Religion and Sex Morality
BOOKS OF THE DAY'
By KENNETH INGRAM CLIFFORD HOWARD, who is quoted in these pages, has pointed out that " in popular estimation religion is " essentially
opposed to the sexual ; whereas in point of truth no two phases of emotional life are more closely related." Pagan religion was not ashamed of the affinity, and Dr. Marr gives a useful summary of the evidence showing the prominent part which phallic rite and symbolism played in early forms of worship. The policy of paganism was, in fact, to raise the sex emotion to a spiritual level, and Dr. Marr rightly emphasises the laudability of this purpose. It is a policy which in practice, however, must end by lowering the religious appeal to the physical level, not because sex has merely a physical value but because phallic worship must necessarily provide the emotional stimulus for sexual excite- ment. Dr. Marr refers repeatedly to the fact that these practices " had long since degenerated into opportunities for indulgence." But it is extremely doubtful whether, in this respect, there had ever been a golden age, whether phallic worship had ever been or could ever be anything else than " opportunity for indulgence."
By the time Christianity appeared Roman civilisation was making little attempt to give religious sanction to the sexual orgies which were common in society. Morals of all kinds had deteriorated, and against this decadence Christianity was soon seen in full revolt. Dr. Marr follows the now fashionable theory of fastening the responsibility for the extreme asceticism of early Christianity on to the shoulders of St. Paul. No doubt the Pauline teaching was one of the main causes, but its influence can easily be exaggerated. There must have been other factors at work. The belief of the early Church in an immediate Second Coming, for instance, considerably affected the Christian outlook on procreation and therefore on the whole sex instinct. This is a subject which needs to be much more fully explored.
The ascetic tradition has had a profound effect both on Catholic and Protestant moral theology. Dr. Marr has traced the consequences of regarding the sex-act as essentially sinful and of interpreting purity in the sense of chastity, consequences which were disastrous both in mediaeval times and in more recent history. He is inclined occasionally to strain the sexual significance of religious customs with an almost Freudian insistence, and he seems to suggest that the dissolution of the monasteries was largely inspired by their immoral conditions. Whether those conditions have been exaggerated or not, it is difficult to believe that the motive was other than to crush these wealthy and therefore extremely powerful corporations. But it is a sign of the times that this courageous book should have been written by a clergyman of the Presbyterian Church and that he should apparently recognise that, while Catholic and Protestant moral theology have equally been open to criticism, Catholicism in practice has in this respect been wiser than its rival.
The book describes itself as a " historical survey." It does not provide any very original theories, but it is an extremely useful summary and tolerant guide to a subject which even yet has not been sufficiently investigated. The weakest feature of the book is in respect to its constructive suggestions. Dr. Marr might claim that this is outside his province, but he has devoted a chapter to " Some Practical Conclusions," and by this he must be judged. It contains much valid and familiar criticism, but the only definite proposal is that the Churches—the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches might combine—should " set up a commission to investigate the bearings of the various themes we have touched upon in thiS work . . . It need not be necessary for such a commission to come to hasty determinations on all the issues we have raised. The very fact that they were meeting and considering these problems would be something possessing intense signifi- cance." But would it ? The Churches are already continually by quasi-official methods considering these issues, for they have become uncomfortably aware of the cleavage between the modern and traditional orthodox outlook on sex. But this is of little value, and a commission would be of little value, until the fundamental difficulty is removed. And the fundamental difficulty "is that the mentality of the Churches in regard to the sex issue is still that of the older tradition. Church and the modem generation are thinking in two different languages. Such a commission might have an educative' influence on the Churches themselves, but so long as they approach the problem from a traditional philosophical stand- point, it is difficult to believe that they are likely to make any authoritative pronouncement which will be a serious contribution to the shaping of a new sex-moral standard. For, at heart, orthodoxy regards human nature as essentially evil, and as liable, therefore, to fall into sin unless moral restrictions are rigidly imposed. Modern thought has a greater faith in human nature.
One curious defect in Dr. Mare's book is the omission of all reference to homosexuality. Not only would it haVe been useful to examine the attitude taken by earlier religions in regard to this temperaMent—there are allusions in the Old Testament which indicate that there were homosexuals in the Temple—but the question is one which cannot be ignored when the record of the mediaeval Monasteries is considered. The burning of wizards is also almost certainly concerned with the same question. And obviously in modern times it is an aspect of sex which needs to be rationally re-explored in the light of saner psychologiCal experience:
Dr. Marr's comments on the Catholic practice of auricular, confession and its reactions on the confessor are not altogether "adequate. There is probably a great deal of justification for his criticisms, but the fault lies in the moral theology in which the confessor is trained and in his generally amateur acquaint-. ance with psychological science. Whether he were married or not, if these faultS were removed, would be immaterial : an unmarried psycho-analyst can be just as efficient as a married man. Dr. Marr admits this contention when he adds (p. 115) that " no one would deny, of course, the value of occasional confession." Yet, provided the confessional is reformed, it is the regularity of confession, on which the _Catholic Church has wisely insisted, which is of importance. Over-frequency is no doubt bad for the penitent, but " occasional"—in the sense of irregular—confession involves in many cases an emotional emphasis which is removed when the practice has become familiar through regularity.
In p. 104, the sexual expression of the flagellant fraternities should surely be described as, masochistic rather- than " Sadistic." And on page 147, Anglicans who resort to .Confes- sion would entirely repudiate, the suggestion, that " unlike the priests of Rome (their) cler&vmen inaynot have the power to give absolution for sin."
Sex in Religion : An Historical Survey. By G. Simpson Marr. (Allen and Unwin. 7s. 6d.)
Previous page
