Sexual Ethics:

Christian Theological Perspectives

Starter …

Your expectations of Christian theological ethics about sex …

The cliché or caricature …

No sex before or outside marriage Sex sort of for pleasure but ideally for

procreation ‘Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve’ ‘The woman was made for the man

not the man for the woman’ Divorce a no-no and in RC teaching

not seen as ending the marriage

At its worst – Patriarchal, sexist, homophobic,

conservative and repressive!

Where does the cliché come from?

Within Christianity: The relics of ‘Christendom’ Top-down clericalism in the Roman

Church The irresponsible use of scripture –

particularly ‘proof-texting’ The over-emphasis on sola scriptura

Outside Christianity: A largely uncomprehending media The isolation of Christianity from

its history and culture GCSE, KS3 and to some extent A-

level materials that reinforce the stereotypes

The aim of this session …

Christian theological ethics about sex and relationships is much more varied, nuanced, radical, humane and egalitarian than the cliché suggests

This variety is not ‘modern and trendy’ but firmly rooted in the tradition from biblical times

Sources of Moral Authority …

Tradition

Reason

Scripture

Experience

Three Possible Theological Pictures

The ‘Traditional’ Model Cliché is an extreme version of this. Not the only tradition! Sexual intercourse fundamental aspect

of marriage – unitive and procreative Sanctity of heterosexual marriage –

deviation from this ‘dissolution of the image of humankind’ (Benedict XVI)

Relies on connection of Genesis 1 and 2 and Matthew 19 – becoming ‘one flesh’ as a sexual image

The ‘Traditional’ Model So God created humankind in his image, in

the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:23-24)

The ‘Traditional’ ModelSome Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘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, let no one separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:5-9)

Sexual interpretation of one flesh limits sex to marriage

Gender and sexuality are fundamental to God’s purposes

Agape and eros are distinct A necessary (?) unintended (?) connection with

patriarchy – man as ‘captain of the ship’ and procreation fundamental to sexuality

A necessary (?) unintended (?) connection to idea that sex outside heterosexual marriage needs to be controlled.

Source – e.g. 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church

A Sexual Theology Sexuality and desire are fundamental to both

human and divine life – Trinitarian = relational

Bodily nature is joyful – the Incarnation is part of divine life

God is passionate and passionately involved in his creation

Agape and Eros are both part of one thing, desire is part of the life of God

God desires us and desires us to desire him

Sexuality is central to our human nature Jesus being fully human had a sexual life;

the church has a sexual life Gender is not fundamental Body, feeling, desire, communion and

incarnation are all aspects of true theology Sources – e.g. mystical writings of Theresa

of Avila and St John of the Cross, Anselm, St Denys; more recently James Nelson: Embodiment

The Imago Dei as Intersubjectivity

Draws on Aristotle: humans are social beings – ‘No-one would choose a friendless existence on condition of having all other good things in the world’ (NE 8:1:1)

Martin Buber: ‘In the beginning is relation’ Genesis 1:27: to be human is to be two – gender not

fundamental but self and other Duality, not gender, makes us human (higher animals

are gendered) Intersubjectivity makes us human – this is imago Dei. Sources: e.g Aelred of Rievaulx: Spiritual Friendship

The Use and Misuse of Biblical Texts:

Divorce in Mark’s Gospel An exercise in biblical

hermeneutics What do you THINK the text says? Expectations / first reading / pre-

text

The Use and Misuse of Biblical Texts:Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to

divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They

said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.”

But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this

commandment for you. 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, let no one separate.”

Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to

them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against

her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits

adultery.”

(Mark 10:2-12)

Addressing the Text:

WHAT is the context? What motivates Jesus’ words?

WHO in that context is allowed to initiate divorce proceedings?

WHAT is ‘hardness of heart’? WHOSE ‘hardness of heart’?

Why is this juxtaposed with the text about children

A possible reading:

Ched Myers in Binding the Strong Man. Context is hostile questioning by a

religious élite - powerful guardians of tradition and salvation with whom Jesus repeatedly clashes.

Only men can initiate divorce ‘Hardness of heart’ - YOURS, i.e.,

Pharisees - as guardians of patriarchy -

Not absolute prohibition on divorce, but challenge to social order

That social order is what disrupts the equality, mutuality and justice of two equal persons becoming ‘one flesh’

Private discussion with disciples allows for woman to ‘leave’ - unheard of.

Also allows for man to commit adultery against his wife - could only do so to another man in law and social practice of the time.

