmed his strong commitment to the Catholic faith and to the Catholic community he has served for 17 years. In an interview published in a Chicago Tribune blog post ( March 8, 2016 ) Collette described his protest against his firing as a call for justice within the Catholic Church for the many LGBTQ people who faithfully serve their communities—a call for justice not unlike the call for justice for those who suffered sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.

And, let us not forget the many gay Catholics who serve as nuns, priests, brothers, and other types of ministers—an issue for another day and another column.

In reading several of Collette’s discussions of his commitment to the Catholic faith, I was reminded of the excellent work Garry Wills has performed for us Catholics through his intellectually rigorous investigations of our history, which bring to light a ‘Catholic Church’ so wondrously rich with diverse spiritual traditions and polities and yet so profoundly simple in its obedience to the universal message of Jesus. ( See, for example, Why I Am a Catholic, Garry Wills, 2002. )

The Catholic Church has a strong, effective social-justice tradition respected worldwide by governments and peoples of all faiths and intellectual persuasions. It is long past the time for the Catholic Church to implement the principles of its social-justice policies to its own institutional structures in our contemporary world.

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Former president Mary McAleese: Seminaries in Ireland should be ‘gay friendly

By Geraldine Gittens

Former president Mary McAleese has said that seminaries in Ireland should be “gay friendly”.

Mary McAleese
Mary McAleese

This week it emerged that a closer eye will be kept on how Maynooth’s seminarians spend their time from now on as part of a stricter regime being introduced in the wake of the gay dating app scandal.

The Irish Independent reported that all trainee priests will now be required to eat their evening meal in the college rather than being allowed to dine wherever they choose. They will also be required to attend evening rosary at 9pm, which hasn’t been obligatory until now.

The seminary council will now eat both breakfast and dinner with the seminarians in the historic Pugin Hall rather than in the Professors’ Refectory.

But Dr McAleese, a staunch Catholic who campaigned fearlessly for a yes vote in the same-sex marriage referendum, told the Daniel O’Connell Summer School in Kerry yesterday that the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality was worryingly dangerous, according to the Irish Times.

“We have the phenomenon of men in the priesthood who are both heterosexual and homosexual but the church hasn’t been able to come to terms with the fact that there are going to be homosexuals in the priesthood, homosexuals who are fine priests,” Mary McAleese said.

“They haven’t been able to come to terms with that because the teaching of my church, the Catholic Church, tells them that homosexuality is, of its nature, intrinsically disordered – those are the words of Pope Benedict and that homosexual acts are, in his words, evil,” she added.

“I am just worried that the Maynooth controversy seems to be concentrating on the wrong things. A seminary should be a place where people feel welcomed, not somewhere where they feel welcomed, not somewhere where they feel policed – after all, there are young people who haven’t yet taken a vow of celibacy.”

In 2012, Pope Benedict sent two archbishops to Maynooth to investigate whether it was “gay friendly”.

“They wanted to be reassured that neither place was, in their words, ‘gay friendly’… so they walked away happy that they were gay unfriendly, hostile to gay people – what sort of message does that send out to young men who are there who are gay, to priests who are gay?” Dr McAleese said.

The tighter controls being implemented in the seminay are part of a suite of measures announced on Wednesday by the trustees of Maynooth which included a review of “appropriate use of the internet and social media” by the 50 or so trainee priests and their staff.

Earlier this month, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of ­Dublin withdrew his seminarians from Maynooth following allegations that students were using gay dating app Grindr.

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Guess What? Most Homophobes Are Actually a Lil’ Bit Gay, According to Latest Study

Guess What? Most Homophobes Are Actually a Lil' Bit Gay, According to Latest Study

By Nicolas DiDomizio

Earlier this year, a small group of self-identified homophobic men were given the chance of a lifetime. They were presented with the rare opportunity to prove — despite the pervasive theory that homophobia is an expression of repressed homosexuality — that they themselves are actually straight.

And they failed! Lol.

giphy

Such are the results of a study recently published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, titled “Homophobia: An Impulsive Attraction to the Same Sex?”

Researchers at the University of Geneva tested 38 heterosexual male subjects by having them first rate their levels of “homonegativity” to determine how antigay each of them were. Then the men participated in a sneaky little series of photo experiments designed “to evaluate their impulsive approach tendencies toward homosexual stimuli.”

