sex not dishonorable, but sacred
Brandon Davies has been dismissed from the BYU basketball team–for having sex with his girlfriend. The Brigham Young University Honor Code includes “live a chaste and virtuous life,” according to an ESPN story. I do admire BYU for sticking by its code, even though losing a star player may hurt their chances to win the NCAA Tournament (the Cougars are ranked as high as #3 in the country, currently).
However, I wish their code did not confuse “chastity” and “virtue.” Sex between consenting adults, who are not married to other people, is *not* dishonorable. As the Religious Institute points out, sex is a life-giving and life-fulfilling gift…sexuality is “central to our humanity” and “integral to our spirituality.”
The Institute’s “Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing” stipulates, “Our faith traditions celebrate the goodness of creation, including our bodies and our sexuality. We sin when this sacred gift is abused or exploited. However, the great promise of our traditions is love, healing and restored relationship.”
Please consider joining the “Faithful Voices on Sexuality and Religion,” whose pledge is simply “As a person of faith, I support sexual health, education and justice in faith communities and society.”
Original post, with links, at So May We Be.
posted by Chip @ 8:13 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
:However, I wish their code did not confuse “chastity” and “virtue.”
What makes you think that Brigham Young University Honor Code confuses “chastity” and “virtue” Chip?
The Brigham Young University Honor Code clause which says -
Live a chaste and virtuous life
Can be readily interpreted as meaning -
Live a life that is both chaste and virtuous.
No?
Be honest. . . :-)
Sex between consenting adults, who are not married to other people, is *not* dishonorable. As the Religious Institute points out, sex is a life-giving and life-fulfilling gift…sexuality is “central to our humanity” and “integral to our spirituality.”
Oops!
The above paragraph was not intended to be posted but, since it was, please allow me to point out that sex between consenting adults, who are not married to other people, is in fact dishonorable if one has made a pledge to live a chaste life. This is true not only in terms of the Brigham Young University Honor Code but in terms of other pledges of chastity such as those of Roman catholic priests and Buddhist minks etc.
I am just being honest here Chip. :-)
Needless to say I meant to write -
Buddhist *monks*
Pledges and covenants should count for something...
Exactly Bill.
Unfortunately this is a concept that not enough U*Us seem to understand. . .
The word "covenant" is generally considered to mean a solemn promise or pledge and a form of binding agreement, but too many U*Us flaunt one or more of the Seven Principles of U*Uism that they ostensibly *covenant* to affirm and promote.
It seems self-evident that Chip wasn't looking for a change in the application of BYU's honor code, so the post isn't about keeping pledges or covenants. Rather he was wishing the BYU's code more clearly separated the ideas of chastity and virtue. The post is about virtue, of which there is more than one.
It's a fair reading to say the code might mean "live a life that is both chaste and virtuous." And, of course, that's really only for BYU to say. But the code also says "Be honest" not "be honest and virtuous." So it seems that the code links chastity and virtue in a unique way. What does virtuous mean in the context of the code if it is not intimately related to chastity?
In any event, the BYU case was merely an example, giving Chip the opportunity to make the larger point that sex isn't inherently unvirtuous (nor disohonorable, to use the term of his title).
One would think that if an institution asked for a pledge of chastity, that they're implying something wrong with the lack of it. I would name that as an issue of virtue.
Post a Comment
<< Home