‘author of Mark refuses to overlook the relations of power, no matter how “sacred” the institution.’

Strengthened by connection with ‘children’ - ongoing critique of a social order that marginalises them along with women.

Responsible and Irresponsible Readings of Tradition Adrian Thatcher on marriage. Suggests the ‘traditional’ model in

fact distorts tradition - In particular, the history of marriage From biblical times to 18th c. a two-

stage process - betrothal and marriage - ‘spousals’ and ‘nuptials’

Betrothal more than engagement - de facto beginning of marriage.

Some couples never got as far as nuptials - ‘matrimonium presumptum,’ particularly if the bride was pregnant!

Early part of 18th c. more than half of the brides in England and Wales were indeed pregnant by the time they got married.

2nd half of 18th c. - betrothal ‘quietly dumped’ - marriage liturgies elided spousals and nuptials

Marriage ought properly to be regarded as a ‘norm’ and not a ‘rule’ for Christians -

A broad set of values defining moral behaviour and formation, not a set of rules to be followed slavishly (c.f. ‘always tell the truth’)

Marital values? Faithfulness, commitment, equality, justice, mutuality, the desiring of the other’s flourishing …

Are these present in relationships other than official marriage?

Thatcher - of course! Many cohabiting couples who intend to marry

or even don’t get round to it effectively revisit the tradition of betrothal.

Those who do not intend to marry may still show some aspects of marriage. May be resistant to marriage for pastoral or political reasons - in which case a theologically literate and pastorally sensitive approach is understanding not judgement!

For ‘the post-married’ - second half of life, divorced or widowed - at this stage of life, sexual friendship or ‘living together apart’ may be more appropriate than marriage - here the norm of marriage can be quietly dropped.

Some lesbians and gay men want to own the commitment of marriage (including sacramentally if they are Christian). Others reject marriage as inherently patriarchal and oppressive -

Gay community’s rediscovery of ideas of sexual friendship, different ways of understanding covenanted, committed, sexual love - not all monogamous.

Conclusion - Summary

- Theology of sex and relationships within the Christians tradition more diverse, nuanced and tolerant than it is sometimes represented.

- Not something new – a variety of approaches from earliest times.

- Three possible approaches – traditional, ‘sexual theology,’ relational

- Scripture, tradition, reason and experience in constant conversation

- Biblical texts need to be read with a responsible hermeneutic – from context to context – e.g. divorce

- The tradition needs to be read historically – but it is flexible – e.g. marriage and other kinds of ‘living together.’

‘[T]here is a way of doing ethics that can be faithful [both] to the wisdom of the ages and to the pastoral needs of today’s faithful people.’ (Adrian Thatcher)

Applying Virtuously…

Virtue Ethics and Applied to Sexual Ethics and to Medical Ethics

A Mistaken Criticism:

‘Virtue Ethics is of no practical help.’

Alleged Source:

Robert Louden in Some Vices of Virtue Ethics

(1) The alleged criticism misreads Louden In fact rather sympathetic to VE This article makes TWO PARTICULAR

criticisms: SOMETIMES need for rules that are non-

specific to the person BECAUSE it allows the individual to

make an exception of themselves. Because of this, VE is important, but not

necessarily normative.

THIS actual critique can be addressed:

VE DOES NOT NECESSARILY say rules must be addressed to a particular person.

BUT IT DOES SAY that ETHICAL NORMS are formed by persons-in-relationships/communties/societies etc.

2. The Mistaken Critique: Assumes the only ‘useful’ kind of ethics

is one that gives a decision procedure for difficult dilemmas.

In fact, ethics just isn’t like this! VE is not wholly normative, it is partly

‘meta-ethical’ - but DOES make claims about the NORMS that shape our ethical thinking - in very practical ways.

Shape by PRAXIS - i.e., serious, reflective practicality

For example, Medical Ethics

Rosalind Hursthouse: Virtue Ethics and Abortion

Suggests the usual approach is by way of - when does life begin? Right to life of foetus vs right to self-determination of mother, the extent to which the value of life is absolute or not

In fact, Hursthouse suggests this approach not necessarily helpful.

Why? Responses to these standard ethical questions shaped by the ethical position one takes

Hursthous suggests instead focusing on abortion in much wider contexts of what matters to us, what enables us to flourish as human persons.

