Augustinian Sexuality: a Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence

Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence

Gyeung-Su Park, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Historical Theology Presbyterian College and Theological Seminary, Korea

I. Introduction II. The Meaning of Concupiscence III. The Contexts of Augustine’s Doctrine of Concupiscence IV. Conclusion

Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42, 101-118 102 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

Abstract

St. Augustine is one of those few individuals whose mind provided a foundation on which philosophers and theologians have built from his own day to ours. Augustine has also greatly influenced the development of Christian sexual ethics. In dealing with human sexuality, Augustine frequently used the words concupiscentia in connection with sexual desire. Many contemporary theologians have charged that Augustine’s approach is too negative and pessimistic toward human sexuality. However, my argument in this paper is that Augustine did not regard concupiscence itself as evil, but carnal concupiscence, which came after the fall is evil. In order to understand rightly Augustine’s teaching on concupiscence, one should consider three important contexts: Augustine’s experiential background, the Manichaean context, and the Pelagian context. For this purpose, I explored Augustine’s teachings on concupiscence expressed in his writings and examined many scholars’ interpretations on the subject.

Keywords

Augustine, Concupiscence, Sexuality, Manichaeism, Pelagianism Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence 103

I. Introduction

It is a well-known fact that Augustine has greatly influenced the development of Christian sexual ethics up to the present day. The re- mark of Daniel D. Williams may be true: “Theology in western Chris- tianity has been a series of footnotes to Augustine.”1 The study of Au- gustine’s doctrine of sexuality has been acknowledged not only as an important subject in Augustinian study but also as a starting point in understanding Christian sexual ethics. Many contemporary theologians have charged that Augustine’s approach is too negative and pessimistic toward human sexuality. He has been accused of having a very negative view of humankind’s state. For example, G. Guinn judged that Au- gustine’s identification of sex with original sin “threw a dim light on the subject of sex and marriage for more than a thousand years in the West.”2 Moreover Barton S. Babbage caustically criticized: “Augustine is chiefly responsible for the disastrous identification of sexuality with sin,… There is a strain of morbidity verging on the pathological in the thought of the celebrated Bishop of Hippo: He deplores the fact that God ever created sex, and he is embarrassed by the fact that he ordained it as the means of human reproduction.”3 Vernon Bourke says that the responsibility of these accusations lies chiefly with Augustine:

Augustine himself was in good part responsible. Both his love of rhetorical exaggeration and his zeal in controversy led him to make sweeping statements that were open to mistaken emphasis and to misinterpreta- tion. In opposing what he regarded as errors of doctrine he frequently swung to the opposite extreme of the pendulum and wrote things that were well meant but excessive. Nowhere is this more evident than in his writings on sexuality, concupiscence, marriage, human freedom, and the general sinfulness of all descendants of Adam.4

1 Daniel D. Williams, “TheS ignificance ofS t. Augustine Today,” in A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, ed. Roy W. Battenhouse (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955), 4. 2 g.J. Quinn, “A New Look at Christian Marriage,” Journal of Religion and Health vol. 10 no. 4 (1971), 387-98. Quoted from James B. Weidenaar, “Augustine’s Theory of Concupiscence in City of God, Book XIV,” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995), 53. 3 barton S. Babbage, “Literature Has Its Manichaeans,” Reformed Theological Review 22 (1963), 13-22. Quoted from James B. Weidenaar, 53. 4 Vernon Bourke, Joy in Augustine’s Ethics (Villanova: Villanovea University Press, 1979), 9. 104 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

As Bourke points out, Augustine’s doctrine on human sexuality was formed in the context of controversies with heresies such as Man- ichaeism and Pelagianism. I believe that we cannot understand and in- terpret rightly Augustine’s doctrine on sexuality without consideration of his experiential and controversial background. If we do not consider these contexts, we might risk misinterpreting Augustine. My argument in this paper is that Augustine did not regard sex and concupiscence as evil from the beginning, and his position was gradually formed in the course of controversies against Manichaeism and Pelagianism. In dealing with human sexuality, Augustine frequently used the words concupiscentia and libido in connection with sexual desire.5 In this paper, I want to focus on Augustine’s doctrine on concupiscence. The purpose of this paper is to discover what exactly Augustine said, and what were the influences of Manichaeism and Pelagianism on Au- gustine concerning human sexuality and concupiscence. For this purpose, I will explore the meaning of concupiscence, the effect of personal experience, and the influences of Manichaeism and Pelagianism onA u- gustine. I think this study is significant because through this study we can understand properly Augustine’s doctrine on sexuality and concupiscence.

