In a Theology of the Body discussion group I was in, one Catholic convert told us that she rejected her Protestant upbringing partly for this reason: She was taught that the sex instinct was a powerful urge that could only be given in to in marriage; sex seemed only to be a part of our fallen nature, irrevocably corrupted by sin, and only made licit by the marriage bond.

She also questioned the idea that women were expected to, as part of their Christian duties as wives, be the "outlets" for male sexuality, as the male fallen nature was considered particularly, rabidly in need of such outlets.

Anyway, the 30-day sex challenge sounds like a more modern, equal-opportunity version. I will note that one article I read said that the pastor makes his church successful by tackling controversial topics. Which makes me grimace a little bit.

But- hey, they have great taste in books!
corita | 02.20.08 - 7:07 am | #

I think there's something fundamentally disordered and degrading about the challenge, since for all its efforts toward improving the quality of life for married couples and "bringing the spark back", the real dignity and beauty of human sexuality is being ignored. The concept behind the challenge, if I understand correctly, is that spouses are to commit to 30 consecutive days of nookie, after which time they ought to find their marriages stronger and more vibrant... I would argue that a couple who is struggling to find the time (or desire) for intimacy has issues that go deeper than carnal appetites, and that whatever this pastor's intentions are, if he really wants to help his parishoners out in the bedroom, he should crack open JPII's TOB and familiarize himself with God's plan for human sexuality...
Jenny S | Homepage | 02.20.08 - 9:56 am | #

Another site that noted the married couples' challenge suggested that daily sex for a 30-day period might not be as much of a "spark" as a "chore" by day 20 or so.

Daniel Stern's meditation in "Diner" about how different it was to be married as opposed to dating could be more useful to the marrieds than this idea, in my opinion. With the proper bleeps, of course.
Brett | Homepage | 02.20.08 - 10:20 am | #

I totally agree that this seems a little misguided - but doesn't that sum up Protestantism...at least they are trying (OK, that was a little cheeky...).

You are absolutely right that marriage cannot be changed "into a relationship of domination and lust" (CCC 1607). And I would suggest they spend thirty days of PRAYER about God's plan for sexuality for them. The other stuff, especially in marriage, is very personal and certainly need not be "legislated" in a 30 day event.

I will say, however, (and I can't find the scripture passage right now) St. Paul talks about marrying to avoid (I believe fornicating) sin and that although this was not ideal, it is not in itself sinful (in other words moving things along more quickly - and this was in a day when people married much earlier). Furthermore, I believe he talks about husband and wife going away to pray, but not going a way too long lest they fall in to lust with someone else. Again, he says they should come together before too long. In a way he is telling them to be Chaste "as they are able". So, although I absolutely agree with things said earlier, I would say that we can recognize that there are degrees of holiness in chastity (just like in other areas) - and we should at least ponder the points St. Paul is making
NorthoftheBorder | 02.20.08 - 10:25 am | #

I actually find the 30-day challenge to be disturbing, especially as it applies to married couples. It does not seem to address chastity for married couples, but instead seems to view sex in a "more is better" light. That is dangerous as well, since it can lead to viewing one's spouse and their body as a commodity and the marital act as something to check off the "to do" list. As Dawn has stated, the amount of sexual activity a couple engages in should be a decision made by the couple, not by following the rules of a pastor. It seems that "requiring" sex everyday would rob the marital act of some of its beauty, giving it the appearance of a commonplace event. This can happen to couples who are trying to conceive. Calculating the most fertile time and knowing that you have to "do it" can make the marital act feel like a chore. I cannot imagine what it would be like to feel "required" to do it every day for 30 days!

Would married couples not do well to connect each day not only on a physical level, but on an emotional and spiritual level as well? Setting aside time to communicate about the day's events and praying as a couple are also integral to a close marital relationship as well. Putting sex under the microscope in this way has the potential to rob the marital act of its emotional and spiritual dimensions. Why not challenge married couples to investigate the true meaning of sex, in its unitive and procreative aspects? To share the joys and challenges of their sexual life?
Andrea | Homepage | 02.20.08 - 10:48 am | #

Someone should send their pastor some Christopher West breaking down the T.O.B for them.
John | Homepage | 02.20.08 - 11:29 am | #

Married sex, like every aspect of married love, should always be an act of the spouses' free will. The decision when to engage in it should be made between husband and wife — not husband, wife, and pastor.

I agree, 100% -- and also when "priest" is substituted for "pastor."
L. | Homepage | 02.20.08 - 12:12 pm | #

Both versions of the challenge are bankrupt.

