“And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”-Gen 2:25
A very popular preacher who is downloaded frequently, wears MMA shirts and whom I’m sure can do more pushups than me now, introduces a series of posts about intimate topics with this Scripture passage. What ensues is a marriage free-for-all. The premise is simple: the marriage bed is “undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4) and thus what happens in there between two consenting spouses, stays in there.
Or does it?
Let’s take a closer look:
“Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”-Hebrews 13:4
There is a reason why Adam and Eve were not ashamed. We discover the reason in the moment when they lose this innocence. We, too, know the feeling; and it is a feeling. Disorder breaks the rhythm of nature, the smooth cadence of our existence, and the feeling we have when we sin is the breaking of the bond of peace. The angel has declared goodwill to men and yet we turn around and flail about, in what Julian of Norwich describes as an ignorance of love that blinds us to the muddy hole in which our soul is captured.
On the one hand, marriage is meant to be undefiled and truly Adam and Eve experienced “no shame” in their relationship. However, on the other hand, when one does defile the marriage bed there should be shame because it is God’s way of bringing us to repentance. Repeat: there should be shame.
Notice: Adam and Eve did not cheat on each other. They cheated on God, and it was that adultery that defiled their innocence. It was that fornication that turned the bliss of the garden into an awkward peep show.
Marriage is not a free-for-all. Marriage is the opportunity to express ordered love. In fact, there is no such thing as disordered love. The moment one begins to express love in a disordered fashion, he or she is no longer expressing love. It’s a chart that has lost its bars, and thus a symphony constantly coursing to chaos. The dissonance is palpable but what we do to assuage the cutting at our soul is even worse.
Under the banner of religion, even the Cross of Christ, we declare, “We are free!” As if the declaration somehow smokes out the demons or bars the conscience from sensing a lurking malady. Yet it does play tricks on the mind. St. Paul warns us to not conform to the pattern of the world–the pattern of self and instant-gratification, materialism, the objectification of the human person, lust, disordered desires and so forth–but to be transformed through the renewing of your mind (Rom 12:2). Loud noise has as way of breaking the intellect’s proper function. It disorients us, and so too the war cry “freedom!” has a way of drowning out evil in an innocuous soup of shamelessness.
Love is an integrated response to the other in such a way that I put the entirety of their good as my #1 goal (1 Cor 10:24). The moment that my perceived “good” comes first–inaugurated by the low-chime of the MP3 of freedom I have recorded and ready to play on my ipod–love ceases to exist and shame should emerge. That’s right. Shames comes before pain. It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance, and sometimes shame is that gentle tug of the Holy Spirit to keep us from the cliff of self-mutilation, or as the band Nazareth say, “Love hurts.” C.S. Lewis talks about the problem of pain, but the problem of shame is always lurking 10 minutes before the charley-horse.
I’ve got no lists of do’s and don’ts. However, what I do reject is that the marriage bed cannot be defiled.
What do you think?
Like what I had to say? Hate it? Check me out at my blog where I discuss why I’m Catholic and other things about that @ www.almostnotcatholic.com
(image is PD-US)
10 thoughts on “Marriage & Shame?”
I think for someone to read “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled” and think that it means “the marriage bed cannot be defiled” is either a very poor sola scripturist or a subversive peddler of falsehood.
Either way he’s incorrect and it’s hard to argue that he isn’t.
I must admit I’m not really sure what the point is supposed to be (or what person we’re talking about). Is he really positing that once a person gets married, he becomes incapable of committing a sexual sin? Or just that he becomes incapable of committing one with his wife? St. Thomas would say otherwise.
I read a blog post about this a couple weeks ago, and the ensuing combox dialog was, well, diverse: http://www.elizabethesther.com/2011/08/the-pornification-of-marriage.html
I think, Titus, the answer from the MMA presenter (I don’t know who he is, either, but recognize the content) would be that once two people are married, they cannot commit sexual sin with one another (i.e. no “type” of sexual act is intrinsically wrong). Many Catholics agree, too, stipulating only that sexual behavior cannot be engaged in such that conception is made impossible.
