Sex, Marriage and Family in World Religions (28 page)

Document 2–15

t h o m a s a q u i n a s , s u m m a c o n t r a g e n t i l e s , b o o k 3 , c h a p t e r 1 2 2

The Reason Why Simple Fornication Is a Sin according to Divine Law, and That
Matrimony is Natural

1. From the foregoing we can see the futility of the argument of certain people who say that simple fornication is not a sin. For they say: Suppose there is a woman who is not married, or under the control of any man, either her father or another man. Now, if a man performs the sexual act with her, and she is willing, he does not injure her, because she favors the action and she has control over her own body. Nor does he injure any other person, because she is under-stood to be under no other person’s control. So, this does not seem to be a sin.

2. Now, to say that he injures God would not seem to be an adequate answer.

For we do not offend God except by doing something contrary to our own good, as has been said [in chapter 121]. But this does not appear contrary to man’s good. Hence, on this basis, no injury seems to be done to God.

3. Likewise, it also would seem an inadequate answer to say that some injury is done to one’s neighbor by this action, inasmuch as he may be scandalized.

Indeed, it is possible for him to be scandalized by something which is not in itself a sin. In this event, the act would be accidentally sinful. But our problem is not whether simple fornication is accidentally a sin, but whether it is so essentially.

4. Hence, we must look for a solution in our earlier considerations. We have said [in chapters 112 and following] that God exercises care over every person on the basis of what is good for him. Now, it is good for each person to attain his end, whereas it is bad for him to swerve away from his proper end. Now, this should be considered applicable to the parts, just as it is to the whole being; for instance, each and every part of man, and every one of his acts, should attain the proper end. Now, though the male semen is superfluous in regard to the preservation of the individual, it is nevertheless necessary in regard to the prop-agation of the species. Other superfluous things, such as excrement, urine, sweat, and such things, are not at all necessary; hence, their emission contrib-utes to man’s good. Now, this is not what is sought in the case of semen, but, rather, to emit it for the purpose of generation, to which purpose the sexual act
Christianity
117

is directed. But man’s generative process would be frustrated unless it were followed by proper nutrition, because the offspring would not survive if proper nutrition were withheld. Therefore, the emission of semen ought to be so ordered that it will result in both the production of the proper offspring and in the upbringing of this offspring.

5. It is evident from this that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to the good for man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin. Now, I am speaking of a way from which,
in itself,
generation could not result: such would be any emission of semen apart from the natural union of male and female. For which reason, sins of this type are called contrary to nature. But, if by accident generation cannot result from the emission of semen, then this is not a reason for it being against nature, or a sin; as for instance, if the woman happens to be sterile.

6. Likewise, it must also be contrary to the good for man if the semen be emitted under conditions such that generation could result but the proper upbringing would be prevented. We should take into consideration the fact that, among some animals where the female is able to take care of the upbringing of offspring, male and female do not remain together for any time after the act of generation. This is obviously the case with dogs. But in the case of animals of which the female is not able to provide for the upbringing of offspring, the male and female do stay together after the act of generation as long as is necessary for the upbringing and instruction of the offspring. Examples are found among certain species of birds whose young are not able to seek out food for themselves immediately after hatching. In fact, since a bird does not nourish its young with milk, made available by nature as it were, as occurs in the case of quadrupeds, but the bird must look elsewhere for food for its young, and since besides this it must protect them by sitting on them, the female is not able to do this by herself. So, as a result of divine providence, there is naturally implanted in the male of these animals a tendency to remain with the female in order to bring up the young. Now, it is abundantly evident that the female in the human species is not at all able to take care of the upbringing of offspring by herself, since the needs of human life demand many things which cannot be provided by one person alone. Therefore, it is appropriate to human nature that a man remain together with a woman after the generative act, and not leave her immediately to have such relations with another woman, as is the practice with fornicators.

7. Nor, indeed, is the fact that a woman may be able by means of her own wealth to care for the child by herself an obstacle to this argument. For natural rectitude in human acts is not dependent on things accidentally possible in the case of one individual, but, rather, on those conditions which accompany the entire species.

8. Again, we must consider that in the human species offspring require not only nourishment for the body, as in the case of other animals, but also edu-118

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 cation for the soul. For other animals naturally possess their own kinds of prudence whereby they are enabled to take care of themselves. But a man lives by reason, which he must develop by lengthy, temporal experience so that he may achieve prudence. Hence, children must be instructed by parents who are already experienced people. Nor are they able to receive such instruction as soon as they are born, but after a long time, and especially after they have reached the age of discretion. Moreover, a long time is needed for this instruction. Then, too, because of the impulsion of the passions, through which prudent judgment is vitiated, they require not merely instruction but correction.

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. Therefore, in the human species, it is not enough, as in the case of birds, to devote a small amount of time to bringing up offspring, for a long period of life is required. Hence, since among all animals it is necessary for male and female to remain together as long 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. Now, we call this society
matrimony
.

Therefore, matrimony is natural for man, and promiscuous performance of the sexual act, outside matrimony, is contrary to man’s good. For this reason, it must be a sin.

