Reality Check: A Response to History Channel’s ‘Sex in the Bible’

An otherwise decent History Channel feature turns into an unfair attack on Augustine. We defend our Church Father.

On Super Bowl Sunday, The History Channel aired a program called “The Good Book of Love: Sex in the Bible,” which claims to explore “the uncensored Bible—a surprising source of saucy tales and a view on sex that isn't often trumpeted in church.” In this regard, the Apostolate of St. Jerome should have much interest in this documentary, for we too claim that Biblical attitudes toward sex get ignored in modern Catholic teaching. But something tells us they aren’t talking about the divine preference for celibacy that we herald. A viewing of the film confirmed our suspicions.

Now, ASJ must say in all sincerity that The History Channel has outdone itself lately with fantastic programming, including a pair of oft-running, marvelous documentaries on genius inventors Nicola Tesla and George Washington Carver, both of whom were lifelong celibates.

Following in this same vein, much of “Sex in the Bible” is very well-done, even surprisingly so. For example, the producers show professionalism by giving equal time to both sides of the Sex-in-Eden debate. The small-minded view is provided by one Carole Fontaine of Andover-Newton Theological School, who asserts that sex had to be in Eden because it was a world of paradise; for how could paradise not contain sex? Ms. Fontaine should read how Jesus describes heaven as a place where they neither marry nor are given in marriage. But a more correct view is also given by Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles. He argues that there was no sex in Eden because there was no death, and that Adam and Eve did not discover their sexuality until they discovered they would die. Truly this man descends from the race of Our Lord! Another high point was the clear emphasis that the religion of Israel stood apart from competing religions by worshiping a god who neither created through sex nor tolerated sex acts in temple worship. But perhaps the best part of the documentary came when summarizing what would become a chief characteristic of the emerging Christian religion. The documentary’s claim that “The ancient Hebrew tradition that celebrated married sexuality was turning into one that honored chastity,” sounds like it was stolen from The Loyal Lion. This point was made better still by a good discussion about the advantages celibacy provided for women, especially relief from high-mortality childbearing, which freed them for the service of the Church.

Now “Sex in the Bible” certainly has its problems, and ASJ has addressed many of these before. For example, the widespread failure to see Song of Solomon as an indictment of Solomon’s philandering leads to the error that this book is a Biblical praise of sexual pleasure, even though it was never understood this way by Jews or the early Christians. The moral abyss to which this leads is stated clearly by Renita Weems of Vanderbilt University Divinity School who concludes—we’re not making this up—that without Song of Songs “we would never know...that good ol’ lust, good ol’ passion, good ol’ grinding is permissible.” Yeah, Renita, good luck teaching Christian youth about chastity when you’re telling them that “good ol’ grinding” is sanctioned by the Bible. Another erroneous view the program airs is the assertion that Paul’s love for celibacy can be tempered today because it was based on his belief that Christ was coming soon. The implication is that since we “know better” today, we can ease off on celibacy. The big problem with this view of course is the false belief that we have some kind of certainty today that He isn’t coming soon.

But these points aside, one has to say the documentary does a good job for a secular institution. But in the waning moments of the program, an otherwise fair if not perfect look at Biblical sexual morals becomes a groundless attack on St. Augustine. This odd twist is reflected in the description of the program given on The History Channel website: “The [Old Testament] is filled with ribald tales of matriarchs going to amazing extremes to get children, while in the [New Testament] celibacy and virginity are commended. But nowhere in the Bible is sex itself called sinful--this attitude developed over hundreds of years and was influenced by the misogynist opinions of celibate church fathers.”

This is an alarming statement, and ASJ certainly cannot sit around while the fathers of the Church are labeled misogynists. But besides that one can readily see why ASJ feels duty-bound to counter this charge head-on. For we contend that the thought of Church Fathers like Augustine, with their high esteem for continence, celibacy, and virginity are precisely the fix for a Church that is struggling with sexual sin, and that we need to return to espousing views more like theirs if Catholicism is to convert this sinful age. Yet, “Sex in the Bible” suggests that the converse is true, and that however well-intentioned theological giants like Augustine were, the influence of their teachings must be excised like a tumor from Christian theology if we are to recover the truth about sexuality.

Now if Augustine is slandered in this way then St. Jerome, the patron of our apostolate, cannot be far behind since many of his statements about sex were even less measured than Augustine’s. In fact, this is even hinted at when they say “fathers” in the plural. But the unfairness of this attack is shown clearly in both the plural “fathers” and the charge of “misogynist.” For the documentary doesn’t even mention any Church Father other than Augustine! And even more unfairly, despite the ridiculous suggestion that the celibacy of the Fathers had something to do with their alleged misogyny, “Sex in the Bible” gives not one word in the program justifying why Augustine should be called a misogynist. Do they mean to imply he chose celibacy out of spite for women? We don’t know because they don’t say. It seems to us that if you’re going to label cherished Christian saints as misogynist, you better put up your evidence or shut up. Besides, this misogyny charge even contradicts what the program said earlier about the benefits of celibacy for women. For how can Augustine be a misogynist when he recommends what is best for women?