II. The Meaning of Concupiscence

G.I. Bonner accomplished a leading investigation of the meaning of “concupiscence” and “libido” in Augustine in 1962.6 Bonner explains the differences of these two words in his article. While libido is a classi- cal and common word in Latin literature, concupiscence is a Christian technical term used exclusively by Christian writers. While libido has a neutral sense of desire, concupiscence has generally a sexual connotation. Libido has a broader meaning than concupiscence. Concupiscence

5 according to J. van Oort, Concupiscentia and libido occur in the corpus augus- tinianum 3032 and 1034 times respectively. Consultation of the computer concordance of the Augustinis-Lexikon also reveals that, when employed to describe sexual desire, the words Concupiscentia and libido are practically synonyms. J. van Oort, “Augustine on Sex- ual Concupiscence and Original Sin,” Studia Patristica 22 (Lewven: Peeters Press, 1989), 382-86. 6 g. I Bonner, “Libido and Concupiscentia in St. Augustine,” Studia Patristica 6 (Ber- lin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962), 303-14. Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence 105

and libido, nevertheless, are practically equivalent words when used to describe sexual desire. It is important to note that the term concupiscence has not always negative sexual connotation. Bonner acknowledged that Augustine used concupiscence in a positive sense in the second book of the De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia (Marriage and Concupiscence). In this book, Augus- tine says “there is a concupiscence of the spirit, which craves wisdom.”7 David F. Kelly also pointed out in his distinguished study on Augustine’s sexuality and concupiscence that Augustine spoke of a “good” concupiscence, and for Augustine, concupiscence is a far wider reality than sexual desire.8 In order to understand rightly Augustine’s sexual ethics, it is necessary to define exactly the meaning of concupiscence in his writings. I think the meaning of concupiscence in Augustine’s writings can be summed up under two arguments. First, sex and concupiscence are not evil in themselves, but carnal concupiscence which came from after the Fall is evil. He distinguished carnal concupiscence from general concupiscence. According to Augustine, carnal concupiscence is the punishment for primordial sin. Paul Ramsey’s article shows Augustine’s view of the impact of the Fall on human sexuality.9 Before the Fall, our first parents in Paradise were free from all disturbance. In City of God, Augustine describes the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall as follows:

Their love to God was unclouded, and their mutual affection was that of faithful and sincere marriage; and from this love flowed a wonderful delight, because they always enjoyed what was loved. Their avoidance of sin was tranquil; and, so long as it was maintained, no other ill at all could invade them and bring sorrow.10

Augustine believed that before the Fall, the sexual organs operated

7 augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence II, 52, trans. Peter Holmes in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series Vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), 304. 8 David F. Kelly, “Sexuality and Concupiscence in Augustine,” The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics (1983), 81-116. 9 Paul Ramsey, “Human Sexuality in the Hisory of Redemption,” The Journal of Religious Ethics 16 (1988), 56-86. 10 augustine, The City of God XIV, 10, trans. Marcus Dods in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series Vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), 271. 106 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42 under the control of the will as the other members do.11 In that state, love rather than concupiscence would have initiated sexual activity. Be- fore the Fall, “the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25, NRSV). Unfortunately, however, our first parents fell into the sin of disobedience to God because of their pride. The first sin of human was not the matter of food but the problem related to the disobedience of God’s command. The punishment for human’s disobedience toG od was carnal concupiscence. After the Fall, human sex became fallen sexuality and shameful concupiscence disordered by lustful passion. Sexual members are now moved by carnal concupiscence, not by will. The will of humans can no longer control the sexual organs as a result of being disobedient to God. Because of sin, “man, who by keeping the com- mandments should have been spiritual even in his flesh, became fleshly even in his spirit.”12 It means that Adam and Eve had slipped from this “angelic” state into their present “material” mode of being.13 After they sinned, they felt shame: “the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loin- cloths for themselves”(Gen. 3:7, NRSV). There is one important point in this context which deserves attention. An important characteristic of sexual concupiscence is, according to Augustine, its “uncontrollablil- ity” and “irresistibility.”14 After the Fall, men and women can no longer control their sexual organs while our other bodily organs are within our power. The second argument, according to Augustine, is that primordial sin is transmitted to descendants through carnal concupiscence. Augus- tine regarded sexual concupiscence as the cause of the transmission of original sin, though not the cause of original sin itself. As Johannes van Oort pointed out, “sexual concupiscence is regarded as a punishment for primordial sin,” and “this primordial sin is transmitted as original sin by means of the sexual desire in copulation.”15 At this point, we can ask how sexual concupiscence relates to original sin. James B. Weide- naar in his article suggests two possibilities for the place of sexual concupiscence in the transmission of original sin.

