Showing posts with label Same-Sex Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Same-Sex Marriage. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 26, 2023

CLING TO JESUS

By Tim Rohr

Okay. In the spirit of Pope Francis, I am going to "make a mess," and address this crazy stuff in a way I have not seen anyone else do. 

By "crazy stuff," I mean the pope's recent full frontal shot between the eyes of traditional Catholic orthodoxy, aka Fiducia supplicans: the pope's declaration authorizing public blessings of same-sex unions and so-called "irregular situations" of every kind.

It's easy to point fingers at what many call "the lavender lobby in the Vatican" and other homosexual stuff going on in the highest halls of power in the Catholic Church that many of us have been aware of for years, nay, decades. 

However, the real culprit is not the usual suspects: homosexuals and their supporters. The real culprit is sacramentally married men and women whose marriage is not "open to life." 

And beyond that, the "really real" culprit is the teachers and preachers within the Catholic Church who not only authorize, but also promote sexual sterility within a sacramental marriage. 

You may want to stop reading at this point, but I'll go on anyway.

I ain't making this up, so I'll quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church at this point.

 "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil..." (CCC 2370)

It is important to note that while the Catholic Church condemns every form of contraception as "intrinsically evil," it stops short of doing so when it comes to homosexual acts and instead labels said acts as only "intrinsically disordered:"

"homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" (CCC 2357)

There's a big difference between intrinsically evil and intrinsically disordered, and the Church's choice to distinguish the two is critical to anyone who cares, not just about the current controversy, but about the eternal destination of his or her soul.

Contraceptive acts between sacramentally married couples is EVIL (not just disordered) because the Sacrament of Matrimony confers on the man and woman the grace to conform to God's will which is to "accept children willingly and lovingly from God," which are the words each spouse is required to say "I do" to before God and men at the marriage ceremony. 

Homosexuals, specifically persons in a homosexual relationship, take no such vow and receive no such grace. Their sexual unions are naturally sterile which is why the Church labels them "disordered." 

However, sacramental marital unions between a man and a woman are not only not naturally sterile, but are ordered to procreation. Thus, the deliberate, intentional frustration of the natural consequence of the "marital act" is to spit in God's face because not only do we say "NO" to God, we say "I am God...We are God...We will decide when and where our act shall bear fruit."

This is why the Church labels contraceptive marital acts between sacramentally married persons "intrinsically evil" while pronouncing the much lighter sentence of "disordered" on homosexual acts. 

In His Mercy, God sees that persons who engage in homosexual acts do not have the same sacramental grace to resist such acts as do sacramentally married persons.

In short, persons who engage in homosexual acts are less mortally culpable than sacramentally married persons who engage in contraceptive sex.

As terrible as this all is, it is not really even the fault of sacramentally married couples. 

It is the fault of pastors who 1) sanction, promote, or otherwise turn a blind eye to contraception, or 2) sanction, promote, support, and teach a contraceptive mentality in their so-called "pre-Cana" classes, aka "marriage prep."

Here's what I mean.

Most Catholic "pre-Cana" classes include at least a module or two of how to "chart" fertility, aka Natural Family Planning. 

The short course is this: a sexually mature female is usually fertile for only about seven days of a 28 day "cycle." The idea is to identify the bodily markers before and after those 7 days and refrain from sexual intercourse to avoid pregnancy. 

This is taught to all Catholic couples preparing for marriage within usual diocesan prescriptions. 

Promoters of "NFP" like to counter that NFP can be used to "get pregnant" as well. And that is true. But no one is fooled. 

The real import of the NFP module is to teach couples how to avoid pregnancy "naturally." However, teaching couples about to be married flies in the face of the vow they will publicly pronounce at their wedding: "to accept children willingly and lovingly from God."

If a couple is not ready to "accept children willingly and lovingly from God" then they have no business getting married, at least not in a Catholic marriage.

Tying this back to the point of this post. 

If sexual intercourse is not ordered to procreation, whether it be frustrated by homosexual sex or contraceptive sex, then both acts are "disordered," with contraceptive sex between sacramentally married persons being "intrinsically evil," aka "mortal sin," i.e. you are eternally damned unless you repent and swear to "sin no more." 

