Sex, Marriage and Family in World Religions (31 page)

Now once we have considered how God curses and detests all adulterers, we need to go further and apply and extend this to all promiscuity. It is true that whosoever breaks the marriage vow commits a double offense and is in-tensely guilty as I have said. But nevertheless we need to come back to this [and emphasize] that God not only wills for no one to act against marriage, but he
Christianity
131

does not want men to lead an animal existence, for adultery to be in vogue, or for those who are not married to stray about yielding themselves here and there the way dumb animals do whenever they meet. For it is said that not only our souls, but also our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit [1 Cor. 6:19], as was just a few moments ago mentioned [in the wedding service]. And those are Saint Paul’s words when he admonished the Corinthians that it was too shameful and infamous a thing for them to permit promiscuity, as they were doing.

He says: “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit?”

[1 Cor. 6:19] So it is God who has bestowed this honor upon us, who has chosen these poor bodies which are not only fragile vessels, but [at best] only carrion, made of dirt and corruption. Nevertheless God has honored them to the extent that he wills to make them into temples for his Holy Spirit to indwell. Yet we are going to wallow them in every [kind of] stench? We are going to turn them into sties for swine? What a sacrilege! And that is not all. Let us see where Saint Paul takes us. Our bodies are members of Jesus Christ [1 Cor. 6:15]. Therefore when a man indulges in prostitution, it’s the same as if he were to rape the body of Jesus Christ. For we certainly cannot mix the Son of God with our filth and abominations, he who is the fountain of all purity. Therefore when a man throws himself into fornication, it’s as much as if he breaks the body of our Lord Jesus Christ into as many pieces as he can. Not that we can actually do that, for the Son of God is not subject to us to be dishonored in that way, but in any event we are guilty of having committed such a blasphemy and offense.

Therefore, in light of that, let us learn that God not only wills for each of us to maintain faith and loyalty with our partner in marriage, but in general that we should be chaste in order to walk in purity of life so that we do not give up the reins at every moral morass and turpitude. And why [do that]? The reasons which I have traced ought sufficiently to motivate us to that end. Moreover with respect to what has already been discussed about adultery, let us also apply it in this way: that we control our senses with such moderation that whenever the devil solicits any lasciviousness within us, he shall always be repulsed and find no access to us. . . .

Now someone may argue at this point: “And just how are we supposed to be able to restrain ourselves from every corruption, seeing our flesh is so fragile?”

For [in all honesty] we are aware of the incontinence that exists in men and by means of it are shown, better than anywhere else, how vicious their nature is.

Moreover, it is true that men cannot be chaste, for our Lord, thereby, through such intemperance of the flesh, wants us to be conscious of the curse against Adam’s sin—unless, as it is written, we possess a special grace not given to everyone [see 1 Cor. 7:7]. Still it is crucial for each to consider what God has given him and to use the gift he has, knowing well that he is all the more obligated to God. But in any event, there is the remedy of marriage for those who cannot restrain themselves. Therefore God, although he wants to leave this mark of weakness in us, nevertheless grants us an appropriate remedy for 132

l u k e t i m o t h y j o h n s o n a n d m a r k d . j o r d a n it. [And so we return to the argument.] Is a man’s flesh weak? Is a woman’s equally? The matter is certainly a vice, and although it may appear to be an inclination derived from nature, it is from that broken nature which we have incurred from Adam; thus in itself it is condemned, for all such intemperance is far from that excellent dignity that God set in the human race, that we should bear its signs and become like angels [cf. Ps. 8].

Therefore all immoderation of the flesh is wrong, but insofar as our Lord supports us, he has ordained such a means whereby this weakness will not be imputed as a vice. Therefore, if the mantle of marriage is worn, then immoderation of the flesh, which is vicious and damnable in itself, will not be imputed in God’s sight. And when a man, having prayed to God and cast himself upon him, sees that he cannot refrain, let him take a wife in order not to lead an immoral life, or behave like a dog, or a bull, or some wild beast. Thus when he marries, as ordained by God, that is how vice is covered, and hidden, and not brought into judgment. And herein we see the inestimable goodness of our God, that although he leaves this vice in us, which indeed ought to make us feel ashamed, he nevertheless ordains a helpful means by which it may be overcome. And although men might be immoderate, they are not indicted before him and his judicial seat, provided they contain themselves within the confines of marriage. For all immoderation is unlawful. For example, when a man wants to enjoy too much license, and a wife the same with her husband, there is no reason for them to make their home into a bordello. But when a man lives honorably with his wife in the fear of God, although their lawful intimate relationship might be disgraceful, nevertheless neither before God nor his angels is such a relationship shameful. And why [is that]? The mantle of marriage exists to sanctify what is defiled and profane; it serves to cleanse what used to be soiled and dirty in itself. Therefore when we see that our Lord is that benign and has ordained such a remedy, are we not that much more malicious and ungrateful if we do not use it and if all the excuses which men put forth are not rejected? Indeed, has God not provided for their needs and made available to us a good physician to heal what is wrong with us? Has he not gone on ahead, as we see [?] Therefore let us reject all [those] subterfuges [based on] our fragile nature, inasmuch as our Lord wanted to relieve us from that matter and has ordained holy marriage in order that those who do not have the gift of continence may nevertheless not succumb to every turpitude. That is what we have to observe.

