|
|
 |
Question I
Why has Christianity rejected many expressions of sexuality as antithetical to spirituality while various
Eastern traditions — Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism — have been more accepting of sexuality, have
even embraced sex as a vehicle for spiritual transcendence? What do you think about the connection, if any,
between sexuality and spirituality? In the Christian view, is Shakespeare's mortal coil, Milton's perfidious
bark, just a weight holding us down, preventing us from achieving greater divinity, or is the body, as Blake
explains, a portion of the soul discerned by the five senses?
|
|
I
am not certain that this distinction between Christianity and Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism can really
be made. My own experience with Buddhism shows as many "hang-ups" about sex as found in
Catholicism — and minorities who see sex more expansively and spiritually. The Dalai Lama for example has
denied that Tantra even exists; most Buddhist teaching and practice still value celibacy over sexuality;
Tantra is highly controlled, open only to very "advanced" spiritual persons. At a recent meeting of
progressive Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic et cetera leaders, Christians and Jews wanted to include the phrase
"sexuality is a gift from God and by its nature good." Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu representatives, while
personally open to sexuality as a good, were adamant in saying that their teachings could not result in such
an assertion of goodness. This reaction was not based on God language, which does not work for
Buddhists, but more factual on their view of sex. Not to say that sexuality was bad, but at best neutral.
I would say that the greatest problem for Christians in the sex realm, is not whether sex weighs us
down on the path to transcendence or if it is a portion of the soul. The question of when and under what
circumstances sex is permitted is key — and for almost all of Christianity the sacralization of marriage is
the problem, for sex is only redeemed in marriage.
Francoeur and
Moore respond
|
|
|
|
|
|