The first experiment involved showing the (again: straight male) subjects a series of images of straight or gay couples in the center of a computer screen, and then repeatedly moving a small human figure toward or away from the central image several times. The second test required the men to rate images of gay or straight couples while equipment monitored how long their gaze lingered on each picture.

Altogether, the tests revealed that “men with a high homonegativity score looked significantly longer at homosexual than at heterosexual photographs,” while the non-homophobic men skipped by them more casually, at a “neutral” pace.

“For some homophobic men, there is a conflict between their reflective and their impulsive system,” lead researcher Boris Cheval said in an email. “They declare themselves as anti-gay, but [at] the same time they have an impulsive attraction toward same sex stimuli.”

“They declare themselves as anti-gay, but [at] the same time they have an impulsive attraction toward same -sex stimuli.”

Cheval previously told PsyPost that these results alone don’t exactly prove the men’s homophobic views are because of their own repressed homosexual desires. But he did point to a hidden gem of a study from 1996 for further reading.

In the 1996 study, researchers exposed 35 self-identified homophobes and 29 non-homophobes to gay, straight and lesbian porn. The men’s dicks were then literally monitored throughout the viewing process for each, which is just savage and amazing.

“Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli,” that study concluded. “Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Catholic church should embrace gay priests, Senator says

Fine Gael’s Jerry Buttimer calls for more ‘progressive’ teaching on sexuality

By Olivia Kelleher

Jerry Buttimer
Leader of the Seanad Jerry Buttimer has said the Catholic church needs to open itself up to the possibility of having gay priests.

The Catholic church needs to open itself up to the possibility of having gay priests, according to the leader of the Seanad, Senator Jerry Buttimer.

Mr Buttimer trained for five years in the Maynooth seminary before deciding against the clerical life.

He was also the first openly gay Fine Gael TD and campaigned for the passing of the marriage referendum last year.

He said the recent controversy surrounding gay seminarians at Maynooth brought to the fore the need for the Irish church hierarchy to embrace LGBT people of faith and make them part of the church.

Mr Buttimer said it was “hardly a surprise” that there were gay men studying for the priesthood.

“As a person of faith, I pray and yearn that my church and its leaders would move to be more progressive, open and transparent around the teaching on sexuality.”

‘Lasting impression’

Mr Buttimer said he cherished his time in Maynooth and that it had left “a lasting impression” on his life.

“The deans and professors I studied under were very genuine men. I still believe today that they were in the main interested in developing and educating young men to be good priests.

“The church is nothing without its people, all of its people. Many of us pray for a church that is inclusive, welcoming, accepting, open and transparent. We could do a lot better.”

He said opening the church up to the LGBT community would lead to an increase in vocations.

He also said it was time for the church not to “gloss over real issues”.

“These are issues surrounding celibacy, sexuality, formation and how the church treats LGBT people, but especially LGBT people of faith, members of its own church, who want to be ordained or play a pastoral role

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

These Illustrations Address Anyone Who Thinks You Can’t Be Christian and LGBT

003

By: Lucy Tiven

Considering this year’s Republican party platform — what some say is the most anti-LGBTQ platform in the GOP’s history — it can be easy to forget that Christianity and being LGBTQ or supporting gay rights aren’t mutually exclusive.

god love everybody

A pamphlet from an LGBTQ pride parade, shared Monday on Imgur and widely circulated online, brilliantly uses quotes from the Bible to explain why Christian faith and LGBT pride need not contradict.

gay or christian

The pamphlet addresses LGBTQ Christians’ worries that God might disapprove of them, and responds to common homophobic interpretations of Bible stories.

gay or christian2

gay or christian3

It also tackles experiences LGBTQ people might have being kicked out of religious institutions, and the way religious people can use the AIDS crisis to stigmatize homosexuality.

gay or christian4

The pamphlet sends a message that LGBTQ can still have honest relationships with God, and supplies powerful responses — straight from the Bible — to give anyone who tells them otherwise.

gay or christian5

Many readers — including trans and gay Christians — expressed their appreciation of the post in comments

gay or christian6

Others claimed that the importance of tolerance was central to — but often omitted from — churches’ messages.

gay or christian7

Some asserted that they still believed the Bible to be overwhelmingly anti-LGBTQ, or took issue with using scripture to justify anything.

gay or christian8

gay or christian9

A few commenters focused on the specific biblical text included in the images, but other responses proved that it struck a nerve even with readers who were not gay or were not Christian.

gay or christian10

You can read and share the full pamphlet on Imgur.