Now with respect to this subject, let us carefully note what the apostle says about the marriage bed, for when men and women keep themselves within the bounds of the fear of God and complete modesty, the bed is honorable. Instead of there being shame (as indeed there should be), our Lord turns all of that into honor. What the apostle calls honorable in God’s sight is hardly a mere trifle; for what should be shameful even in men’s eyes, God has forgiven. But he pronounces a curse and vengeance on all adulterers. When we hear such
Christianity
133

advice, let us learn to cover ourselves with this honorable shadow (wherever we have such need), in order that our ignominies may not be cursed and condemned before God and his angels. And at the same time let us fear this dreadful judgment which is made against all adulterers and fornicators. Indeed, let even those who are able to abstain from marriage be careful to abstain from it for [only] a time, in such a way that they do not reject the remedy which God has assigned them, unless they know that God is holding them back. Thus let those who live outside of marriage be ready overnight to submit to God if he calls them to that estate.

[
John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments,
trans. and ed.

Benjamin W. Farley (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), pp. 169–173, 178–180]

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

The Council of Trent (1545–1563) refers to a series of meetings over two decades in which representatives loyal to the pope attempted to work out a response to the cascading events of the Protestant Reformation. Some hoped that the council would devote itself to repairing the split in western Christendom, while others wanted it systematize Catholic teaching against the Protestants. In the end, the council did motivate significant church reforms, but it also hardened teaching on a number of disputed points, including marriage and sexual ethics.

The selection here comes from the Decree Tametsi, issued in the council’s last year, when it was preoccupied with sacramental and liturgical matters.

Document 2–20

c o u n c i l o f t r e n t , 2 4 t h s e s s i o n , d e c r e e t a m e t s i

The perpetual and indissoluble bond of matrimony was expressed by the first parent of the human race, when, under the influence of the divine Spirit, he said: “This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh” [Gen 2:23–24]. But that by this bond two only are united and joined together, Christ the Lord taught more plainly when referring to those last words as having been spoken by God, He said: “Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh” [Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:8], and immediately ratified the firmness of the bond so long ago proclaimed by Adam with these words: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” [Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9].

But the grace which was to perfect that natural love, and confirm that indissoluble union, and sanctify the persons married, Christ Himself, the instituter and perfecter of the venerable sacraments, merited for us by His passion, 134

l u k e t i m o t h y j o h n s o n a n d m a r k d . j o r d a n which Paul the Apostle intimates when he says: “Husbands love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it” [Eph. 5:25], adding immediately: “This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church” [Eph. 5:32].

Since therefore matrimony in the evangelical law surpasses in grace through Christ the ancient marriages, our holy Fathers, the councils, and the tradition of the universal Church, have with good reason always taught that it is to be numbered among the sacraments of the New Law; and since with regard to this teaching ungodly men of this age, raving madly, have not only formed false ideas concerning this venerable sacrament, but, introducing in conformity with their habit under the pretext of the Gospel a carnal liberty, have by word and writing asserted, not without great harm to the faithful of Christ, many things that are foreign to the teaching of the Catholic Church and to the usage approved of since the times of the Apostles, this holy and general council, desiring to restrain their boldness, has thought it proper, lest their pernicious contagion should attract more, that the principal heresies and errors of the aforesaid schis-matics be destroyed by directing against those heretics and their errors the following anathemas.

Canon 1. If anyone says that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ the Lord, but has been devised by men in the Church and does not confer grace, let him be anathema.

Can. 2. If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time and that this is not forbidden by any divine law, let him be anathema.

Can. 3. If anyone says that only those degrees of consanguinity and affinity which are expressed in Leviticus [18:6ff.] can hinder matrimony from being contracted and dissolve it when contracted, and that the Church cannot dispense in some of them or declare that others hinder and dissolve it, let him be anathema.

Can. 4. If anyone says that the Church cannot establish impediments dissolving marriage, or that she has erred in establishing them, let him be anathema.

Can. 5. If anyone says that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved on account of heresy, or irksome cohabitation, or by reason of the voluntary absence of one of the parties, let him be anathema.

Can. 6. If anyone says that matrimony contracted but not consummated is not dissolved by the solemn religious profession of one of the parties, let him be anathema.

Can. 7. If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches
Christianity
135

that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another, let him be anathema.

Can. 8. If anyone says that the Church errs when she declares that for many reasons a separation may take place between husband and wife with regard to bed and with regard to cohabitation for a determinate or indeterminate period, let him be anathema.

Can. 9. If anyone says that clerics constituted in sacred orders or regulars who have made solemn profession of chastity can contract marriage, and that the one contracted is valid notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law or the vow, and that the contrary is nothing else than a condemnation of marriage, and that all who feel that they have not the gift of chastity, even though they have made such a vow, can contract marriage, let him be anathema, since God does not refuse that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does “he suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able” [1 Cor. 10:13].

Can. 10. If anyone says that the married state excels the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is better and happier to be united in matrimony than to remain in virginity or celibacy, let him be anathema.

Can. 11. If anyone says that the prohibition of the solemnization of marriages at certain times of the year is a tyrannical superstition derived from the superstition of the heathen, or condemns the blessings and other ceremonies which the Church makes use of therein, let him be anathema.

Can. 12. If anyone says that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema.

d e c r e e c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e f o r m o f m a t r i m o n y, c h a p t e r 1