Telling the unmarried to abstain for 30 days merely makes people who are shacking up long for Day 31. (Well, we don't want to use that other "s" word; might make them fell bad.)

Telling the married to do it 30 days in a row turns sex into nothing more than another check box on the chore list. (It almost assuredly assumes contraception as well; the challenge was to have sex, not make a baby.) It's an offense against chastity to objectify your spouse, and that is indeed what this does.

It all sounds like "The Church of What's Happening Now." Flash and splash may draw a crowd, but it doesn't seem to be the narrow path.

I don't seem to remember anywhere in the Gospel where Christ told the apostles to run the church like a business. Or more specifically, like show business. Personal opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.
C.J. | 02.20.08 - 1:06 pm | #

I also read about this 'Challenge,' and once I got past thinking what a great Simpsons episode it would make for Flanders and his wife, (Homer would insist on joining the Relevant Church at once, but with that name, how could the show improve on it?)...I was left uneasy. Dawn has precisely articulated why.
Brenda from Flatbush | Homepage | 02.20.08 - 1:15 pm | #

I don't think that Ned is into necrophilia as Maude has been dead for a few seasons. Something to do with Homer and t-shirts!
Pat Patterson | 02.20.08 - 2:20 pm | #

I also have serious problems with what I perceive as the challenge's subtext that chastity is a sort of punishment for being single or, conversely, that sex is a reward for being married.

I agree. I remember being a (very chaste) teenager and seeing a magnet that said, in part, "Sex is God's gift to married couples." It was infuriating - still is, actually.

There are plenty of rewards for being married in our society that go well beyond the emotional rewards that matrimony should bring - financial stability, social elevation, respect, and, of course, the lack of condescention that those who are single are subject to.

Why not encourage people, both single and married, to be sexual for 30 days? Sexuality is much more than a physical act. Spend 30 days connecting with other humans: volunteer at a school, help out with coaching your kid's lacrosse team, see your family, walk the dog every day with some people from the neighbourhood. Thirty days of sexuality that doesn't involve touching another person.
theobromophile | Homepage | 02.20.08 - 3:22 pm | #

Awesome, theobromophile. Noiw I would love to hear a priest or pastor say that to his congregation.
corita | 02.20.08 - 4:11 pm | #

The implication is that the sexual instinct is a kind of demon that can be temporarily bound but never tamed.

But isn't that what St. Paul meant when he wrote that it is better that some marry than burn with lust?
Thomas | 02.20.08 - 4:56 pm | #

theobromophile, dumb it down for me a bit. By being sexual do you mean being feminine and/or masculine in what we do?
dandelion | 02.20.08 - 5:01 pm | #

There are plenty of rewards for being married in our society... social elevation, respect, and, of course, the lack of condescention that those who are single are subject to.

Honestly, that's horrible. I know tons of people who want to stay unmarried (even some in long-term monogamous relationships, some with homes and kids), and I can't think of any good reasons to make the state of being unmarried some sort of social stigma. People can be incredibly rude.

I tried the 30-day challenge years ago, on a whim, when a Lutheran friend (with wiccan leanings) suggested it as an interesting diversion to keep occupied whilst quitting smoking.

The surprising part was just how lovely it was. We were both working long hours at our respective jobs and were too tired to connect much in any way. And having this standing date every night led to talking so much, making dinner together, watching movies and reconnecting in so many ways that really did carry over into the time waaayyy past the 30 days.

Everyone needs to make their own choice, of course, but I strongly encourage those in committed relationships to give this one a shot. And I can't say it was ever a chore. There really was no downside.
Terezia | 02.20.08 - 8:07 pm | #

Terezia, if there is no marriage, why do you suggest that such practices should be only in "committed relationships?"
Andy | 02.20.08 - 9:11 pm | #

Andy, I'm not sure what you mean by "if there is no marriage."

To me, marriage is a legal convention. I personally didn't feel any different after my marriage ceremony than I did before (being in a relationship where we'd both long ago expressed the desire to be in it for the long haul).
Terezia | 02.20.08 - 10:19 pm | #

Hello Terezia,

I've read your comments a few times. I can't decide if you are right or wrong...

Marriage is as old as humanity... older than any government or the first law. It is perhaps precisely as old as the first religion.

So if you literally mean "marriage is a legal convention," then you would be quite mistaken about the nature of marriage.

But I think you mean something much deeper than that. Perhaps you mean that Marriage is a sacred state of human bonding, and so you reject the government's meddling by issuing a "marriage license" and "granting a divorce."