But The History Channel is no more fair concerning the other charge that they don’t back up, namely that these misogynist Christians began equating sex with sinfulness in a way that is not found in the Scriptures. For this specific objection is never made against Augustine in the documentary. Rather the program states that “Christianity’s view of sex within marriage would take a dramatically conservative turn in large part because of a 4th century bishop named Augustine.” So it appears their issue with Augustine is his teachings on sex within marriage. Now this topic is very important for its relevance to the contraception issue that causes so much turmoil the Church. So we must deal with the accusation that the Catholic understanding of married sexuality is rooted in a flawed mortal like Augustine and not in God’s word.

Fortunately, we are well-prepared to defend Catholic morals against this charge because we’ve seen this tactic from our foes for quite some time now. There is a movement to re-cast Catholic sexual morality as a deviation from Biblical and apostolic truth that came about when misogynist (and usually celibate) male leaders of the Church trampled on the pure kernel of the gospel with the burden of their psychosexual issues. It is often suggested that the influence of Greek thought, which was more negative toward the body than Hebrew thought, played a role as well. This is basically the argument the documentary makes.

Now of course our fallible Church Fathers sometimes made errors that no Catholic should be ashamed to admit. For example “Sex in the Bible” points out Augustine’s belief that “True marital chastity avoids intercourse with a menstruating or pregnant women, indeed it refrains from any marital encounter where there is no prospect of conception, as with older women.” Menstrual intercourse and pregnant intercourse aside, his prohibition of sex after menopause is completely indefensible given the Scriptural witness of both Elizabeth and Sarah. For such “encounters” with older women produced none other than John the Baptist and the patriarch Isaac. How Augustine arrived at this conclusion that is so blatantly contrary to Scripture is beyond us. And ASJ has also attacked Augustine’s view of “sex only for procreation” in our essay commemorating forty years of Humanae Vitae; that position also contradicts Scripture.

But all this is beside the point. Take away pregnancy or menstruation or menopause, there’s still the important issue of how Christian couples should conduct themselves in marriage the vast majority of times when these conditions do not apply. The importance of Augustine’s teaching is that Scripture does give instruction in this regard, and men like Augustine were only doing their duty as bishops and theologians by not only handing on these divine truths, but trying to understand them better.

And so here is the basis of our counter to Augustine’s detractors. There is no need to look into his closet full of personal demons or into his philosophical influences to find a source for his negative view of sex. Rather, views like those of Augustine are perfectly explanatory once the full Biblical picture is presented. For plenty of Biblical texts do in fact seem to portray sex negatively, even marital sex. It’s just that “Sex in the Bible” leaves most of them out.

Specifically, the program makes zero mention of the Mosaic Law that men who had an emission were unclean. It makes no mention of the fact that prior to descending on Sinai God ordered Israel to prepare for his presence by not copulating for three days. And perhaps most importantly, it fails to mention Paul’s teaching in Corinthians that married couples can improve their prayer lives by temporary continence. This last one is especially important because it proves that married sex itself, and not merely the obligations to children that sex can create, is an obstacle to greater holiness. One text the program actually does mention, though it fails to bring it to Augustine’s defense, is 1 Thess. 4:4–5. Here Paul tells his flock that each man should know how to “possess his vessel,” i.e. his wife, “in sanctification and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles that know not God.” Although “Sex in the Bible” misses the importance of these texts, the Church Fathers knew them well, and they colored their view of even marital sex. So, in spite of claiming to give the full truth of what the Bible says about sex, “Sex in the Bible” ignores the very texts that would most vindicate Augustine.

Now because they don’t understand the true source behind Augustine’s teachings, they misrepresent the subsequent history of Catholic morality as well. “For centuries,” the narrator tells us, “Christian scholars following Augustine debated whether enjoying marital sex was a minor sin, or one that could bring about eternal damnation.” But this was not the question; one does not choose to enjoy or not enjoy sex. Given the Biblical texts we have seen, the more legitimate question is whether it is possible to cross a line into sin even within conjugal intercourse. This view needn’t say that sex is sinful per se, but that what is licit can easily be tainted, much like a male doctor giving a female a medical exam. Another legitimate question for pious married couples, is whether they can become channels of greater blessings by giving up sex, at least temporarily. And if this is in fact the case, and Paul suggests that it is, then there must be something imperfect even with marital intercourse. Then as today, these are the real questions of interest to theologians or to believers seeking more perfect discipleship. St. Augustine found answers to these important questions in the Scriptures, not in Greek philosophy, and he dutifully shared them with his flock.

 This article appeared in the March 4, 2009 issue of The Loyal Lion.