11 ibid., 280. 12 ibid., 274. 13 Peter Brown, Augustine and Sexuality (Berkeley: The Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1983), 5. 14 J. van Oort, “Augustine on Sexual Concupiscence and Original Sin,” 384. 15 ibid. Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence 107

First, sexual concupiscence, as a part of general concupiscence, and especially the part that is active during procreation and accomplishes procreation, is the instrumental cause of the offspring’s contamination by disordered concupiscence or original sin. This view seems to be sup- ported in one of Augustine’s sermons, in which, while speaking of Adam and Eve in shame covering their genitals with fig leaves, he exclaims, “That’s it! - the place from which the original sin is drawn! That’s the place from which no one is born without sin!” The second possibility is that original sin is passed on through procreation but not on account of that procreation having been accomplished through concupiscence but simply because the disease of sin is contained and passed on through Adam’s seed. Sexual concupiscence is then not the instrumental cause of the passing on of original sin, but rather, being itself a result of original sin, it is a powerful reminder and sign, present every time humans pro- create, that the resultant child will inherit original sin. This view seems to have more argued evidence in Augustine’s writings, though the first view surely carried some rhetorical force for Augustine’s listening con- gregation.16

In spite of Weidenaar’s explanation of the relationship between concupiscence and original sin, it seems to me that it is not clear how original sin is transmitted to succeeding generations. It may be God’s mysterious decree, but this answer is unsatisfying. Anyway, Augustine considered sexual concupiscence as the cause of the transmission of original sin.

III. The Contexts of Augustine’s Doctrine of Concupiscence

It is natural that if we want to understand properly someone’s thought, we should think about his or her personal, intellectual, and social contexts. In order to understand rightly Augustine’s teaching on sexual concupiscence, we should consider three important contexts: Augustine’s experiential background, the Manichaean context, and the Pelagian context. In this paper, I deal with Augustine’s personal experi-

16 James B. Weidenaar, “Augustine’s Theory of Concupiscence in City of God, Book XIV,” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995), 65. 108 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42 ence very briefly, and then I focus on the question how Manichaean dualism and Pelagian controversy were related to Augustine’s view of sexual concupiscence.

1. Personal Experience

Augustine’s personality and theology cannot be adequately understood when they are separated. In order to understand Augustine’s idea of sexuality and concupiscence, we should consider his personal experience. One of the important contexts of Augustine’s teachings on concupiscence is his own personal experience which colors his view toward sexual ethics. I believe that the assessment of Terry Miethe is right:

It is common knowledge that many scholars feel Augustine’s memory of his own sexual desires in his youth had a great effect, especially later in life, on and are partly responsible for his great pessimism about the nature of man. Certainly Augustine’s family, youthful experiences, and his own desires colored his view with regard to passion and ethics in general.17

Indeed, Augustine’s teachings may be understood in light of his experience and family relationship. Augustine described lust as binding the will because his will had been bound by lust. Today, perhaps the most stimulating interpretation of Augustine comes from the psychological approach. This psychological approach gave some important and sensitive observations in Augustinian study. At the same time, however, scholars “pay insufficient attention to Augustine’s historical environ- ment; they focus narrowly on the Confessions without bringing the larg- er body of Augustine’s work into their purview.”18 In order to make up for these weak points of the psychological approach, Paula Fredriksen in her interesting article suggests the possibility of a “psychohistory” approach to Augustinian study.19 The approach of psychohistory paid attention to not only Augustine’s personal experience but also the historical contexts of his time. With regard to the formation of Augustine’s

17 terry L. Miethe, “Augustine and Concupiscence,” Augustinian Bibliography, 1970- 1980, compiled by Terry L. Miethe (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982), 198. 18 Paula Fredriksen, “Augustine and His Analysts: The Possibility of a Psychohis- t or y,” Soundings vol. LXI no. 2 (Summer 1978), 206. 19 ibid., 206-27. Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence 109

doctrine on sexuality and concupiscence, I think that Manichaeism and Pelagianism are very important historical contexts.

