지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Many scholars have long dealt with the impact of the Reformation on marriage and home. Sexuality, an essential part of marital life, however, has received little scholarly attention. This article investigates how the reform movement of the sixteenth century influenced sexuality in general and the meaning of marital intercourse. In particular, both the medieval tradition on sexuality established by the church and the argument of two leading reformers, Luther and Bucer, will be analyzed in detail.
The basic view on sex and sexual desire held throughout the Middle Ages was founded by the Fathers who regarded sex as impure and sinful. According to them, sexual desire derived originally from the Fall of Adam and Eve and then became uncontrollable human nature. Sex in itself is a filthy sin and true Christians, therefore, should refrain from sexual relations in order to obtain salvation. Penitentials, used widely in the Middle Ages to regulate sexual behavior, inherited the rigorous sexual ethics established by the Fathers and required married couples to restrict their intercourse to a minimum. Clerical marriage was also prohibited on the ground that the spiritual elite should avoid the sexual activities. The medieval church always showed negative attitude towards sex and sexual desire.
Contrary to the medieval tradition, the reformers advocated abolition of clerical celibacy. They characterized Catholic insistence on celibacy as tyrannical, arbitrary, and wanton, Through their own experience and the ill effects of forced celibacy they witnessed, the reformers maintained that the clergy ought to be free to marry. Celibacy was, according to them, not a divine commandment and certainly not necessary for salvation, and forced celibacy led many clerics to sexual impurity. Sexual desire were inborn and inescapable part of being human, so even the clergy should be allowed to release it through marriage.
The reformers went so far as to argue that sex was not sinful because God ordained marriage. Not only was it not shameful to feel sexual desire, but there was no intrinsic wrong in satisfying it. Luther thought that the purpose of sexual intercourse should not be limited to procreation. It was also very useful to promote the affection and intimacy of the married couples. The Strasbourg reformer Bucer even claimed that the primary purpose of sex was to render service to the partner. He thus included the lack of sexual ability in the grounds for divorce because marital life without sexual intercourse was not a true one. The ideas of Luther and Bucer clearly proved that the revolutionary nature of the Reformation extended to the realm of sexuality.
The basic view on sex and sexual desire held throughout the Middle Ages was founded by the Fathers who regarded sex as impure and sinful. According to them, sexual desire derived originally from the Fall of Adam and Eve and then became uncontrollable human nature. Sex in itself is a filthy sin and true Christians, therefore, should refrain from sexual relations in order to obtain salvation. Penitentials, used widely in the Middle Ages to regulate sexual behavior, inherited the rigorous sexual ethics established by the Fathers and required married couples to restrict their intercourse to a minimum. Clerical marriage was also prohibited on the ground that the spiritual elite should avoid the sexual activities. The medieval church always showed negative attitude towards sex and sexual desire.
Contrary to the medieval tradition, the reformers advocated abolition of clerical celibacy. They characterized Catholic insistence on celibacy as tyrannical, arbitrary, and wanton, Through their own experience and the ill effects of forced celibacy they witnessed, the reformers maintained that the clergy ought to be free to marry. Celibacy was, according to them, not a divine commandment and certainly not necessary for salvation, and forced celibacy led many clerics to sexual impurity. Sexual desire were inborn and inescapable part of being human, so even the clergy should be allowed to release it through marriage.
The reformers went so far as to argue that sex was not sinful because God ordained marriage. Not only was it not shameful to feel sexual desire, but there was no intrinsic wrong in satisfying it. Luther thought that the purpose of sexual intercourse should not be limited to procreation. It was also very useful to promote the affection and intimacy of the married couples. The Strasbourg reformer Bucer even claimed that the primary purpose of sex was to render service to the partner. He thus included the lack of sexual ability in the grounds for divorce because marital life without sexual intercourse was not a true one. The ideas of Luther and Bucer clearly proved that the revolutionary nature of the Reformation extended to the realm of sexuality.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 전통 교회의 성 윤리
Ⅲ. 성직자와 성적 욕구
Ⅳ. 부부간의 섹스
Ⅴ. 맺음말
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
‘부부의 성(性)’ 교육을 위한 핵심가치로서 루터의 결혼 사상 연구
기독교교육정보
2011 .06
-
종교개혁의 ‘개혁적’ 성윤리 탐색 - 루터와 칼뱅의 남녀관계성과 결혼 및 성적 결합에 대한 이해를 중심으로
기독교사회윤리
2017 .01
-
지적 장애인 여성의 성적 욕구와 인식에 관한 연구
생명연구
2019 .01
-
인간의 성(sexuality)에 대한 복음주의적 관점에서의 재조명
복음과 상담
2012 .01
-
노년기 부부 성 갈등 유형
신학논단
2008 .12
-
제국주의와 섹슈얼리티
역사학보
2003 .06
-
Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment in a Risk Society
Korea Journal
1998 .03
-
성, 자본, 권력 : 성(sexuality)의 메타신학
구약논단
2017 .06
-
성 폭력에 대한 목회신학적 담론 : 하나님 정의에 대한 반역
신학과 목회
2011 .11
-
동성혼에 대한 신학적 윤리적 평가 : 미국 성공회 자유주의자들의 결혼신학에 대한 비판적 연구
신학지남
2016 .03
-
종교 개혁과 가정의 의미 제고 : 16-17세기 잉글랜드를 중심으로
신학과 목회
2008 .11
-
교회기반 결혼교육을 위한 핵심가치로서 루터의 결혼관
신학과 목회
2011 .11
-
신명기 22:13-29에 나타난 성 윤리와 성범죄에 대한 현대적 적용
구약논단
2020 .09
-
기독교 상담과 건강한 성의 회복: 성경과 종교개혁자들의 관점에서
복음과 상담
2017 .01
-
청소년관람불가 선정적 언어의 자막번역에 관한 연구 : 2010년대 영미권 DVD를 중심으로
새한영어영문학
2017 .08
-
섹슈얼리티 개념 분석과 성윤리의 정립
철학연구
2010 .06
-
예비유아교사의 성태도와 성지식에 관한 연구
인문학논총
2017 .02
-
조선후기 야담에 나타난 여성 정욕의 표출과 그 대응의 몇 국면
韓國古典硏究
2018 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-911-002971669