9. Nor, in fact, should it be deemed a slight sin for a man to arrange for the emission of semen apart from the proper purpose of generating and bringing up children, on the argument that it is either a slight sin, or none at all, for a person to use a part of the body for a different use than that to which it is directed by nature (say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) because man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded.

10. Moreover, these views which have just been given have a solid basis in divine authority. That the emission of semen under conditions in which offspring cannot follow is illicit is quite clear. There is the text of Leviticus (18:22– 23): “thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind . . . and thou shalt not copulate with any beast.” And in 1 Corinthians (6:10): “Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind . . . shall possess the kingdom of God.”

11. Also, that fornication and every performance of the act of reproduction with a person other than one’s wife are illicit is evident. For it is said: “There shall be no whore among the daughters of Israel, nor whoremonger among the sons of Israel” (Deut. 23:17); and in Tobias (4:13): “Take heed to keep thyself
Christianity
119

from all fornication, and beside thy wife never endure to know a crime”; and in 1 Corinthians (6:18): “Fly fornication.”

12. By this conclusion we refute the error of those who say that there is no more sin in the emission of semen than in the emission of any other superfluous matter, and also of those who state that fornication is not a sin.

[Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Contra Gentiles,
trans. Vernon Bourke (Garden City, NY: Image/Doubleday, 1956), pp. 52–57]

MECHTHILD OF MAGDEBURG

Mechthild of Magdeburg (ca. 1210–ca. 1282) was a contemplative nun who recorded and interpreted her ongoing visions in a book known as
The Flowing
Light of the Godhead
(begun around 1250). She was nurtured by one of the many medieval networks that served as “invisible colleges” for religious women.

Mechthild’s writing, marked by bold poetry, falls into a long line of works that appropriate the languages of erotic passion and marriage to describe the soul’s encounters with God.

Document 2–16

m e c h t h i l d o f m a g d e b u r g , t h e fl o w i n g l i g h t

12. How a Bride Who Is United with God Rejects Consolation from All Creatures
Except for That from God Alone, and How She Sinks Into Pain
So speaks God’s bride who has taken her rest in the sealed treasury of the holy complete Trinity: “Oh, get up and depart from me, all you creatures! You cause me pain and you are not able to console me.”

The creatures say: “Why?”

The bride says: “My Love left me as I slept, as I was resting in oneness with him.”

“Can’t this beautiful world and all the good it contains console you?”

“No, I see the snake of deceit and how treacherous cunning slithers into all the pleasures of this world. I also see the hook of lust in the carcass of base sweetness with which she catches many.”

“Can the kingdom of heaven console you at all?”

“No, in itself it would be dead if the living God were not there.”

“Well then, Lady Bride, can’t the saints console you?”

“No, if they were to be separated from the living God flowing through them, they would weep more bitterly than I; for they have ascended above me and dwell deeper in God.”

“Can God’s Son ever console you?”

120

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 “Yes, I certainly ask him when we stroll through the flowers of holy knowledge, and I beg him full of longing that he open up for me the playful flood flowing in the Holy Trinity from which alone the soul lives.

If I am to be consoled in proportion to my nobility, God’s breath must draw me effortlessly into itself, For the sparkling sun of the living Godhead Shines through the bright water of cheerful humanity, And the sweet pleasure of the Holy Spirit

Who proceeds from them both

Has taken from me everything

That dwells beneath the Godhead.

Nothing tastes good to me but God alone;

I am wondrously dead.

I am freely willing to give up this taste

So that he be wonderfully praised.

For when I, a worthless human being, cannot praise God with my powers, I send all creatures to court

And bid them that they praise God for me

With all their wisdom,

With all their love,

With all their beauty,

And with all their longing,

Just as they were created by God in innocence, And also with all their voices

As they now sing.

When I look upon this great praising,

I feel no pain.

“I cannot endure that a single consolation touch me except my Lover. I love my earthly friends in the company of heaven and I love my enemies in holy aching for their happiness. God has enough of everything; caressing souls is the only thing he cannot get enough of.”

[Mechthild of Magdeburg,
The Flowing Light of the Godhead,
trans. Frank Tobin (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1998), pp. 152–156]

MARTIN LUTHER

Martin Luther (1483–1546) stands astride western church history as the great reformer. There were Christian reform movements before his, inside and outside the churches, but none had succeeded either in establishing a separate institution or in articulating a full, alternate theology. Formed as a friar and drilled in scholastic teaching, Luther became convinced over years that church
Christianity
121

doctrine and practice had departed from scriptural revelation and the example of the early church. He condemned with particular severity the exaltation of vowed celibacy over marriage and the needless complexities in canon law for betrothal, marriage, and divorce. The selection here is an early sermon (1519) written before Luther had published his great reforming treatises or been ex-communicated by the pope.

Document 2–17

m a r t i n l u t h e r , a s e r m o n o n t h e e s t a t e o f m a r r i a g e 1. God created Adam and brought all the animals before him. Adam did not find a proper companion among them suitable for marriage, so God then said, “It is not good that Adam should be alone. I will create a helpmeet for him to be with him always.” And he sent a deep sleep upon Adam, and took a rib from him, and closed his side up again. And out of this very rib taken from Adam, God created a woman and brought her to him. Then Adam said, “This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called a woman, because she was taken from her man. This is why a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh” [Gen. 2:18–24].