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Catholicism and LGBT discrimination

By Father Paul Keller, C.M.F.

rainbow flag church_flickr

We have once again witnessed a devastating and horrific act of mass murder. On June 12, 2016 a violent young man and fellow citizen who was heavily-armed, psychologically-troubled, and professing hatred of LGBT people and allegiance to a radical and violent form of Islam killed 49 people and injured another 53. These kinds of mass shootings happen regularly in the United States; this is the most recent and the most lethal.

Many have responded with the usual statements about keeping those who have died and their loved ones in our thoughts and prayers. But some Catholic bishops have responded to the shootings at Pulse, the Orlando gay nightclub, in a way that goes beyond these all-too-familiar sentiments. Instead, these bishops seem to be adopting the much more inclusive pastoral vision of Pope Francis—a vision that embraces a “culture of encounter” with those with whom one has serious disagreements.

Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Florida called for a ban on weapons designed for mass killing and rejected barring all Muslims from the country as un-American. But this was not all he said. He also expressed dismay that religious people can express hatred and contempt for LGBT people in a way that makes acts of violence against them more likely.

Similarly, Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago decried gun violence and, addressing the gay and lesbian community as “our brothers and sisters,” said, “We stand with you.” Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, CA wrote, “This tragedy is a call for us as Catholics to combat ever more vigorously the anti-gay prejudice which exists in our Catholic community and in our country.”

To understand the true impact of the bishops’ words, one must also consider the other statements from the church regarding LGBT people. In 1997 the Committee on Marriage and Family Life of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released the document “Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers.” This document was warmly welcomed by some for the kind, pastoral tone it adopted. It was criticized for the same reason by others, who wanted a more rigorous emphasis on homosexual behavior as seriously sinful.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.” (Church officials using the terms LGBT or gay and lesbian is still a very recent and rare occurrence.) The catechism continues: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

Leaving aside for the moment the philosophical and technical meanings of the term objectively disordered, what is “unjust” discrimination? In 1992 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) released “Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons.” In this statement there is a condemnation of violence against gays and lesbians; however, there is also an acceptance of many other forms of “just” discrimination against LGBT people—in housing, employment, adoption, and military service. From this statement, it seems that the only unacceptable behavior against LGBT people is a violent attack.

The recent statements of the bishops responding to the tragedy in Orlando seem to go beyond the very mediocre, minimalist understanding of discrimination offered by the CDF. In a very Pope Francis-like move, these bishops directly or indirectly address some very challenging questions to the church itself. What does it mean for us to consider LGBT people “our brothers and sisters”? In what ways do Catholics breed contempt for LGBT people? Where can we find and how can we combat the anti-gay prejudice that exists in the Catholic community?

We need our bishops to give us guidance concerning the anti-LGBT prejudice and contempt that exists within the Catholic Church. A continuing silence is not morally courageous or pastorally responsible.

No normal human being should have any problem condemning acts of violence directed toward someone because of his or her sexual orientation. However, as a Catholic community, we need to do much more than just condemn violence. For example, it is legal in many states to fire someone for being gay, lesbian, or transgender. If we believe that this represents unjust discrimination, then how is it that our church is not on the front line working to end it? Surely we can’t congratulate ourselves because we explicitly condemn violence against LGBT people. Who doesn’t? Can’t we as a church do better than that? Shouldn’t we be actively doing something to end other forms of unjust discrimination?

Given the way that the Catholic Church has spoken about LGBT people and given the church’s stance against the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage, we will probably not be a welcome presence in the fight against LGBT discrimination, at least initially. However, that is all the more reason to speak out. If the Catholic Church is to have any moral credibility when we address issues like same-sex marriage or the natural moral ends of sexual intimacy, then we as Catholics must be willing to spend time and money fighting against injustices suffered by our LGBT brothers and sisters. We should not feel as if we need to change or water down our moral teachings, but we should look and act a lot more like Jesus Christ in our fight for justice. This is one of the more powerful lessons we should be learning from Pope Francis.

For some, the only experience they might have of the Catholic Church is being told that they or their favorite uncle, kindest teacher, or most generous neighbor is “gravely disordered,” “intrinsically evil,” or an “abomination.” In the face of having their dignity or that of the people they love diminished and insulted, these people, without an understanding of the technical vocabulary of moral theology, may conclude that it is the church itself that is “gravely disordered” or “intrinsically evil.” In order to persuade them that this is not the case, the Catholic Church should be much more willing to work in solidarity with and on behalf of communities that are suffering unjustly, even when we do not agree with all the beliefs of that community.