Are you willing to say that a marriage vow is somehow much deeper than a mere "committed relationship"?
Del | 02.20.08 - 11:11 pm | #

Thomas - your comment about lust is what I was trying to get at a little earlier - it is not a "sin" to marry for that reason - say avoiding fornication (all those comments about "stable relationships no marriage" at least for Catholics, don't cut it - that is a mortal sin, kind of no way around it). I think the major flaw in Terezia's arguments for me (I am assuming she is not Catholic) basically boiled down to the fact that marriage is not seen as a Sacrament (just like, say, Holy Orders - Protestants generally don't see it this way (me being a former one from a divorced family)). Once it takes on that dimension, you realize that the comment about just a legal convention seems a little silly - again, you have to understand that a Sacrament is a very sacred and precious things for Catholic's - they are the life and purpose of much of the Church.

I also disagree about the comment that stigmatizing unmarried people living together is a bad thing. Case in point - my Grandma (who is 87) said that when she was young, if a woman had a baby and she wasn't married, she was ostracized the heck out of! Now that wouldn't fly today (and I don't think we need to be that harsh), but guess what - people got married (sometimes shotgun weddings), people stuck together, the divorce rate was abysmally low - marriage was good! Now something like more than 25% of children are born out of wedlock (it may actually be more than 50%), people are getting divorced all the time, something like 50% (not a nice thing I assure you). So in other words - social pressure to conform to a particular view of marriage is a good thing!

Also - a 30 day challenge does not work for those using NFP - it must be Protestant...
NorthoftheBorder | 02.20.08 - 11:41 pm | #

I heard this idea presented on the radio yesterday. It was very entertaining to me to think that a pastor would say this is how to fix all relationships, being a Catholic convert from Protestanism, it seemed a reoccuring theme to have these how to sessions for sermons in Protestant churchs I attended. I'm sure this idea helps some to an extent. But unless the communication is there there isn't gonna be any benefit to it. And honestly for my own self, I thought, man that has got to hurt, because my husband and I tend to spend at least an hour every time having sex. And by the time we're done well, we are exhausted for the next complete day. That and we are NFP followers, so we have a period where we have to abstain and this actually does allow ample opportunities for us to talk about everything under the sun. And we definitely talk a lot. Anyway, there are some protestant NFP users out there that do understand JPII. Before becoming Catholic my first introduction to sexual ethics was from a Protestant Chemistry Professor at Rice U. named James Tour. Granted its a knock off from Christopher West, but still it gets it out there. http://www.jmtour.com/?page_id=40
kiera | 02.21.08 - 10:41 am | #

Del, I think it's up to each couple to decide what marriage means to them. If a marriage vow is important to you and your spouse, then it's important, and you should probably get married if you want to be happy. To some a "mere 'committed relationship'" may mean as much to them as marriage would.

And what I did mean about getting married myself was that I have no particular use for the piece of paper saying the government sanctions our union. In Canada, being common-law for a year means you get pretty much everything legally that being married gets you. (Unfortunately, INS requires that you be married, which is why we did it when we were thinking of moving to the States.)

Of course, some of my friends who have lived together and then got married felt quite different. In fact, that's probably more the norm, I'd imagine.

My basic point is that each couple should decide for themselves what marriage means to them. If you believe in religious teachings that make God a part of that union, then that's what you believe and you should live it.

If others choose to define their marriages differently than you would, it really doesn't take anything away from you, right? (Not you, Del -- just the generic "you.")
Terezia | 02.21.08 - 11:12 am | #

NorthoftheBorder, I was responding to what I assumed theobromophile meant, that single people, in general, experience condescension and less social respect than married people. And that's what I think is discriminatory and stupid. Again, why should anyone else care about your marital status? Perhaps I was misreading her remarks, though.

people got married (sometimes shotgun weddings), people stuck together, the divorce rate was abysmally low - marriage was good!

I'm not sure you can derive that conclusion from a low divorce rate. I remember back in the '70s that divorce was still stigmatizing even in my liberal Northeast community.

For every married couple that stuck it out (like my parents, who hated each other for years, stayed together for the kids and then eventually forged a good relationship in retirement), there's probably a story like my best friend's. She married young, they fought like crazy and the kids were unhappy. A few years after the divorce, she's successful in her job, her dreams (published author of a few books already) and her kids are doing great.

