The Ten Commandments Today
The Sixth Commandment
Decalogue by Fr. Hal Stockert
Imprimatur: Most Rev. Michael J. Dudick, D.D., September 1992
"Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery"
It took a while to decide how to treat this subject. The question arose as to whether, in a day and age so heavily sexually oriented, it would even be possible to say anything helpful in a short segment. Would it require a large segment? Possibly two, or even three? I mean, after all, the subject matter IS "sexual morality," and in this culture and environment sexual morality touches very nearly every one of the areas of human life; our ways of dressing, our reading, the things we do and watch for entertainment and recreation; our style of dating and relating to one another, whether those ways are intimate or only "social." It involves the way we stand, and sit, the ways we look at one another and speak to one another, the things we think, the ways we think about them, the things that are done and said, the things left UNdone and UNsaid.
But the simple fact of the matter is that the Sixth Commandment (some of other denominations title this the Seventh) is in itself absolutely clear, absolutely simple, and absolutely direct. There is no possibility of misunderstanding its meaning. Perhaps that is the very reason it has become such an item of controversy. Something so totally unequivocal must be either accepted or rejected in its entirety - it cannot be explained away or rationalized away.
It deals with only one very clear, easily recognizable, act: it absolutely forbids and prohibits adultery. No "ands," no "ifs," and no "buts." "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery." In its very simplicity itself it seems unrealistically far removed from a subject which has become, for many reasons, quite so disparately complex. In fact, the striking contrast between the commandment itself and the complexity of our own sexual mores may BE the best way to approach the subject.
Is it realistic, for example, to assume that human beings have become more evil as centuries have passed? Or less evil? Has our increased knowledge about sexuality increased our capacity to sin? Or diminished it? An approach along these lines misses the point of the contrast entirely. The problem of "modern sexuality" is a cultural problem - it is the culture in which we live that has given rise to such a complex code of sexual morality, not the nature of sex itself.
The Sexual Explosion
Our culture is enormously preoccupied with sex. We are literally bombarded with it, deluged with it. Advertising uses of sex is increasingly blatant. Everything from boats to beer is sold with it. The "good life" philosophy, the "playboy" philosophy encourages the idea that frequent and casual sexual activity is the most necessary part of a life of "fulfillment," that one cannot BE "fulfilled" without frequent and "satisfying" sex - preferably whenever and as one wishes it, even more preferably without consequence. The "heroes" and "heroines" of our prime time TV and our smash-hit movies are very often sexually "permissive," if not outrightly promiscuous. Magazines, books, and TV talk shows (Oh, Philip, my son, where would you be without sex?) discuss sexual activity both inside and outside marriage literally endlessly. Societal restraints are few - and the pressures are great to render them even fewer. In the name of "personal liberty and freedom," of course.
In short, we are faced with an explosion of sexual activity within our culture - and with all the associated consequences of it. And the effects of it are all the more damaging because we HAVE just emerged from an era in which so much of the subject was 'verboten,' forbidden to discussion. Not very long ago, sex was something that you didn't talk about; it was not "forbidden ground," but it WAS "sacred ground." I cannot recall being taught that sex was "dirty" when I was young, but then I grew up on a farm, and sex around a farm is a very natural thing and quite obviously NOT an evil thing at all. But "sacred" things, too, are not subjects for light or loose treatment - and all too often, those curious about the "sacred" assume a "dirtiness" when not permitted to enter the discussions. Silence was construed as 'negative', particularly when IT had, in its own turn, followed an era in which it WAS often viewed as "dirty" (I refer here to the Victorian era - and to only the latter portion of it, at that). Where silence was characteristic of the past century and a half in matters concerning sex, the blatant exploitation of sex is typical of ours.
The Original Commandment
IS sexual morality a simple and uncomplicated thing by itself? Is sex even a human value in it self - but made evil in the context of our culture? The question should drive us to look more closely at the original commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery." Obviously, the commandment as it is phrased does not obviously address the entire range of sexual behavior in the culture of late-twentieth-century America. But it certainly does give an approach to be followed by which we may search out an overall statement that does address all of sexual morality.
For the ancient Israelites, the Sixth Commandment had a social significance that was more important than its sexual aspects. That society was closely-knit, family-conscious, and respect for another person HAD to include respect for that bond which lay at the very root of his family's foundations. The evil to be avoided was the breakup of the family unit, the invasion of the sanctity of another's home. The commandment was not itself directly concerned with the misuse of the sexual faculty - in effect, it said to the Israelite: "You must not take or covet your brother's wife - because she is his wife, given to him by her very own self, and she is NOT yours." It was aimed at the HARMONIOUS relationships built with much suffering and great labor and sacrifice between a man and a woman, not primarily to the moral implications of the relationships between them.
In Good Company
The Sixth Commandment fits perfectly into the background of the Old Testament. In the Creation Narrative we are presented with the image of God creating the beasts and the birds because he does not want humankind to be lonely. But that wasn't enough. He created woman, someone like man, yet unlike, different from him, a sexually different person. Now it is indeed that man will not be alone. So, sexuality is NOT exclusively associated with procreation. It is in its very essence good, because it enables man and woman to be more as God wants them to be - not alone and isolated, but in a communion that is creative.