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Do Monks Have Sex?

By Thomas Moore

Hari Kirin Khalsa
Hari Kirin Khalsa

Do monks have sex?

Most of the ones I’ve known are serious about their vows.  In my own experience—I was a monk for thirteen years—the vow of celibacy didn’t feel like repression. I’ve talked to a few people over the years who did resent it, but while I was a monk I never met anyone like that.

I don’t know exactly how to explain it, but the vow of celibacy can be a joyous thing. Monks are dedicated to living intensely in community. They’re like utopians who want to experiment with a better world. They believe that celibacy allows them to create a really close community, and their purpose in keeping the vow is precisely that—to make real community possible.

As I see it now, toning down your sexual behavior is a secondary aspect of the vow of celibacy. Let me compare it to the vow of poverty. “Poverty” in a monastic setting isn’t primarily about living with few possessions or having a Spartan lifestyle. I know monks who do live that way, but the main purpose again is to share everything in common and in that way intensify community living.

For the Christian monks I lived with, the particularly vibrant community made possible by the vows reflected the new way of being presented in the Gospels. The monastic community was a sample of the “kingdom” or new world that Jesus taught. So it was a utopian attempt to model a better world.

Oddly, I’ve deepened my thoughts about monasticism in the many years that have elapsed since I lived the life. My appreciation for celibacy has only increased, and as a married man I still try to keep the monastic spirit alive in my life, including celibacy.  Obviously, I’ll have to explain what I mean.

My dictionary defines celibacy as “abstaining from marriage and sexual relations.” That’s the vow that I lived many years ago. But now as a married man I also find myself abstaining from sexual relations most of the time.

I go on trips. I get sick. My wife gets sick. She goes away. Either of us may not be interested for a while—never very long. As we get older, the erotic is ever present but not as persistent. Whatever the situation, we’re not having sex all the time.

In my experience today, celibacy is part of my sexual rhythm. At moments I’m very interested in sex, but other times there may be a lag, or it may be impossible due to circumstances. I know, this doesn’t sound like celibacy, a commitment to not having sex, but it turns out to be something very similar. As far as I’m concern, I’m still a celibate most of the time.

I think couples have to respect the spirit of celibacy as part of their sexual flow. They can even enjoy those times when they are apart and live for a while like real monks. I mean that in a very positive way. It might be better to really get into moments of celibacy than to treat them as deprivations.

You incorporate your times of not having sex as part of your sexuality. I’m a psychotherapist. I know that some people in a couple feel guilty because they can’t always be available to their partners—sickness, loss of libido, too much travel.  Of course, they have to consider how much this enforced celibacy impacts the relationship, but they can also be temporary, situational monks.

Sometimes normal people don’t feel like having sex. Maybe if they made celibacy part of their couples vows, they could affirm those feelings rather than feel bad about them or overrule them. I think the acceptance of ordinary celibacy would actually add to and complete a person’s sexuality. Celibacy and sexual activity could be the yang and yin of sexuality.

Back to the question “do monks have sex?” Maybe you agree with me that not having sex can be a positive and even joyous decision on the part of a monk. It isn’t all that difficult in the right context. Of course, it can cause problems, and it’s not for everyone. But it can be an intelligent, psychologically healthy choice.

In the monastery I found that the joys of community life, and maybe even its tensions, created such a bond that I didn’t miss sex. I didn’t think about it much. I certainly didn’t feel bad about my vow.

Now as a married person I enjoy the rhythm of togetherness and separateness, which is played out in the yin and yang of sex and celibacy. I can still be a monk in spirit. I can still honor my vow of celibacy as part of my dedication to be a good sexual partner. I can still be a married man and enjoy the spirit of a monk’s life.

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Prevalence of homosexuality in men is stable throughout time since many carry the genes

Computer model sheds light on how male homosexuality remains present in populations throughout the ages

in love

Around half of all heterosexual men and women potentially carry so-called homosexuality genes that are passed on from one generation to the next. This has helped homosexuality to be present among humans throughout history and in all cultures, even though homosexual men normally do not have many descendants who can directly inherit their genes. This idea is reported by Giorgi Chaladze of the Ilia State University in Georgia, and published in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. Chaladze used a computational model that, among others, includes aspects of heredity and the tendency of homosexual men to come from larger families.