Well, that might simply be a polite way of stating what is widely understood to be the “one rule of marital relations,” but I wouldn’t say it that way. Of course, it seems clear that people stating that as the single rule are actually leaving a number of assumptions implicit (e.g., the audience knows that the sixth commandment prohibits, say, orgies). Germain Grisez posits at least a single additional precept related to what I’ll delicately describe as the sequence of events. I am not aware that the Magisterium reflects Grisez’s belief about timing.
As for the article: that seems to be another matter entirely. That seems less a question of sexual ethics more a question of dignity; or even, as the author writes, of shame. (Of course, I recognize that on second that this is lazy and question-begging; a thing is shameful because it is wrong, not the other way around.) But the class of things referred to here seem to be improper for reasons other than a defect in the sexual act itself. I would say that the traditional “single rule” is probably correct, but incomplete.
My point is not that shame = something is wrong. Rather, that things that are wrong bring us shame and that is a good thing. There is self-inflicted shame which is not good. To not distinguish the two would be unfortunate, but me not doing that in this blog post doesn’t make my point *lazy*, just in need of a nuance assumed as common sense. (Which is Lewis’s point about pain–and what I was referencing when I said, “shame is the ten minutes before…”) No question begging. As you have rightly brought up, dignity is the key.
Do you believe that some behaviors can be intrinsically undignified or dis-ennobling? I imagine you do, and thus you affirm the major premise of the article.
Pax.
The reason Adam and Eve were not ashamed is because there was no reason for them to BE ashamed. But is Saint Augustine’s exegesis of the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis correct? Do a search: First Scandal.
Shame is something that everyone experiences because we are not perfect and feel like they should be…not necessarily because they have done anything sinful. It is a deeply held (often unconscious) personal belief about yourself such as: “I’m not good enough,” “I’m not strong enough,” or “I’m not smart enough.”
Marriage creates a whole new set of roles you are suppose to fulfill for another person and in the eyes of society. A few overly simplistic examples I can think of : “the ideal husband or wife”, “the successful breadwinner”, “the perfect homemaker.” If sex and shame are almost synonymous outside of marriage, why would it be difficult to imagine there being shame about sex inside of marriage?
We get a whole lot of mixed messages from society about who we are suppose to be. A few reasons a person might feel ashamed during sex within marriage would be insecurities related to body image, emotional pain from past sexual experiences, anxiety about being a good lover, or a lack of emotional connection to a spouse.
Ideally the graces of sanctified love through marriage would keep fear and shame out of a couple’s sex life, but I don’t think that is very realistic. Feelings of shame about sexuality needs to be talked about which requires vulnerability, emotional honesty, prayer, and education.
Here’s a great talk about vulnerability and shame:
http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability.html
Amy,
Thanks for your comment. You’ve taken an entirely different spin on it, but one worth bringing up. Sadly, sin has a variety of ways of bringing disorder to our sexual lives. As you said, we should discuss those areas where we feel unnecessary shame and allow love to heal the hurt.
My point, and I hope it wasn’t lost in semantics, is that shame–at times–can be a way God is keeping us away from sinful behavior. When we objectify someone we feel shame, because deep inside we know we’ve broken our relationship with our brother or sister. When we ignore it (shame), as you implied, it can be difficult to overcome those feelings that unfortunately get transfered over to marriage.
Marriage is not a free-for-all. Marriage is the opportunity to express ordered love. – Well said. I think most normal people would agree that the marital bed CAN be defiled. If one rejects the Magisterium and Natural Law,though, it’s difficult to know when the line has been crossed.
I appreciated the article- especially the point that if you believe that within marriage no sexual expression is wrong (and this is what I was taught by several different Christian pastors and teachers before becoming Catholic), then you might not be “tuned in” to the Spirit of God trying to guide you into all truth… instead, like you said, you’ll be thinking that this guidance is actually deception, and call your ignorance freedom… but that error will eventually lead to pain, because of the brokenness you are causing through your sin… Okay, so I realize I just rehashed your whole article. Sometimes I have to think “out loud” to process properly! Thankyou though. I don’t have a list either! Even if I did, I don’t know that itemizing things would be right or proper in such a public forum?