She suggests (but not exhaustive list …) Humans give birth to live young, with an

extended dependency That women bear children, and are

physically capable of doing so from late childhood to early middle age

That the rearing of children is a complex and long term matter, typically lasting from infancy to early adulthood

That this takes place within a network of family relationships …

Which are amongst the most important in our lives, but can also be amongst the most fraught

That human infants are conceived in circumstances of great physical and sometimes emotional intimacy

What can we conclude from (things like) this? Careful reflection on abortion in terms

of what makes us flourish or not What makes for ‘proportionate’ right

emotion here? The moral relevance of pregnancy, birth

and childbearing as an emotional, physical and psychological process

The sense that the termination of a pregnancy carries more moral weight emotionally the longer it goes on

Virtue Ethics and Sexual Ethics Again, might draw attention to very general

facts of human sexual ‘anthropology’: Physical sexual maturity around puberty,

emotional maturity later (in some cases much later!)

Heterosexual relations have, until the advent of reliable contraception, been open to the possibility of conceiving children, with all that implies

That it is women who are physically capable of bearing children.

That sexual relationships are physically intimate and often emotionally intimate

That there are social codes around sexual behaviour (when the existence of a sexual relationship is publicly acknowledged, for example)

Relevance of Elements of VE ‘Golden Mean’ and proportionalism as

about appropriate emotions at appropriate stages

Central virtue of justice and what it might mean for sexual relationships

Macintyre’s idea of a ‘practice’ as allowing space for development of different norms - sexual friendship, for example

The idea of balancing ‘partiality’ and ‘impartiality’

Again no specific recommendations - but

Insists that sexual relationships be shaped by justice

A role for appropriate emotion The development of norms Respect for intimates, for others, a

sense of the kind of community or society we want to be

Overall -

Virtue ethics is of practical use The thought that it might not be - misunderstanding

that ‘usefuleness’ in ethics = ‘reading off the action from the rules.’

VE IS partly normative - but in much more nuanced terms than this

But also partly meta-ethical in getting its importance from saying that ethics is not about rules in that way -

One way of putting this - recognises the distinction between norms and rules - and the role of practice, narrative, metaphor, culture in shaping the former.

That there are associations between the manner of a child’s conception and its capacity to love and be loved.

No firm conclusions, it’s true - But - recognition that abortion carries moral weight

in a variety of ways Also psychological implications NOT that it should either be rejected or condoned

out of hand How we tell the story might draw attention to

hitherto unrecognised aspects of the matter - e.g. the connection between abortion, birth and sense of ‘loss of a stage of life.’

Virtue Ethics and Society

Think of education…

An Alternative:

‘To sustain the virtue of a nation, we need to remember how the private connects with the public, the poetic with the political.’ (Phillip Pullman: Citizen Ethics Network Pamphlet)

Citizen Ethics: The Populist Revival of Virtue Ethics

Identifies a crisis (as writers like Macintyre and Anscombe do) - but more urgent and practical:

‘Fundamental questions of justice persist but without any purchase on public debate. This is what the crisis of ethics is about: we have no language to use … we have lost understanding - and perhaps patience - with the process of reasoning in which we have to decide what is just.’ (Madeleine Bunting in Citizen Ethics Pamphlet)

‘What we possess … are the fragments of a conceptual scheme, parts of which now lack those contexts from which their significance derived. We possess indeed the simulcra of morality, we continue to use many of the key expressions. But we have - very largely, if not entirely - lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical, of morality’ (Alasdair Macintyre: After Virtue, Chapter 1: A Disquieting Suggestion)

Principles of CE are those of Civic Virtue: No ready made principles (i.e.

can’t read off from the rules) Rooted in an understanding of

human flourishing An ongoing practice or skill Prophetic - speaks truth to power Prompts important questions,

provokes debate of integrity

E.g. …

Localism Academies ‘Quangocide’

Small anecdotes are as important as grand narratives - Lord Bingham’s anecdote of his father never using the office phone for a personal call

The rehabilitation of the imagination in ethics

E.g. norms like ‘love thy neighbour’ in a global culture

Need for new debate on relationship of the private and the public and how they relate in terms of human flourishing

Virtue ethics - perhaps an idea whose time has come

Lively academic debate since the 1950s

Recently popular expression - Citizen Ethics

A place of conversation and reconciliation of sacred and secular languages about ethics:

‘Wisdom has built her house … on the heights, beside the way, at the crossroads she takes her stand, beside the gate, at the entrance of the portal she cries out …’ - from Proverbs 8 and 9

What is the ‘Virtuous Person’?

What narratives shape our post-modern, late capitalist society?

© S Lucas