According to previous research, sexual orientation is influenced to a degree by genetic factors and is therefore heritable. Chaladze says this poses a problem from an evolutionary perspective, because homosexual men tend not to have many offspring to whom they can provide their genetic material. In fact, they have on average five times fewer children than their heterosexual counterparts.

Chaladze used an individual-based genetic model to explain the stable, yet persistent, occurrence of homosexuality within larger populations. He took into account findings from recent studies that show that homosexual men tend to come from larger families. These suggest that the genes responsible for homosexuality in men increase fecundity (the actual number of children someone has) among their female family members, who also carry the genes. Other reports also suggest that many heterosexual men are carriers of the genes that could predispose someone to homosexuality.

Based on Chaladze’s calculations, male homosexuality is maintained in a population at low and stable frequencies if half of the men and roughly more than half of the women carry genes that predispose men to homosexuality.

“The trend of female family members of homosexual men to have more offspring can help explain the persistence of homosexuality, if we also consider that those males who have such genes are not always homosexuals,” says Chaladze.

The possibility that many heterosexual men are carriers can also explain why estimates of the number of men who have reported any same-sex sexual behavior and same-sex sexual attraction are much higher than estimates of those who self-identify as homosexual or bisexual. According to Chaladze, non-homosexual male carriers might sometimes manifest interest in homosexual behavior without having a homosexual identity.

The possibility that a large percentage of heterosexual people are carriers of genetic material predisposing to homosexuality has implications for genomic studies. Researchers should therefore consider including participants who do not have homosexual relatives in such studies.

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Animal Homosexuality Documentary

According to recent scientific research, more than 450 different kinds of animals engage in homosexual activity. St Thomas Productions has taken this research, and combined it with never-before- seen film footage, to produce this compelling and groundbreaking documentary. Animal Homosexuality explores the various ways homosexuality is expressed in the animal kingdom through courtships, affection, sex, pair-bonding and parenting. A covert revolution has been taking place in nature, and has gone unnoticed until now. With the help of scientific research, international stock footage and location shoots all over the world, Saint Thomas re-examines and revises the fundamental paradigms of nature.

004

Posted on

6 Things You Probably Didn’t Know About Christianity And Sex

Christianity’s history with sex is much more complicated than you might think.

By Carol Kuruvilla

Growing up in a conservative Christian church, I was taught that the gospel was one, complete, and indestructible whole — particularly as it applied to human sexuality. But it’s not that simple.

The idea that is still taught in some churches today is that the Christian sexual ethic came to earth fully formed, straight from heaven, about 2,000 years ago. Throughout all that time, there was exactly one way for Christians to express their sexuality — by staying abstinent until they got married to a person of the opposite gender. And then, you could have at it all you wanted.

But what I wasn’t taught in Sunday School is that the Bible’s teachings on sex have been interpreted in many different ways. I didn’t know that the early Christians actually started practicing celibacy because they were convinced the end of the world was near. No one told me that marriage wasn’t always defined and controlled by the church. And that even within marriage, sex wasn’t always something that Christians were taught to enjoy and cherish.

And the truth is that the standards on what it means to be a sexual person and live a Christian life have changed. A lot. Here are 6 facts to prove it.

Woman Condemned to Wear a Chastity Belt. Miniature from Gratian's Decretum (Decretum Gratiani or Concordia Discordantium Canonum), 12th century. Bibliotheque Municipale, Laon, France
Woman Condemned to Wear a Chastity Belt. Miniature from Gratian’s Decretum (Decretum Gratiani or Concordia Discordantium Canonum), 12th century. Bibliotheque Municipale, Laon, France

1. Jesus had very little to say about sex.

Other than a some heavy admonishments against lust and against divorce, the Jesus of the Bible didn’t have a lot to say about issues of sexuality. (My guess is that he was too busy hanging out with the poor and healing the sick to care. Just a guess). He also had nothing at all to say about homosexuality or sexual identity as we understand it today.

Most of the instruction about sex comes from Christian leaders who started spreading the religion after Jesus’ death.

2. To be a truly devoted Christian during the earliest days of the church, you needed to stop having sex altogether.

Early Christians’ belief that Jesus’ second coming was imminent created an environment that exalted celibacy over marriage. It was a radical departure from Jewish teachings that the disciples would have been familiar with. But it makes sense — what was the point of getting tied up with worldly responsibilities, like taking care of a spouse, children and a household, when the end of the world was near?

