Jan
27
Reflection on Bede
Filed Under Chastity, Franciscan University, History, Marriage, Reflection
Even as an historical text, Bede had moments that absolutely fascinated me, especially in ways I couldn’t have expected it to. I was absolutely thrilled to see so many references to Sacred Music and to gain new insights on how the earliest English church. Of particular interest was Augustine’s correspondence with Pope Gregory I in Book I, Chapter 27. It is fascinating to observe Augustine’s questions, particularly those concerning marriage and sexuality, given his background and his less-than-optimistic approach to human sexuality. It is equally fascinating to see how some of his questions, particularly his eighth question about Baptism and menstruation, seem to already have somewhat more “progressive” answers in the mind of the Church as embodied in Gregory’s writing. Some do not.
In that same eighth section, Pope Gregory still cautions men not to approach Church until having washed and waited some time after having had intercourse. He does this not to condemn marriage but to fairly observe how “lawful intercourse” is bound with “bodily desire.” This is just fascinating to me because it is so at odds with my formation in John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. On the other hand, there is idealism in JPII’s work that seems almost too optimistic for me at times, and I sympathize with Augustine and Gregory in the realism of their observations. Lust often seems like an unavoidable part of the marital union. The difference between these two pontiffs comes in the goodness of the desire for intercourse. For Gregory and Augustine, the desire for intercourse is only holy in the context of its procreative end. It is not, in their understanding, holy to desire intercourse because it is pleasurable to oneself, and if one were to inevitably dwell on the pleasure of the act as they perform it, they become “contaminated” by it – by allowing lust into their heart. Marital intercourse, then, becomes an almost inescapable occasion of sin, which one must strive to honor in respect to its procreative end, and become indifferent to, in regards to the immense pleasure which accompanies it. There is a real viable tension between the reality of the sexual urge and the inherent goodness of procreation.
John Paul II hoped to reconcile this age old problem by providing insights as to how the unitive end of marital intercourse could be itself considered something holy. His ideas are expressed in terms of self-gift; of the “pouring out” of oneself into another in that physical embrace, the experience of which is both pleasurable and holy. This tends to be equally problematic in practical application because of the inherently selfish nature of the sexual urge after the fall. Augustine knew this all too well, having habituated himself in sexual activity prior to his conversion, not as a gift of self, but as a more natural way of satisfying his desire.
It seems to me there is wisdom in acknowledging that Augustine and Gregory weren’t ignorant in their approach to sexuality. It’s not as if John Paul II has blown them out of the water. Their concern is not detached from the human experience. Perhaps their insights, combined with JPII’s own more modern insights are not mutually exclusive. Instead of trying to liberate the marital union from scrutiny, perhaps modern man needs to inquire as to his own intention in the bedroom. Do I seek to love my wife in this act, or am I looking for something to satisfy a craving that I have formed through lustful thoughts and acts? I don’t think this is an unfair question, but I do admit it is a difficult one. It is a question which cannot be answered by some lofty ideal but by the honesty which characterizes Christian discipleship.
Comments
Leave a Reply
