I know this is an unusually high number of posts in a short period of time, but I’ve had a cold so have been sitting around at home a fair deal of the time.  Also, I’m inspired by World Youth Day, with approximately 500,000 Catholic pilgrims in Sydney currently celebrating the mass with Pope Benedict.  Sex seems to be a central theme in the moral debates surrounding the Catholic church, whether it be accusations of child abuse by priests or concerns over the refusal to support birth control and condom use.  I’d like to briefly touch on a related issue, namely that of abstinence.

The long tradition of abstienence in the church seems to be rooted in the biblical admonition in Genesis that a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Following from this and numerous other biblical references, the church decrees that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a terrible sin, and strongly encourages abstience from its members.  This is another example of appeals to authority – scriptual and church authority – for morality.  Outside of authority, where are standards of morality defined?  Humankind suffers from instincts that lead to immense suffering.  Regardless of law and church institutions, where relationships are compromised through unfaithfulness, or where people are victimized through the unwanted sexual advances of predators, people suffer tremendously.  As such, we institutionalise morality and faithfulness to ensure a degree of comfort and safety.

Yet the basal instincts remain regardless of institutional regulation.  Not all predators can be tamed, so some must be locked away to prevent further suffering.  For the majority, who have the discipline to self-regulate their basal instincts most of the time, there are still the occasions where morality does fail.  Sexual attraction is simply common to human nature, and it can take a great deal of discipline for some to contain desire.  Even the Old Testament demonstrates many of the leading figures of the faith in extramarital relationships, demonstrating that their relationship with God did not impact their natural desires.

I believe in faithfulness as a virtue in relationships.  Open relationships may seem like a bit of fun, but do they really work?  By work I mean, are they sustainable?  Unrestrained sexual desire is a cause of much suffering in the world, and hence why restraint has been so institutionalised.  Marriage and the laws surrounding it have nothing to do with being free from sin, and all to do with maintaining a sensible moral order in society.  At its extreme, ‘God’ had the nation of Israel execute adulterers; fortunately, reason later intervened to override this lack of sanctity for life.  Yet that was just another example of rules used to maintain civility.

I believe abstinence as a virtue can work, but is useless to impose from outside of a belief system.  It is a personal commitment, to God or to the sanctity of life, that works to build a base of discipline with which to deal with the basal instincts.  The Church has failed to demonstrate that sexual desire can be successfully subjugated through devotion to God or by the force of moral institutions.  As such, the practice of safe sex and abstinence should be promoted hand-in-hand.  Abstinence requires significant self-restraint, which can be supported through the encouragement of open-hearted friends.  In other words, it can be seen as a spiritual discipline.  It views sex as having a sacred place within a loving relationship.  It is the higher ideal, the virtue that is worthy of being upheld.  Yet given the intensity of sexual desire, even the desire to remain faithful to God or the belief system can easily give way to the passion of the moment.

Sensibility is the key here, an understanding of human nature within a system of moral principles that uphold the higher virtues while supporting the lower desires.  Appeals to ‘the Bible says so’ or ‘the Church says so’ is not nearly enough; we must transcend authority to engage directly with a sense of these higher virtues, to understand their purpose to direct our lives for the good of ourselves and others.


5 thoughts on “Faithfulness”

  1. “Abstinence requires significant self-restraint, which can be supported through the encouragement of open-hearted friends. In other words, it can be seen as a spiritual discipline. ”

    absolutely! but there is a problem here.. in my Catholic upbringing i was told that “sex is awful, nasty, and sinful… and should only be enacted with the one who you love in the confines of marriage.” this party line is a tad confusing… if sex is so bad, why do i want to only do it with my wife?!

    The Catholic church needs to recognize that sex is a good thing and taking pleasure in it is NOT a sin. there is no biblical backing for sex as sin (only unethical sex is a sin). Sex is for enjoyment.. this doctrine i see, comes largely out of jaded priests saying “If we can’t have fun, y’all can’t either! ergo sex is bad!”

    they could learn a few things from the Quakers!

  2. That’s something I’ve thought about but didn’t think to include in the article. Ever since Augustine’s Confessions, sex has been seen in a negative light. It’s rather stupid really when you think about it, given just how natural it is to the entire animal kingdom.

  3. “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” – W. K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief, 1877.

    Especially anything about God.

    Do you concur?

    P.S. I enjoy your blog.

  4. The only problem I see with that statement is that ethics themselves, or principles of right and wrong, are themselves matters of belief, so that statement nullifies itself. That is better reframed as a question, “Is it helpful to believe anything upon insufficient evidence?”

    That’s the way I tend to think about God – He/She/It is more of a question than an answer. This is why I am not currently theistic in my imagination regarding God, as I do not have a sufficient answer.

    However, I’m not dissatisfied, as questions tend to be more interesting than answers.

  5. ““It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” – W. K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief, 1877.”

    i would be huge sums of $$ that W.K. Clifford was an “S” type on his Myers-Briggs. We “N”‘s don’t need your stinking evidence 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s