Also shaming people for living their personal lives as they see fit strikes me as not only unproductive but alienating also.
Terezia | 02.21.08 - 11:43 am | #

saw this at:

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=360

and it more than likely is right at how bad at our churches are becoming

It Won’t Be Long Now…

It is only a matter of time before we see couples in bed, “on stage”, in churches to celebrate sex.

Two years ago I predicted that we would have the equivalent of pagan temple prostitutes in evangelical churches.

Except in church, it will be married couples (for now) demonstrating it all in public.

You’ve been warned.

The clip from YouTube below a promo for Revolution Church’s sex campaign last summer.

(One of hundreds of churches engaged in this sort of thing.) I give it 3-5 years before we have the real thing in church somewhere.

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=360


----------------------------------------

2 Timothy 4:3-4

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Joshua of Omaha | Homepage | 02.21.08 - 12:34 pm | #

Terezia your comments are fair, marriage is certainly not an easy thing. I guess to further my point Christ expects more of us - Matt. 19:9 - rabid divorce (as well as anything else under the sun) is by no means something new. Again, if marriage were purely a legal contract - which part of it is, you are correct - then it could be terminated on a whim. But, again, from a perspective of faith it takes on a completely new dimension, and in fact man and wife are supposed to mirror Christ and his Church.

Also, I guess my point is that issues such as fornication (sex outside of marriage) and adultery (say a person who divorces and remarries) are not new. Again, I agree these things can happen and sometimes, like divorce, may be in the best interest of the persons involved (like the persons you mentioned). But that doesn't mean we water down the Gospel or Christ's words, that somehow we "accommodate" these things as normal or even good. We should be there to support those people and offer them consolation, but that doesn't mean we say it doesn't matter.

I also understand what you mean when you say we shouldn't "alienate" people. Agreed, but again, we shouldn't tell them "it doesn't matter", because from a perspective of faith it does! So it is sort of a "tough love", of course remain friends , don't alienate them, but if it ever comes up just suggest what the best thing to do is from a Christian perspective - don't give in to the relativism! Also I was suggesting on a societal level that pressure, say, to remain chaste until marriage is better than the pressure now to have as much sex as you can with as many as you can.

Also a small counter point - I might not take the 70's as a great reference point...a lot stuff happened then...and again, it is not that marriage was so great then - so much as how awful it is now.

And your point about single people is well taken!
NorthoftheBorder | 02.21.08 - 1:50 pm | #

Am I alone in my radical discomfort about the whole proposition of this matter being addressed, in this public fashion, obviously publicized to begin with?

I mean not to be a prude... but this sounds really CREEPY. A year or so ago when a prominent Evangelical mega-church pastor was "outed" for some male to male indiscretions, there was footage shown from a documentary (unrelated to the scandal) where Pastor Ted candidly turned to two (presumably married) men in front of the camera and said "How's your sex life? What about yours?" (turning to the camera) "See Christians have GREAT sex lives!"

It was just all kinds of creepy to me.

Another scandal involving a Catholic priest who is alleged to prompted lurid details from teens about their sex practices also comes to mind. (Not the promptings of a confessor, but asking about the details of "what positions, what kind of porn...")

Also, all sorts of creepy to me.

So Pastor Whomever telling me and the missus (well, if I had one) to make sure we "do it" for 30 days... (Yea, thanks, frequency is none of your business.) It seems so inappropriate that I don't think I would be comfortable being around him...

Never mind some of the inherant misunderstandings as to the purpose and meaning of the conjugal act as related to marriage. Marriage isn't just the Church sanctioned opportunity to "have someone to do and not feel guilty about."
ASimpleSinner | Homepage | 02.21.08 - 5:50 pm | #

theobromophile, dumb it down for me a bit. By being sexual do you mean being feminine and/or masculine in what we do?

Dandelion,

I just mean that a big part of sexuality is being connected with another human. Sex is how that happens, quite literally. It is, however, but one manifestation of how we use our bodies and our time to express love and connectedness with others. We hug our friends, kiss the kids good-night, pet dogs, rub down horses... and, in the non-touch category, we smile, mimic body language, and feed others - we use our bodies to show emotional connectedness.

I personally dislike the definition of "sexuality" that, to be very blunt, includes by necessity the genitals. We are, as humans, much more than that; we also tend to have two different standards for non-erotic sexuality/connectedness, and those for erotic sexuality. For some reason, many people treat the latter as if it is utterly divorced from, or independent of, the underlying emotions.