2. Manichaeism

Manichaeism was founded by the Persian prophet Mani who called himself the “apostle of Jesus Christ” at the end of the third century. Manichaeism was a dualistic religion, so Manichaeans believed in the eternal struggle of the kingdom of Light and the kingdom of Darkness. They also distinguished the spirit from the matter.20 Manichaeans can be divided into two groups: “Hearers” and “the Elect.” “Hearers” could marry and even engage in sexual intercourse. They were expected, however, to take careful steps to assure that procreation did not occur. “The Elect” were required to live in innocent celibacy. They hoped to escape the prison of their own body and be united with the Divine Light.21 In the dualistic view of Manichaeism, the soul was regarded as the principle of good, and the body the principle of evil. Because the procreation of the body was considered as evil, marriage - the institutional means of procreation - was also evil.22 The greatest sin a Manichee could com- mit was that of procreating. In the relation with Manichaeism, Augustine became a “Hearer” of Manichaeism at age nineteen. Augustine was fascinated with the Man- ichaean answer to the problem of the origin of evil.23 His Confessions describes both his attraction to Manichaeism and his subsequent disen- chantment. After nine years, Augustine separated from Manichaeism, and strenuously attacked Manichaean ideas. Ironically, however, Au-

20 terry L. Miethe, “Augustine and Concupiscence,” 202-203. 21 augustine describes about the “three seals” of the Elect in De moribus manichaeo- rum (On the Morals of the Manichaeans): the Seal of the Mouth, the Seal of the Hands, and the Seal of the Breast. Margaret Miles explains the “three seals” as follows: “What leaves the mouth as well as what enters were governed by the Seal of the Mouth: blasphemous speech was prohibited, as was the eating of meat and drinking of wine…. The Seal of the Hands stipulates that the faithful must not perform any task that might harm the particles of light…. The Seal of the Breast forbids sexual intercourse in that its result is the propa- gation of more flesh in which light particles are painfully enslaved.” Margaret R. Miles, “‘Jesus patibilis’: Nature and Responsibility in Augustine’s Debate with the Manichaeans,” in Faithful Imagining, ed. Sang Hyun Lee et al (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 11-12. 22 Cormac Burke, “St. Augustine and Conjugal Sexuality,” Communio 17 (1990), 546. 23 Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (Berkeley: University of California, 1969), 46. Brown say, “the manichaean answer to the problem of evil is the core of the Manichaeism of the young Augustine.” 110 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42 gustine has been repeatedly and throughout his life accused by his op- ponents that he had never completely departed from the religion of his youth. At the time of Augustine, these Manichaean ideas pervaded within Catholic congregations. Augustine, however, did not accept the Man- ichaen dualistic view on the body and marriage. Two treatises, both written by Augustine in 388, are especially helpful for understanding Augustine’s conflict with the Manichaeans -De Moribus Ecclesiae Cath- olicae (On the Morals of the Catholic Church) and De Moribus Man- ichaeorum (On the Morals of the Manichaeans). For Augustine, the body itself is good because “in its own kind and degree the flesh is good.”24 Arguing against the Manichaeans, Augustine says that the body is not by nature evil. The body is not the source of all the defects of human be- havior. Especially, Augustine strongly defended the goodness of sexual difference and the union of husband and wife. According to Augustine, “God made the sexes; because, as it is written, ‘He created them male and female.’”25 For Augustine, marriage is not only good thing but also a blessing given by God. Augustine speaks about the three goods of marriage: “Marriage, therefore, is a good in all the things which are proper to the married state. And these are three: it is the ordained means of procreation, it is the guarantee of chastity, it is the bond of union.”26 He already dealt with the three goods of marriage in his early book De Bono Conjugali (On the Good of Marriage), written to refute the accusation of Manichaeism against the Catholics. For Augustine, the first and most important purpose of marriage is the procreation of children for the kingdom of God. Thus, Augustine opposed what we would now call “natural family planning” as well as any attempt to prevent offspring.27 He, therefore, even considered sexual intercourse for the sake of carnal pleasure, not for procreation as venial sin, although it may be allowed and permitted to married people.

