Today’s post is Part 2 of a three-part series of articles on the history of Christianity and sex, based on the 2025 book, Lower Than the Angels: A History of Sex and Christianity, by Diarmaid McCulloch. Part 1 can be found by clicking here. Part 3 will appear next Monday. This series is written by Bondings 2.0 contributor, James E. Porter.
Nothing is as complicated as, or has changed so much as, the Church’s teachings about marriage –and sexuality IN marriage. In his book Lower Than the Angels, Diarmaid MacCulloch tracks the various questions, problems, cultural tensions, and disagreements that characterize the Church’s history with sex and marriage from the very beginning.
We in the LGBTQIA+ community can take comfort from this history because it shows the Church certainly changes, usually by adapting to new cultural attitudes. Yes, Christianity often resists and challenges prevailing societal assumptions, but in order to survive and thrive Christianity also must “accommodate the expectations of surrounding society” (100). Christianity offers a radical message for the world, but it also has always had to live in the world, listen to the world, negotiate with the world.
MacCulloch’s history shows us how the Church has frequently adapted its positions to align with the varying cultural attitudes that it encountered. As the Church developed and expanded its territorial reach—from the Mediterranean/Graeco-Roman world into northern Europe, western Europe, England and Ireland, and then eventually east into Asia, south to Africa, west to the New World— opportunities for cultural tension increased.
In this essay, I examine three of MacCulloch’s key themes related to marriage: marriage customs, marriage as sacrament, and the role of sex in marriage. Radical changes have occurred for the church in all three areas—just as they can eventually occur on LGBTQIA+ issues.
Marriage Customs
The key influences on early Christianity were the three strong traditions within which it arose: Jewish, Greek, and Roman cultures. In many respects (not all), Christianity adopted the cultural customs and laws of those cultures, including the gender binary and patriarchy, which were central to them. But inevitably, disputes arose over differing customs regarding marriage, family, sex, and related matters (divorce, remarriage, married clergy)—as well as other matters (circumcision, the use of images, notions of authority and governance).
In the ancient world the Greeks, Romans, and Jews shared the view that marriage “was primarily a contract between two men: the fathers of a prospective bridegroom and bride” (56). The marriage contract involved families and property, less so individuals.
Christianity’s radical contribution was to view marriage as an act of consent between two persons (at the time, a man and a woman), who would declare their commitment to one another before God. Theoretically at least, this approach gave the woman more equality, more power in the marriage decision than was typical in the Graeco-Roman world.
In other respects the cultures differed. The Roman system emphasized monogamy, with smaller families being the norm. The Hebrew system stressed larger families, so polygyny was permitted to increase procreation. The Judaic tradition had “little cultural approval of celibacy” (17), which became a primary emphasis of Christianity.
Ultimately Graeco-Roman monogamy “became the cultural custom to distinguish classical civilization” (58)—and that is the norm that Christianity embraced. When faced with a discrepancy between Jewish and Graeco-Roman customs, early Christianity tended to side with Rome over Jerusalem. Sī fuerīs Rōmae, Rōmānō vīvitō mōre.
Ongoing tensions about polygyny continued, with the Eastern Church accepting itas an accepted practice into the 6th and 7th centuries. As the Church expanded its territories, it would run into other societies where polygyny, divorce, concubinage were accepted norms.The Church wrestled with the cultural differences, tolerating them for many centuries—especially since these societies could conveniently point to the Judaic tradition for approval of the practice (as did the Mormons in the 19th century).
The Marriage Ceremony
Despite the ahistorical claim that Marriage has always been a sacrament!, it did not exist as such for the first 1,100+ years of Christianity. Before the 5th century, the Church had very little to do with marriage ceremonies, one way or another (200). In the 5th century clergy began blessing marriages, but this was not a formal church ceremony, and it had no sacramental status. It was not until the 10th century that blessings became a requirement for marriage. Pope Leo VI insisted on this rule, perhaps as a way to legitimize his fourth marriage.