There is much debate as to how many Catholic couples contracept. The accepted number is 90%. But we don't need a census to figure this out. We only need to look at the empty pews and the empty schools. 

Meanwhile, I am not going to end here. I am going to lay the blame on a pope. No, not Francis, but the already sainted Paul VI, and specifically his encyclical Humane Vitae (HV).

HV upheld traditional Church teaching regarding the evil of contraception, however, and this is a big HOWEVER, no defender of HV or Paul VI that I know of has ever pointed out that Paul VI, via HV, left contraception up to a vote. Here is what HV says in its opening:

...within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed (HV, Par. 6)

The "commission" is the Birth Control Commission, initially established by Pope John 23 and later expanded by Paul 6. John's commission consisted of 7 prelates, Paul's expansion jumped the number to 72 inclusive of a wide array of "lay experts."

And here's what happened:

The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed. This report was approved by 64 of the 69 members voting.

In other words, the vote was a staggering majority in favor of birth control. 

Paul 6 had few options. In fact, he only had one. He already knew he could never overturn God's plan for marriage, so he blamed it on the vote, saying that, umm, well, the vote was not unanimous ("complete agreement"). 

This is where the real mess started. So apparently all that's really needed to upend immutable moral doctrine is "complete agreement" (a unanimous vote) by some "commission" established on a papal whim. 

NOT.

To conclude. Paul VI, like it or not, opened the door via HV for FS. If a pope, via a commission or a letter can upend God, then what?

The short answer is cling to Jesus. 

Wednesday, July 03, 2013

FROM GRISWOLD TO WINDSOR: A RESPONSE TO A FRIEND

NOTE: "Winsdor" was the name of the plaintiff in the case which overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. "Griswold" is explained in the post.

In the wake of the two recent SCOTUS decisions relative to same-sex marriage, I made the following post on Facebook:

In his dissent, Alito defines the argument as a contest between two visions of marriage—what he calls the "conjugal" and "consent-based" views. He defines the conjugal view of marriage as a “comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing children.” 
And therein lies the achilles heel. Conjugal marriages have not been "intrinsically ordered to producing children" for nearly four decades. The production of children has become something to be mechanically, chemically, or surgically controlled. Conjugal marriages thus become consent-based marriages, which is the fundamental premise of same-sex marriage and why same-sex marriage will ultimately be the law of the land, unless...


A good friend, conservative Christian, and frequent Facebook ally in the culture war, disagreed with my identifying the otherwise unquestioned embrace of birth control by traditionally married couples as the central culprit in the collapse of marriage as “intrinsically ordered to producing children” and thus a gateway to same-sex marriage.


Because most Catholics, let alone non-Catholic Christians, see no problem with contraceptive sex (so long as it is within marriage), I have great understanding for anyone who doesn’t see the connection between contraception and same-sex marriage.  Following is my response.

*****


No worries. I know of only three people who agree with me, so you're in the majority. In any event, it's not my opinion. As a Catholic I would be a hypocrite and a liar and would have no reason to be a Catholic if I did not uphold my church's moral teaching which essentially states that we belong to God, all of us, body and soul, our sex lives too.


Since you're not Catholic, you don't need to worry about it. So you can stop here. However. for the record, our church teaches that God made man and woman to be fundamentally procreative.* Whether procreation occurs is ultimately up to God, not us. However, we have made it up to us by artificially controlling our fertility.


Up till 1930, every Christian denomination taught that the deliberate frustration of the procreative act was a violation of God's plan for our bodies. In fact, selling contraceptives to married couples was illegal in the U.S. until 1965 when those laws were declared unconstitutional in Griswold v Connecticut. The grounds? The "right to privacy". The first instance of this "right" in a judicial ruling.


It's interesting to follow it from there. The next instance where the "right to privacy" was invoked was in Roe v Wade, and the next: Lawrence v Texas wherein anti-sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. In Scalia's dissent in this case, he predicted (in 2003) that the way was now paved to gay marriage.


