Referred to in the Newswire section of this site:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-106461,00.html

A Catholic theologian claims that there is too much mention of sex in the Bible for it to be suitable for children; he also claims that the sexual references are illustrative or something like that.

But if the Bible is divinely inspired, one wonders why that inspirer has not had better taste in illustrations and metaphors and allegories. Not to mention a willingness to clearly state what is literal history and what is allegorical.

Finally, I note that that theologian's church has had a long tradition of keeping the Bible away from the rank-and-file of followers; given some of the Bible's contents, that might actually be a good procedure

Maybe it's just me, but that article seemed poorly written. It was very hard to grasp the theologian's position.

The beginning seems to say he thinks the Bible and its language should be hidden. The end seems to have him affirming the attitude of the Bible toward sex. I'm confused...

Personally, I tend to agree with the latter part of the article. The Song of Solomon is a beautiful and erotic tale of two lovers, a wonderful model for any married couple. As the latter part of the article suggests, sex is mentioned only when necessary and a lesson of some sort is usually drawn for its consequences (unlike most t.v. shows portrayal of sex today).

Ish

However, there are a lot of sexual references in the Bible that would be quickly judged to be totally gratuitous if they appeared outside the Bible -- at least judged that way by many of that book's worshippers.

Consider the story of Noah accidentally exposing himself and Ham being a Peeping Tom.

Or the story of Lot's two daughters getting him to have sex with them.

If those stories appeared outside the Bible, would they be considered exemplary stories for little children?