As a moral theologian, I believe it is worth knowing how and why those teachings were formed in the first place.

History helps us to see that underlying that "consistency" are a number of matters that convey an overriding negative estimation of human sexuality.

Christian moral teachings on sexuality evolved haphazardly over the centuries, with successive generations appropriating earlier positions based on very different premises.

In general, a series of fairly negative accretions were added one upon another until, in the 17th century we have basically an absolutely negative estimation of sexual desires.

Thus, with reason, historian James Brundage claims in Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe: "The Christian horror of sex has for centuries placed enormous strain on individual consciences and self-esteem in the Western world."

For the most part, the teachings derive from the concerns of celibate men who, while pursuing a life of holiness, found sexual desires to be obstacles rather than aids in that pursuit.

These sexual desires were not understood as belonging to or needing to be included into a broader understanding of any particular dimension of human personality.

Rather they were as random and as precipitous as they were for anyone who does not have an integrating concept like "sexuality."

As arbitrary, powerful feelings, there was little about their nature that lent to their being conceptually incorporated into an overarching, integrated reality.

The idea of these venereal desires was as unstable as the desires themselves were felt.

Language, too, hindered any tendency to understand these desires as belonging to something more integrated or holistic.

In his The Bridling of Desire: Views of Sex in the Later Middle Ages, philosopher Pierre Payer reminds us:

A contemporary writer dealing with medieval ideas of sex faces a peculiar problem of language. Treatises entitled, "On sex," are nowhere to be found, nor does one find talk about "sexuality," because medieval Latin had no terms for the English words "sex" and "sexuality." In the strictest sense, there are no discussions of sex in the Middle Ages. … The concept of sex or sexuality as an integral dimension of human persons, as an object of concern, discourse, truth and knowledge, did not emerge until well after the Middle Ages.

Of course, the development of these teachings is so different from the positive language of the body that helped early theologians to continually articulate teachings on the resurrection of the body, the Incarnation and the Eucharist.

As I argue in A History of Catholic Theological Ethics, our tradition on the human body expanded the depth and range of the Christian vocation.

Indeed, whether we talked of the body, the family or the virtues, we considered each of them as gifts.

Our tradition in those areas is indeed complex, but it is also rich, affirming and cogent.

The same cannot be said for the church's teachings on sex.

The tradition on sexual ethics led us not to greatness but to negativity and minutiae. Anything we added to the tradition only cast human sexuality as more and more negative.

For instance, Paul's simple injunction that those who could not remain celibate should marry (1 Corinthians 7:8-9) led later to the Stoics' claim that marital intimacy needed to be validated not by the marriage, as Paul suggested, but by purposing the intimacy for procreation.

That led later to Clement of Alexandria's judgment that sex for pleasure even in marriage was sinful. Why did we problematize marital love as we moved from Paul to Clement? Why did we need to validate marital love when Paul did not?

Still, a look at the patristic period is not as problematic as later periods.

In fact, Augustine's theology is less negative on matters of sex and marriage than both his contemporaries or worse, his 16th- to 19th-century successors.

The negativity emerges more after than with Augustine.

For instance, we could examine the so-called consistent teaching on masturbation, which excepting Clement, was never assessed as a sin until John Cassian (360-435) and Caesarius of Arles (470-542) made it one, but only for monks and nuns who, violated their vows of chastity by masturbating.

Still, eight centuries later, when Pope Innocent III imposed upon the entire church the Easter duty in 1215 requiring an annual confession of all Christians, sexual teachings change.

Now masturbation is considered gravely sinful for all.

The genesis of masturbation as sinful was precisely dependent upon the vow of chastity of those who chose the ascetical life.

What was a sin for a 40-year-old monk in the eighth century became, however, the same sin for a 13-year-old boy or girl in the 13th century.

Worse, as we will see, we made it a very grievous sin. Continue reading

• James F. Keenan SJ is Canisius professor at Boston College, where he is vice provost for global engagement and director of the Jesuit Institute.

Yet even though most of us recognise that being wise is entirely different from other markers of success — such as being rich or famous or even a genius — wisdom is a difficult quality to define.

Do we truly understand what it takes to be wise?

Ursula M. Staudinger has spent decades thinking about wisdom.

As a student in Germany, she became interested in looking at people's life experiences in an empirical way.

Her studies led her to the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, where in the 1980s she joined several other prominent psychologists on the Berlin Wisdom Project, helping to pioneer the field of wisdom studies.

Today, she is director of the Robert N. Butler Columbia Aging Center at Columbia University.

Wisdom, as she recently told The New York Times, consists of "self-insight; the ability to demonstrate personal growth; self-awareness in terms of your historical era and your family history; understanding that priorities and values, including your own, are not absolute; and an awareness of life's ambiguities."

Sound like a lot? If there's one thing Staudinger has learned while studying wisdom, it's that not a lot of people have it.

But her work has yielded many insights into how we can set ourselves on the path to wisdom, if we really want to. Continue reading.

Source: Huffington Post

Image: Mansfield College

It was given as an encouragement to read the Word of God, reported the Catholic News Agency.

They were handed out among the crowd by volunteers.

"Last Sunday I suggested that you get a little copies of the gospels, to carry with you during the day, to read often," Pope Francis told the crowd.

"Then I thought over the ancient tradition of the Church, during Lent, to give the Gospel to catechumens preparing for baptism.

So today I want to offer to you who are here in the piazza - but as a sign for all - a pocket-sized gospel. They will be distributed to you freely," the Pope explained.

"Take one, carry it with you: it is truly Jesus who speaks to you," he urged those packed into the square.

"This is the word of Jesus!"

The Holy Father then asked that the faithful remember Christ's words, "freely have you received, freely give!" so that they too would "give the message of the gospel" to others.

Pope Francis acknowledged that some may be sceptical of a free gift, asking "how much does it cost? How much must I pay, father?".

"But let's do something," he suggested.

"In exchange for this gift, do an act of charity, a free gesture of love for another: a prayer for a friend, a reconciliation, something."

Whether in a book or on a smartphone or tablet, said the Pope, "the important thing is to read the word of God, with all means, but read the word - it's Jesus who speaks there".

"And welcome it with an open heart. So the good seed bears fruit!"

Last Lent, Pope Francis had volunteers distribute free rosaries in boxes resembling pill packets, likening them to spiritual medicine.

Sources

• Catholic News Agency
• Huffington Post
• Image: New York Daily News