Amongst Christians, the Anglicans were the first to allow for contaceptive use in marriages under very limited conditions. But within 30 years or so, every Christian denomination either allowed it or looked the other way. However, for all of Christian history, the chemical (the pill), mechanical (condom), or surgical (vasectomy) frustration of the marital act was seen as an offense to natural law and thus to God, who by design, created our bodies to make more souls for him to love.


Only the Catholic Church has held to the ancient teaching, found in written form as early as 50AD in the Didache - the earliest known Christian writing. HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, the majority of Catholics, including most of its ordained leaders, at least in the U.S. have chosen to ignore the ancient teaching and have gone the way of the Anglicans.


In fact, even as a Catholic, I was unaware of my church's teaching on birth control until late in life, and had been counseled on several occasions by pastors to go ahead and use it (so long as I prayed about it first!!)


In the end, my intent with this short essay is not to convince you or anyone else to change your mind about birth control, but to demonstrate the legal, judicial, and moral connection between the arbitrary control of fertility to where we are now with same-sex marriage. Whether we agree there is a connection or not, the fact is we are here, and gay couples are claiming the same rights as straight couples: the right to spousal happiness and sexual satisfaction apart from the obligation to procreate.


Thus, my ultimate recommendation - as stated elsewhere: the only way to advance the future of one man one woman marriage is for those marriages to keep their promises: till death do we part and to accept children willingly and lovingly from God - to do what is "intrinsically ordered".

(I am well aware of the financial limits and special circumstances which may call for the limits of family size, but ultimately the question we must answer is whether or not we trust God enough to take care of that. I did not...at first.)

One last note. After the birth of our 10th child, who was born with many complications, the doctor wagged her finger in my face and said "no more children". The little girl in my profile pic is our 11th. Obviously I'm a bad listener.

* Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2366)

"...every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil...” (CCC 2370)



Monday, July 01, 2013

A response to a post by Public Discourse: THE SUPREME COURT, YOU, ME, AND THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE.

(Go here to read the post.)

In his dissent, Alito defines the argument as a contest between two visions of marriage—what he calls the "conjugal" and "consent-based" views. He defines the conjugal view of marriage as a “comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing children.”

And therein lies the achilles heel. Conjugal marriages have not been "intrinsically ordered to producing children" for nearly four decades. The production of children has become something to be mechanically, chemically, or surgically controlled. Conjugal marriages thus become consent-based marriages, which is the fundamental premise of same-sex marriage and why same-sex marriage will ultimately be the law of the land, unless...




NOTE TO CATHOLIC BISHOPS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

In responding to the recent Supreme Court rulings relative to same-sex marriage, the Kansas bishops show us why there is a problem in the first place.

It is not same-sex advocates who wish to redefine marriage, it is the Catholic Church, at the highest levels, which already has! And in doing so, has paved the way for same-sex marriage. The Kansas bishops' statement gives evidence of this:
In addressing this issue we must begin by recalling that when asked about marriage, Jesus said: “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’?” (Matthew 19: 4)  Scripture, biology, and the Natural Law reveal that it is God’s design that the two sexes are complementary.  While Americans have a laudable desire to treat all people with equality, equality does not mean interchangeability.  The well-intentioned desire to accept any and all circumstances is misplaced when it applies to an eternal institution such as marriage. We would further note that God’s plan for marriage is for the wellbeing of men and women.  However it is also, and especially, for children. - Kansas Bishops Issue Statement on the Supreme Court Marriage Decisions, June 27, 2013
Notice that the bishops, in this statement, separate the supposedly inseparable unitive and procreative ends of marriage.

Biological complementarity is positioned as an isolated end, almost a first principle, while procreation is added as a "however" and an "also". Even adding the word "especially" doesn't help because identifying progeny as "special," still (if not further) separates the procreative ends.

Modern Catholic teaching on marriage is rife with this kind of language and it descends from a novel insertion into the 1983 Code of Canon Law known in Latin as "bonum coniugum" or the "good of the spouses", an insertion which caused renowned canonists like Cormack Burke to scramble to manufacture a justification.

The essential squabble is whether the "bonum coniugum" is an END or a PROPERTY - a "good" of marriage. Seen as an "eternal good," in that marriage is a path to heaven - the "good of the spouses" as an "END of marriage" can be easily admitted.