For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this neces-

24 augustine, The City of God XIV, 5, 265. 25 augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence II, 53, 305. 26 augustine, On the Grace of Christ and On Original Sin II, 39, trans. Peter Holmes in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series Vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), 251. 27 David F. Kelly, “Sexuality and Concupiscence in Augustine,” 101. Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence 111

sity, no longer follows reason, but lust. And yet it pertains to the char- acter of marriage, not to exact this, but to yield it to the partner, lest by fornication the other sin damnably…. This is allowed to them on the authority of the Apostle as matter of pardon.28

According to Augustine, when the sexual intercourse is performed for the purpose of procreation, it is good and perfectly lawful. The second good of marriage is “not simply to hold concupiscence within the bounds of marriage, but to remedy it.”29 Through this re- straint and remedy, marriage guarantees chastity. Carnal concupiscence can be controlled and healed by the chastity of marriage. Augustine says, therefore, “conjugal embrace is not only allowable, but is even useful and honourable.”30 He distinguished the goodness of marriage from the evil of carnal concupiscence. He says, “the connubial embrace… considered in itself simply… is good and right.”31 In a sermon, Augustine included “conjugal embraces” among a list of lawful delights for human, along with “non-prohibited foods,” “flowers and aromas,” and “a sacred psalm sweetly sung.”32 What Augustine attacked was not sexual pleasure in marriage life but the disordered carnal concupiscence. Through the chastity of marriage, husband and wife can avoid committing sin, and remedy their carnal concupiscence. The third good of marriage is the bond of union. Marriage is also a sacramental union, so “the man and the woman who are joined together in matrimony should remain inseparable as long as they live.”33 The indissolubility of the marriage consists in “the sanctity of the sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another for so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children.”34 Because of the sacramental characteristic of marriage, Augustine insisted that it is never permitted to put away even an unfruitful wife for the purpose of

28 augustine, On the Good of Marriage, 11, trans. C.L. Cornish in Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers, First Series Vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), 404. 29 Paul Ramsey, “Human Sexuality in the History of Redemption,” 67. 30 augustine, On the Grace of Christ and On Original Sin II, 39, 251. 31 ibid., 44, 253. 32 James B. Weidenaar, “Augustine’s Theory of Concupiscence in City of God, Book XIV,” 61. 33 augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence I, 11, 268. 34 augustine, On the Good of Marriage, 32, 412. Does this sentence reflect his preju- dice on woman? It is interesting that Augustine does not mention the opposite case. 112 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42 procreating children. Augustine put the emphasis on the indissolubility of the marriage, because marriage symbolized the love of Christ for the Church. Augustine says, “For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church; so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation forever.”35 For Augustine, body, marriage, and conjugal embrace are good in themselves. He vigorously defended the goods of marriage - procreation, chastity, the bond of union - and regarded these goods as blessings of God. What he opposed was not the goodness of the body and marriage but the force and effect of carnal concupiscence. Carnal concupiscence “is not a good which comes out of the essence of marriage, but an evil which is the accident of original sin.”36 The evil of lust does not take away the good of marriage. He argues, “we ought not to condemn marriage because of the evil of lust; nor must we praise lust because of the good of marriage.”37 Augustine clearly distinguished marriage from the evil of carnal concupiscence. Through the study of Augustine’s teachings on body and marriage, we now know that he was less negative and pessimistic toward human sexuality and sexual pleasure in marriage than many modern theologians have charged.

3. Pelagianism

Pelagianism, named after Pelagius, was an ascetic movement which stressed human’s free will and moral responsibility. Pelagius was a Chris- tian moralist who became a fashionable teacher among aristocratic cir- cles in Rome in the late fourth century. As Gillian Evans pointed out, Pelagianism was “the product of a community’s way of life, the united effort of a group of like-minded and articulate people.”38 Pelagianism believed in the ability of humankind in the matter of morality and even salvation, so Pelagians rejected the ideas of original sin and the inherent sinfulness of humankind. Julian of Eclanum, a Pelagian bishop, was Augustine’s greatest op- ponent. Julian did not accept the doctrine of original sin and believed that humankind was capable of moral action. Julian accused Augustine