Essentially, what I was driving at was that the "30 day challenge" should be to be connected with other people - spiritually and emotionally - both of which often manifest themselves in various physical acts; those physical acts rarely encompass sex.
theobromophile | Homepage | 02.21.08 - 8:37 pm | #

a quick note on that bromophile. I remember going thru RCIA and the priest talked about being authentically sexual. As being a priest of the Roman right he was celibate, but he said that each day he trys to be authentically sexual as a male. I think that you are right in saying that its difficult for some people to think about this manner of sexuality. And you know what he did challenge us to be this way, even though it was for life rather than just 30 days.
kiera | 02.21.08 - 8:58 pm | #

theobromophile,
thanks for the clarification. Please bear with me as I try to understand this. I've never seen "sexual" defined in this way (just did a quick check of the dictionary again). By your definition, wouldn't it be true that many of us don't need a 30 day challenge? By your definition I don't know how i could not be sexual unless I was a hermit or very anti social. So would it be fair to say that we are sexual by being present in the moment to all of those around us in all that we do each day?
Also, can you refer me to some source that defines sexual in this new (to me)way?
Thanks,
dandelion | 02.22.08 - 9:51 am | #

There are some beautiful observations on the subject, dandelion, in JP2's letter "On the Dignity and Vocation of Women," e.g.:

When we say that the woman is the one who receives love in order to love in return, this refers not only or above all to the specific spousal relationship of marriage. It means something more universal, based on the very fact of her being a woman within all the interpersonal relationships which, in the most varied ways, shape society and structure the interaction between all persons - men and women. In this broad and diversified context, a woman represents a particular value by the fact that she is a human person, and, at the same time, this particular person, by the fact of her femininity. This concerns each and every woman, independently of the cultural context in which she lives, and independently of her spiritual, psychological and physical characteristics, as for example, age, education, health, work, and whether she is married or single.

The passage from the Letter to the Ephesians which we have been considering enables us to think of a special kind of "prophetism" that belongs to women in their femininity. The analogy of the Bridegroom and the Bride speaks of the love with which every human being - man and woman - is loved by God in Christ. But in the context of the biblical analogy and the text's interior logic, it is precisely the woman - the bride - who manifests this truth to everyone. This "prophetic" character of women in their femininity finds its highest expression in the Virgin Mother of God. She emphasizes, in the fullest and most direct way, the intimate linking of the order of love - which enters the world of human persons through a Woman - with the Holy Spirit. At the Annunciation Mary hears the words: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" (Lk 1:35).
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 02.22.08 - 10:34 am | #

Well, obviously there's no separating the individual from his or her sex, any more than one can separate brain from body or live without a skin.

But... um...

It doesn't seem a helpful way of talking. In fact, it seems to be a deliberate misuse of the word, albeit with the best of intentions. I am social with other people; I am human with other people; I have relationships with other people; but if you say I'm sexual with other people, you'd better be prepared to swallow your own teeth, buster. This is not the world of those stupid Monologues, and I'm not going to play pretend that it is.
Maureen | Homepage | 02.22.08 - 12:21 pm | #

I have relationships with other people; but if you say I'm sexual with other people, you'd better be prepared to swallow your own teeth, buster.

I know you don't mean that as a threat, Maureen, but please be careful of using violent language, as I've had past commenters take such things personally.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 02.22.08 - 12:25 pm | #

I think what disturbs me the most is the number of babies killed by such a decree. Few women are on high dose oral contraceptives, so there is a chance this 30 day "sexfest" would inrease the number of embryos not implanting in the womb. http://pilltruth.com/kill.html A sad thought that this pastor could be contributing to the deaths of little ones.

Just a thought
Rita Miller | 02.22.08 - 2:33 pm | #

Here, here Rita!

The genitive aspect of the marital relationship has been roundly and soundly ignored in Protestantism since the Anglicans caved at Lamberth in 1931.
ASimpleSinner | Homepage | 02.22.08 - 7:40 pm | #

I suppose the thing that bothers me about this challenge is that singles are just being asked to live as faithful and obedient followers of Christ, while married couples are being asked to do something that the pastor made up.

Today's online Wall Street Journal (and Friday's print edition) has an article called "Marrying Tradition and Modernity." It states, "[t]he concept of 'Catholic guilt' seems to have disappeared for younger generations: Catholic youth report no feelings of guilt overall, or about premarital sex or pornography, . . ." And, "The Georgetown study [referenced in the article] shows that some 69% of Catholics age 18 to 25 believe 'marriage is whatever two people want it to be,' while just over half of their parents' and grandparents' generation agreed with that statement."
KS | 02.23.08 - 10:58 am | #