St. Paul, a celibate Christian leader who wrote most of the New Testament, thought of practicing celibacy as taking the higher road towards God, since it allows Christians to concentrate wholly on things of the spirit.

The second coming didn’t happen, but the emphasis on celibacy stayed. Couples in the second century were expected to stop having sex altogether after producing several children.

Medieval Stained Glass Window Panel Couple Sleeping
Medieval Stained Glass Window Panel Couple Sleeping

3. For the first 1,000 years of Christianity (that’s at least HALF of its existence, people), many Christians wouldn’t have considered getting married in a church.

Marriages in the West were originally just economic alliances made between two families, with both the church and the state staying out of the proceedings.  This meant that weddings didn’t require the presence of a priest.

The church got involved in regulating marriage much later on, as its influence began to increase in Western Europe. It wasn’t until 1215 that the Church formally put a claim on marriage and hashed out rules about what made children legitimate.

4. For much of the church’s history, sex within a marriage was only tolerated because it produced children.

Christian leaders didn’t just disapprove of premarital sex. Sexual desire itself was seen as the problem.

After St. Paul, one of the most prominent Christian early church leaders who had an impact on the way Christians view sex was St. Augustine. Influenced by Plato’s philosophy, he promoted the idea that untamed sexual desire was a sign of rebellion against God. It only became honorable when it was placed in the context of marriage and the possibility of children.

Augustine was one of a long line of theologians to promote the idea of sexual desire as a sin. Other Christian leaders have argued that being too passionately in love with a partner, or having sex just for pleasure, was also a sin. This idea would continue to gain momentum over the next few centuries. And it wasn’t long before things got really, really weird.

Frescoes of Baronial Hall (15th century), detail, Della Manta Castle, Manta (Cuneo), Piedmont, Detail, Italy, 13th-16th century
Frescoes of Baronial Hall (15th century), detail, Della Manta Castle, Manta (Cuneo), Piedmont, Detail, Italy, 13th-16th century

5. The Church developed some rules about sex that would seem strange to even the most conservative American Christians today.

In medieval times, the church became deeply involved with controlling people’s sex lives. Virginity and monogamy were still prized, while homosexuality could be punished by death. The church also had very specific requirements for what type of sex married couples could have. Since all sex was supposed to be for the purposes of procreation, certain positions were banned (no sex standing up, the woman shouldn’t be on top, no doggy style, oral, anal, or masturbation). And then there were restrictions on what days of the week people could have sex (not on fast days, or feast days for a saint, or on Sundays, for example).

Sex was also discouraged when a woman was menstruating, pregnant, or breastfeeding, (which considering there was no birth control, could have been a good deal of the time). All of these prohibitions meant that on average, sex between married couples was only legal about once per week, if that.

6. Despite these varying standards for sex, love, and marriage, Christians have usually ended up doing their own thing.

In the Middle Ages and now, many Christians have admired and strived towards these standards and ended up looking the other way. It took centuries for the church to enforce a ban against priests getting married. The Middle Ages was also a “golden era” for gay poetry, especially between members of the clergy.

In modern times, almost all Americans have sex before marrying. And while we tend to think that people were more chaste before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, that’s just not the case. 

Not only are many Christians having sex before marriage (including 80 percent of people who self-identified as “born-again Christian, evangelical, or fundamentalist”), they’re also getting smart about it.

Data from the Public Religion Research Institute shows that religious millennials feel that it’s morally acceptable to use contraception and they don’t think that abstinence-only education is working. Most tellingly, only about 11 percent of today’s millennial Americans depend on religious leaders for information about sex.

It’s time to get real: There is no such thing as a traditional Christian sexual ethic.

I wish I’d known this earlier. The problem with teaching kids that the Bible is infallible and that Christian teaching has never changed is that the second they crack open a history book, or have sex, or fall in love with someone of the same gender, the carefully constructed house of faith that they’ve inherited from their parents starts crumbling apart. And that’s when doubt can come rushing in.

But that’s a good thing. It’s what I feel is missing in the way some Christians talk about sex today. If your faith calls you to abstinence before marriage, that is fine and good. But the problem for me is when people start preaching that their interpretation is the only way or the holiest way or the right way. From what I’ve witnessed, the fruit that this kind of teaching produces is often overwhelming guilt, anger, and pain.

On the other hand, acknowledging Christianity’s complexity can be life-changing. It can turn a faith assembled like a delicate house of cards into a faith that you worked hard to build from the ground up.

Complete Article HERE!