But seen as an earthly "good,'" it simply translates into mutual satisfaction and spousal happiness, which is really no more than ONE of the "goods" of marriage, and only a potential good at that.

Theologians may squabble over whether the 1983 canonical insertion of the "good of the spouses"* was a good idea or not, but the net effect was an immediate avalanche of annulment requests, the wholesale abandonment of the sacrament of marriage by the following generation, marriages which see children as an option, accessory, appendage, or even a hindrance to marital happiness, and a fast track to the legalization of a marital union where spousal happiness is all that matters.

What's really sad is that these bishops this, in the above statement, are thinking that they are actually defending marriage, when in fact they are DESTROYING it!

Once upon a time our Church actually taught that children were the reason for marriage. They were not "however's", "also's", or even "especially's". They were "primary". 

This belief descends directly from the first account of creation (Gen 1:26) where, in a single act, God creates "them male and female" and commands them to be "fruitful and multiply".

  There is no separation. There is no "oh by the way" when it comes to the duty to be fruitful. There is no "however" or "also". Man and woman are created married and fruitful in one act.

This is why the Church does NOT recognize a marriage as valid - even after the wedding and all the proper sacramental form has taken place - UNTIL the man and woman "consummate the marriage" in a nuptial act that IS COMPLETELY OPEN to what the nuptial act was "God-designed" for: A CHILD.  Only THEN are they husband and wife!

And so this draws into question whether or not Catholic couples are actually married when their first conjugal act is intentionally sterile - whether by natural means or not. Avoiding children through periodic continence (NFP) is allowed as an exception for grave reasons ("just cause" says the Catechism). If couples have grave reason not to conceive from the outset then the question is raised should the marriage proceed...or can there even be a marriage.

I don't think so. For that couple has just taken a vow to accept children "willingly and lovingly FROM GOD!"

The Order of Celebrating Matrimony #60:
  1. "(Name) and (name), have you come here to enter into Marriage without coercion, freely and wholeheartedly?"                    
  2. "Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live?"                        
  3. "Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?"
The bride and groom respond "I have" or "I am." 

Yet, in our pre-cana classes, so-called "natural family planning" is taught in a neutral way, and in a way which implies that it is perfectly legitimate to avoid a child from the outset. SMH. 

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

HOW DOES "IT" HURT YOU?

One of the most persistent and off-putting questions in the same-sex marriage debate is "How does it (same-sex marriage) hurt you?"

Traditional marriage defenders usually find themselves scrambling for some sane answer but usually end up stumbling, and for good reason. Marriage is so fundamental that its nature has never been questioned...until now. In short, it has never required an explanation or a defense, thus most don't have one.

The best answer to the question is the return question: "How do you know it won't?" For the real answer is we don't know. Sociological change may take a generation or two before there is measurable impact on the larger society.

Meanwhile, the gay agenda folks are very self-assured with their "how does it hurt you" question, and putting the burden of proof back on them is something they are not ready for.

Here's an article on the subject: "Yes, Marriage will change--and here's how"

Saturday, May 04, 2013

WHY OUR BISHOPS ARE SO INEFFECTUAL IN STOPPING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE


Rhode Island has legalized same-sex marriage and Archbishop of Providence has issued a letter:



The letter is an excellent example of why our bishops are so ineffectual in slowing the march to same-sex marriage. Here is a sample paragraph:

And because “same-sex marriages” are clearly contrary to God’s plan for the human family, and therefore objectively sinful, Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.

After stating that ssm's are objectively sinful, he tells Catholics to consult their consciences and that supporting ssm's MIGHT (!!!) harm their relationship with God. Well then I guess it's 50/50.

Wednesday, May 01, 2013

THE FIRST REAL (AND INESCAPABLE) TEST FOR POPE FRANCIS

Marini on Same-Sex Unions: Currying Favor with Pope Francis?

Before I comment, I want to share that in general my respect for individuals as persons and as friends is not influenced by how I feel about issues. As Chesterton said: "we are all in the same boat, and we are all seasick."