Church councils of the 12th century instituted lay marriage as a sacramental matter, while banning clerical marriage. (Until then most clergy in Europe were married men with families.) Church-based marriages had existed mainly for royal or noble coupless, but after the 11th century all lay marriages came under the jurisdiction of the Church.[1] The Council of Trent (1547) finally made “sacramental marriage part of canon law,” noting that the couple’s vows created the marriage, not the priest’s witness and blessing (273).
The clerical blessing WAS the marriage ritual for most of Church history. About this fact, MacCulloch concludes this:
“After a pronouncement from Pope Francis in December 2023 (Fiducia supplicans) and similar moves in the Church of England), same-sex couples throughout much of Western Christianity are now in much the same position as heterosexual married couples were in the second-century Church: following a civil ceremony formalizing their relationship, they can come along to their worship community to receive a blessing.” (496)
In regards to the Catholic Church, MacCulloch may be overstating things: Fiducia supplicans makes clear that the blessing should not confer any liturgical or sacramental validity on the union. The blessing is intended to “confer the Church’s closeness to people in any situation” (§38). Thus, this newly approved blessing does not have quite the same status as the historical blessing. Nonetheless, though the blessing is not a sufficient change, history shows this is not an insignificant change.
Sex in Marriage
While the Church has a problem with same-sex activity, it has also always had a problem with sex, period. The predominant view of early Christians was that celibacy and virginity, not marriage, was the true path to salvation, differing dramatically from Judaic and Graeco-Roman attitudes.
MacCulloch asserts that Christianity always had a “general negativity about sexual activity” (142). Celibacy, virginity, abstinence, asceticism, self-discipline were the preferred states because “it was simply easier to obtain salvation as a celibate than as a sexually active married person.” (167).
The Church did not go so far as to outlaw sex entirely. Augustine had to some extent legitimized the value of married love and sex, but even sex within marriage had limits: Christians were not supposed to engage in sexual activity during certain times: Lent, Sundays, holy days, fasting days, menstruation. And even within marriage, excessive sexual activity was considered sinful. As one early Church father put it, “every man who is sexually unrestrained in his interaction with his wife commits adultery with her” (128).
What eventually emerged from this distrust (if not loathing) of sex was a kind of middle course: procreationism, the idea that the only legitimate purpose of sex within marriage is for the begetting of children. It was not until the mid-20th century that the church officially acknowledged that sexual activity also served the function of bringing the partners into closer intimacy with one another.
Conclusion
Despite claims of consistency and constancy, the Church’s views of marriage and sexuality have been anything but. MacCulloch concludes:
“There is a plethora of Christian theologies of sex. Christian societies and Christian bodies have at different times believed totally contrary things about sexuality, depending on the structure of their society and the individuals doing the thinking.” (493)
These “contrary things” often involve discrepancies between cultural customs and the Church’s teaching. When a conflict between these emerges,, the Church often first reacts judgmentally: Prohibitus! But MacCulloch shows us that the Church does, over time, adapt its teachings—and even, sometimes, its most fundamental doctrines—to accommodate new realities.
Within this history there is reassurance for LGBTQIA+ persons: The historical arc bends toward the Church eventually accommodating, even embracing, the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. The not-so-good news is that, as we well know, this change is hurtfully slow. Pope Leo reminded us of this in his recent statement about LGBTQIA+ Catholics, saying that it is “highly unlikely” that doctrinal changes will happen “in the near future.”
We believe that “The Holy Spirit will inevitably prevail.” Our questions remain: When? How soon?
—James E. Porter, November 3, 2025
Note
[1] One sign of the Church’s complex and changing attitudes was the presence of “the church porch”—an architectural feature of many 13th and 14th century churches. The porch was an annex to the main church where a couple’s wedding could be blessed but remain outside the main church. Eventually, of course, the wedding ceremony moved into the main church. Same-sex couples could now be considered as being in the “church porch” phase of the marriage ceremony.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
New Ways Ministry – 4012 29th Street – Mount Rainier, Maryland 20712 – Telephone: (301) 277-5674 – Email: [email protected]
Contributions to New Ways Ministry are tax-deductible under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
‘Lower Than the Angels’: Marriage, Sexuality, and Change – New Ways Ministry
ByEric Djirackor
Nov 3, 2025