35 augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence I, 11, 268. 36 ibid., 19, 271. 37 ibid., 8, 267. 38 gillian R. Evans, “Neither a Pelagian nor a Manichee,” Vigiliae Christianae 35 no. 3 (1981), 235. Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence 113

of inventing the doctrine of original sin. This doctrine seemed to Julian to involve the acceptance of the idea that human nature is intrinsically or fatally sinful. Julian also accused Augustine of teaching that humankind had no natural ability for virtuous or good actions. Julian believed that Augustine unjustly exaggerated the negative condition of natural man.39 Julian considered Augustine as a Manichee, “not because he believes him to be still a follower of the sect, nor because he believes him to be consistent in his Manichaean views on every point, but because, as he argues, the tendency of Augustine’s thought is Manichaean.”40 Julian thought if Augustine was opposed to Pelagianism, Augustine must be identifying himself with an old enemy of Pelagius’ circle: Manichaeism. Pelagius also saw himself as a defender of the faith, exactly as Autgustine did. Both Pelagians and Catholic Christians distinguished themselves from the Manichaean heretics.41 With regard to concupiscence, Pelagians regarded the lust of the flesh as a natural good. “The word concupiscentia and libido as used by Julian meant the desire regarded in itself, a natural good because implanted by the Creator.”42 For Julian concupiscence was merely a human tendency to seek satisfaction for his or her instinctual desire which is not necessarily evil. Augustine, however, believed that carnal concupiscence was a disordered desire as the consequence of the Fall of Adam and Eve. While the Pelagians regarded the lust of the flesh as a natural good, Augustine saw carnal concupiscence as a disordered and perverted desire after the fall of Adam. Augustine understood this concupiscence as “an unavoidable modality of the act of procreation in the infra-lapsarian condition of man, namely, as concupiscentia carnis (carnal concupiscence)… different from a Paradisiac concupiscence, guided by reason and will.”43 Here it should be also noted that Augustine distinguished Paradisiac concupiscence from canal concupiscence. Augustine looked upon carnal concupiscence as the punishment for original sin. Moreover, this negative concupiscence is the vehicle of transmission of original sin. Because of this carnal concupiscence even a new born baby is also a sinner. The theology of infant baptism in Roman Catholicism

39 terry L. Miethe, “Augustine and Concupiscence,” 204. 40 gillian R. Evans, “Neither a Pelagian nor a Manichee,” 233. 41 ibid., 236-37. 42 John Burnaby, Amor Dei: A Study of the Religion of St. Augustine (London: Hod- der & Stoughton, 1960), 59-60. 43 ugo Bianchi, “Augustine on Concupiscence,” in Studia Patristica 22, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone (Lewven: Peeters Press, 1989), 209. 114 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42 and Protestantism was formulated by Augustine in the anti-Pelagian writings.44 Christ alone, who was born of the Virgin Mary by the over- shadowing of the Holy Spirit, is free from the fatal legacy. Against Pela- gians, Augustine argued that humans could do nothing by their natural ability of merit without God’s gift of grace. Augustine’s doctrines on sexuality and concupiscence were gradually formed in the course of the struggle against the Pelagians. Augus- tine asserted original sin and the inherent sinfulness of all humans in order to avoid any minimization of God’s grace. As Paul Ramsey points out, if we want to understand Augustine’s doctrine on sexuality and concupiscence properly, it must be represented in the context of the redemption history of God’s grace.45 Only by the grace of Christ, can our wounds of carnal concupiscence be healed. David Kelly says;

Augustine is not, therefore, anti-human. His purpose in underlining the corrupted condition of fallen human nature is that we may turn and be healed by the grace of Christ.46

I agree with Kelly’s argument that a superficial study of Augustine would lead us to the notion that he is anti-human, even inhuman, but a serious study would reveal his deep desire for the recovery and salvation of full humanity in the grace of Christ. We should keep in mind that Augustine formulated his doctrines on sexuality and concupiscence in a context in which the Pelagian ideas about free will and sin seemed to be undermining the importance and need for the grace of Christ. In a sense Augustine used rhetorical exaggeration on the issues of the sinful nature of human and original sin in order to reveal explicitly the necessity of the grace of Christ. Therefore we can call Augustine’s teachings a “Christological concentration.”47 In this sense, I believe that if someone wants to understand rightly Augustine’s doctrine on human nature and concupiscence, he or she should consider Augustine’s rhetorical inten- tion and Christological emphasis expressed in the controversy with the Pelagians. In my opinion, in the Pelagian controversy, the main purpose of Augustine was to emphasize the grace of Christ rather than to reveal

44 Paul Lehmann, “The Anti-Pelagian Writings,” in A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, ed. Roy W. Battenhouse (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955), 215. 45 Paul Ramsey, “Human Sexuality in the History of Redemption,” 56. 46 David F. Kelly, “Sexuality and Concupiscence in Augustine,” 87. 47 Paul Ramsey, “Human Sexuality in the History of Redemption,” 82. Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence 115

the evil nature of human condition and concupiscence.