The morality of the Sixth Commandment was social. It began with the social reality of a man living in a communal relationship. It did not address the moral significances of the personal misuse of sex - not directly. In fact, in the culture of Israel, at that time, that wasn't even necessary - nor would it have been understood. All that is needed there is to remember good old Father Abraham, and Mother Sarah of the Happy Smile, David, Moses, and any of half a dozen prophets. But it did make a basic and fundamental point inescapably clear: SEXUALITY IS SOCIAL BEFORE IT IS GENITAL. It is quite clear from the context of the entire Old Testament that human sexuality is NOT simply a matter of "personal and private" behavior.
The New Testament
In the Gospels there is remarkably little mention of "sexuality" as such. Jesus is depicted quite clearly as a man quite totally comfortable with his own sexuality, and with the sexuality of all those with whom He came into contact. He was gentle, compassionate, loving, tender, warm - and surprisingly physical in His relationships. How very often we hear of him "laying on hands," or lifting children, or touching another to heal. He touched people with an astonishing regularity. He had both male and female friends. When he meets with sexual frailty, he shows an immense compassion - witness the story of the Woman Taken In Adultery. There surely is no suggestion of negativeness toward sex on His part. He insists on the "sacredness" of two people entering marriage. He emphasizes that it is fidelity that is the hallmark of TRUE union and love. He shows that sexual uprightness is NOT merely a matter of external behavior, but is a matter of the heart. One could even summarize things this way: "Sexuality is social. Sexuality is sacred. Sexuality is a matter of relationships. Sexuality is a matter of the heart, and not simply of behavior."
It is in and through "natural" relationships that we can enter the sacred relationships of sacrament and be sanctified. It is an upright heart, a redeemed heart, a committed heart that enables a person to enter into and live within such a sanctifying relationship.
The Resurrection
The decisive factor in reshaping the Sixth Commandment for ourselves is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The whole person - in all his/her instincts, gifts, relationships - is now, for the first time in the history of the world, able to be healed and brought to the perfection for which it was originally intended. The Resurrection of Jesus has not just "saved our souls," but has saved us "body AND soul." It has given us strength "to control the passions," that strength guaranteed each of us at the reception of Confirmation, by which we are assured by Christ Himself that never again will a thing be "too" difficult, "too" hard, "too" burdensome to bear, because His own strength will be provided us as it is needed. "My strength is sufficient unto Thee." The Resurrection has touched (and saved) the WHOLE person, including sexuality, with all that the idea of "wholeness" means: thought, awareness, curiosity, desire, passion. ALL of these are made essentially good by the Redemptive Act of Jesus Christ; they are now part of our lives in our relationships with God and with others. We have become, in virtue of the Resurrection, "Temples of the Holy Spirit," sacred unto God, and, like anything dedicated to the special service of God, to be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. As one would not defile a Church, a Chalice, or any other holy thing, neither ought we then defile either our own bodies or another's, for it was not for a building, or a golden cup that Christ lay down His life. But for the wholeness of you and me, including the wholeness of our bodies, THAT He did lay down His life for. Even in our sexuality, now, we are "set apart for the special worship of The Lord." It is NOT (and never has been) a "purely private and personal thing, nobody's business but mine."
For the Israelite, the family unit and its life were part of the Covenant itself. For Christians, the sexual relationship between a man and a woman is part of the very Kingdom of God itself. Their sexual lives do not stand outside or apart from their growth toward (or away from) God and each other as Christians. Sexuality is NOT morally determined by its "biological" values; it IS a matter of redeeming and creative love, a love that heals, develops, creates.
Restating the Commandment
Maybe NOW we can restate the commandment for our days: "Love with all your being, uniquely, creatively."
If sexuality has to do with sacred and redemptive relationships that come from the heart, then one cannot use sex casually. Love is a choice, not a feeling. The use of sex should always be in connection with a mature, respectful, Christ-like choice.
If sexuality has to do with the redeeming love in a relationship, then one cannot use sex without commitment. The Christian use of sex should be in the context of the radical commitment of marriage.
If love is true, it must be creative. One cannot use sex without the commitment to create.
Choice, commitment, the service of life, all have to be woven into the life of a man and a woman who accept the teachings of Christ. It is evil to perform the sexual act without love - and I am NOT talking about "affection." I AM talking about LOVE. It is evil to accept love without accepting as well the full consequences of that love. In our culture we need to TIGHTEN the bond between sex and love. We need to recognize evil where it REALLY exists - in the ways and habits of a culture that exploits sex for its own purposes, and not even for sexual purposes themselves.
Sex is NOT evil. It IS good. Sexual pleasure is good. But to seek sexual pleasure, gratification, without the setting of a sacred and moral commitment of love is like mouthing words without any sound. It is truly "senseless," it is without meaning, and empty and void. The real problem in our society is that too many have confused affection and love - and the two are not at all the same. They are, in fact, not even necessarily related.
Fr. Hal Stockert was a Byzantine Catholic parish priest from Granville, New York.
We recognize the following sites for their services:
Christian Classics |
Vatican Website |
Zenit |
World News - Vatican Radio
Resources: Catechism Catholic Church - The New American & The Douay-Rheims Bibles
Catholic Information Network (CIN)
is a free service, not an official organ of the
Vatican.
Copyright 1987-2020 - Updated: 02/14/2020
Contact: webmaster@cin.org