IV. Conclusion

Through the study of Augustine’s doctrine on concupiscence, I clarified the fact that Augustine’s position on sexuality and concupiscence was not as pessimistic as we generally thought. What Augustine opposed was not concupiscence itself but carnal concupiscence which came after the Fall. He acknowledged the existence of spiritual concupiscence which seeks wisdom. Furthermore, in the controversy with the Manichaeans, he asserted that the human body and sexes are created by God. He also affirmed that marriage is not only a good thing but also a blessing given by God. He considered conjugal embrace as a lawful delight for humankind. Augustine did not have a pessimistic position toward sex or sexual pleasure itself. However, it is also true that Augustine attacked canal concupiscence. In order to avoid any minimization of the grace of Christ, Augus- tine in the Pelagian controversy used rhetorical exaggeration to some extent. In the Pelagian controversy, he argued that after the Fall all humans are born with original sin, so they are inevitably controlled by the disordered concupiscence. The first aim of Augustine in debate was to emphasize the necessity of the grace of Christ. Only the grace of God can heal the perverted concupiscence and human sinfulness. That is why Augustine has been honored as the “Doctor of Grace.” It seems to me that the analysis of Cormac Burke is attractive and accurate: “Augustine’s writings on sex and marriage aimed to combat not only the negative views of the Manichaeans, but also the over-op- timistic views of the Pelagians.”48 Augustine’s understanding of sexuality and concupiscence became more and more refined by his efforts to keep a balance between the extremes of Manichaeism and Pelagianism. Judging from historical contexts, Augustine’s doctrine on sexuality and concupiscence was a balanced position rather than a pessimistic one.

48 Cormac Burke, “St. Augustine and Conjugal Sexuality,” 549-50. 116 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

Bibliography

Primary Source Augustine. Confessions [Confessions]. Translated by J.G. Pilkington. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series. Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956, 25-207. . De bono conjugali [On the Good of Marriage]. Translated by C.L. Cornish. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series. Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956, 399-413. . De civitate Deii [The City of God]. Translated by M. Dods. In Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers. First Series. Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff.N ew York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956, 1-511. . De gratia Christi et de peccato originali [On the Grace of Christ and On Original Sin]. Translated by Peter Holmes. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series. Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956, 399-413. . De moribus ecclesiae catholicae [On the Morals of the Catholic Church]. Translated by R. Stothert. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series. Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956, 41-63. . De moribus Manichaeans [On the Morals of the Manichaeans]. Translated by R. Stothert. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series. Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956, 69-89. . De nuptiis et concupiscentia [Marriage and Concupiscence]. Translated by Peter Holmes. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First Series. Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956, 263-308.

Secondary Source Babbage, Barton S. “Literature Has Its Manichaeans.” Reformed Theological Review 22 (1963), 13-22. Bianchi, Ugo. “Augustine on Concupiscence.” Studia Patristica 22. Lewven: Peeters Press, 1989, 202-12. Bonner, G. I. “Libido and Concupiscentia in St. Augustine.” Studia Patristica 6. Berlin: Aka- demie-Verlag, 1962, 303-14. Bourke, Vernon. Joy in Augustine’s Ethics. Villanova: Villanovea University Press, 1979. Brown, Peter. Augustine and Sexuality. Berkerley: The Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1983. . Augustine of Hippo. Berkeley: University of California, 1969. . Religion and Society in the age of Saint Augustine. London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1972. Burke, Cormac. “St. Augustine and Conjugal Sexuality.” Communio 17 (1990), 545-65. Burnaby, John. Amor Dei: A Study of the Religion of St. Augustine. London: Hodder & Stough- ton, 1960. Connery, John R. “The role of love in Christian marriage: a historical overview.” Communio 11 (1984), 244-57. Evans, Gillian R. “Neither a Pelagian nor a Manichee.” Vigiliae Christianae 35 no. 3 (1981), Augustinian Sexuality: A Reevaluation of His Doctrine on Concupiscence 117

232-44. Fredriksen, Paula. “Augustine and his Analysts: The Possibility of a Psychohistory.”Soundings vol. 61 no. 2 (Summer 1978), 206-27. Gould, Graham. “Women in the Writings of the Fathers: Language, Belief, and Reality.” In Women in the Church, edited by W.J. Sheils and Diana Wood. Cambridge: Basil Black- well, 1990, 1-13. Kelly, David F. “Sexuality and Concupiscence in Augustine.” The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics. 1983, 81-116. Lehmann, Paul “The Anti-Pelagian Writings.” In A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, edited by Roy W. Battenhouse. New York: Oxford University Press, 1955, 203-34. Maxey, Margaret N. “Beyond Eve and Mary: A Theological Alternative for Women’s Libera- tion.” Dialog 10 (1971), 112-22. McGill, William J. “Augustine and Gibbon: Two Images of the Self.” Religion in Life 48 (1979), 337-47. Miethe, Terry L. “Augustine and Concupiscence.” Augustinian Bibliography, 1970-1980. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982, 195-218. Miles, Margaret Ruth. Desire and Delight: a New Reading of Augustine’s Confessions. New York: Crossroad, 1992. . “‘Jesus patibilis’: Nature and Responsibility in Augustine’s Debate with the Manichaeans.” In Faithful Imagining, edited by by Sang Hyun Lee et al. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995, 3-18. O’Connell, Robert J. “Sexuality in Saint Augustine.” In Augustine Today, edited by Richard John Neuhaus. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993, 60- 87. Oort, J. van. “Augustine on Sexual Concupiscence and Original Sin.” Studia Patristica 22. Lewven: Peeters Press, 1989, 382-86. Power, Kim. Veiled Desire: Augustine on Woman. New York: Continuum, 1996. Quinn, G.J. “A New Look at Christian Marriage.” Journal of Religion and Health vol. 10 no. 4 (1971), 387-98. Ramsey, Paul. “Human Sexuality in the History of Redemption.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 16 (1988), 56-86. Ruether, Rosemary Radford. “Christianity.” In Women in World Religions, edited by Arvind Sharma. New York: State University of New York Press, 1987, 207-33. Weaver, Rebecca Harden. “A Subordinate Loyalty – Christian Teaching on the Family.” Af- firmation 5 (1992), 21-50. Weidenaar, James B. “Augustine’s Theory of Concupiscence inCity of God, Book XIV.” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995), 52-74. Williams, Daniel D. “The Significance of St. Augustine Today.” In A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine, edited by Roy W. Battenhouse. New York: Oxford University Press, 1955, 3-14. 118 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

한글 초록

아우구스티누스의 육욕(Concupiscence) 개념에 대한 재평가

박경수 장로회신학대학교 역사신학

아우구스티누스의 신학은 오늘날까지 수많은 철학자들과 신학자들이 의지할 수 있 는 준거를 제시하였다. 그의 인간의 성욕과 육욕에 대한 가르침 또한 그리스도교 성윤 리의 발전에 지대한 영향을 미쳤다. 인간의 성욕을 다루면서 아우구스티누스는 성적 욕 망과 관련하여 육욕(concupiscentia)이라는 용어를 종종 사용하였다. 많은 현대 신학자 들은 인간의 성욕에 대한 아우구스티누스의 접근이 너무 부정적이고 비관적이었다고 비판하기도 한다. 그러나 필자의 관점에서 볼 때에는 아우구스티누스가 성적인 욕망 그 자체를 악으로 간주하지는 않았으며, 타락 이후의 인간에게 찾아온 육적인 욕망(carnal concupiscence) 을 악한 것으로 파악한 것으로 여겨진다. 육욕에 대한 아우구스티누스의 가르침이 부정 적인 색채를 띠게 된 이유를 올바르게 해석하고 이해하기 위해서는 세 가지 중요한 역 사적 상황을 고려해야만 할 것이다. 첫째는 아우구스티누스의 개인적 경험, 둘째는 마 니교에 의한 영향, 셋째는 펠라기우스주의와의 대결이다. 아우구스티누스의 육욕 개념 에 대한 보다 균형 잡힌 이해를 갖기 위하여 필자는 본고에서 아우구스티누스 자신의 저작들 속에서 육욕이 어떻게 표현되었는지를 추적하고 또한 이 주제에 대한 많은 학자 들의 해석도 소개하였다.

주제어

아우구스티누스, 육욕, 성욕, 마니교, 펠라기우스주의

Date submitted: July 6, 2011; date accepted: September 18, 2011; date confirmed: September 26, 2011.