Agree with it or not, the Catholic Church simply teaches that the use of sex for anything other than its God-ordained purpose - to be placed at the service of life - is sinful. To what degree it is sinful depends on several factors. But in general homosexual acts are considered by the Catechism to be less sinful than contraceptive acts between married persons: calling homosexual acts only "disordered" and contraceptive acts "evil".

Thus the Church, and this particular Archbishop, can no more call for the legitimization of same-sex unions than it can for cohabitation between opposite sex couples. Neither fulfills the vision of Jesus when in Matthew he says "from the beginning it was not so", and recalls us to God's original order.

The Archbishop is taking liberties with the moral principle "the lesser of two evils" beyond what is intended, and beyond what can be considered moral reasoning. However, the fact that he does is nothing new. Every major heresy in the history of Christianity was started by a priest, bishop, or monk. Ultimately Rome spoke. Given this Pope's unpredictable style...we wait and see.

Friday, April 26, 2013

PACIFIC DAILY NEWS: MARRIAGE IS NOT A "BASIC HUMAN RIGHT", by Tim Rohr


This op-ed was published in the Guam Pacific Daily News on April 26, 2013.

Former Guam resident, Bobbie Servino, is accusing the Catholic Church of promoting hatred and discrimination. In a letter to Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the current president of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, Servino says that she is "outraged" that the Catholic Church spent "$2 million on anti-gay marriage ballot campaigns during last year's election."

Read more here or if the link no longer works go here.



Sunday, April 14, 2013

SAME-SEX ARGUMENTS USING LOVING WRONG

Printed in the Pacific Daily News, Sunday, April 14, 2013


In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the decision known as Loving v. Virginia, ruled that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. As one half of an interracial marriage, I am a direct and personal beneficiary of that decision and, as such, maintain and assert a personal right and duty to preserve its authentic legacy. 

Read more here. If link is no longer active go here.

Saturday, March 30, 2013

FINALLY. SOMEONE LAYS THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS

Christians will lose the culture war against same-sex marriage because they are fighting it as a culture war. It is not. Finally, someone, and a Catholic priest no less, lays the blame where it belongs and names the demon.

HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE: WE HAVE SOWN THE WIND AND REAPE THE WHIRLWIND by Msgr. Charles Pope


Friday, March 29, 2013

MY RESPONSE TO ROBERT GEORGE

The following is a Facebook response to a friends post relative to the opinion of Robert George in this article:



I am very familiar with George's work, having relied on it to beat back the same-sex union bill here in Guam in 2009. But ultimately I had to move beyond it because the core of his argument is that marriage is inherently fertile. With most of the population chemically, surgically, or mechanically controlling their fertility - including most Christians - the argument, though true, in practice, fails.

Even the use of NFP by Catholics is almost everywhere deeply flawed because the morality of the method depends on "just cause" - a contingency which is rarely examined or counseled.

SSM is simply an extension of the principal of the primacy of pleasure - made possible by contraception and even NFP - already long embraced by supposed traditional marriage couples.

The only argument left to us is the one Sotomayor (amazingly) proffered. It is essentially this question: "where do you draw the line?" If you would not limit marriage to one man or one woman, what would you limit it to and why, or would you limit it at all?

Unfortunately, she waded into the polygamy question and Olson was prepared for that. It would have been better if she had raised the prospects of eliminating already existing restrictions on marriage such as consanguinity, affinity, etc., and asked whether or not even non-sexual marriages should be allowed (e.g. a marriage between a father and a daughter for the purposes of passing on benefits). Since only love is the criterion, all things are possible.

However, the courts best defense is the ruling in Loving v Virginia wherein the court ruled that marriage was necessary for the "survival of society" and the fact that the Loving court did not need to explain it - explains it.

Ultimately, this argument would bring us back to George's point and would force us all to recognize that it is heterosexuals who have abused marriage to the point where advocates of SSM, which is nothing more than the sterile sex most Americans already practice, feel empowered to challenge TM's exclusivity.

Saturday, March 09, 2013

MARRIAGE: GOD'S LOVE MADE VISIBLE


This is the text of a talk given by Tim Rohr on 3/8/13 at the St. Therese Chapel in Hagatna, Guam.

For the first seven years of his pontificate, Pope John Paul II used the occasion of his weekly audiences to speak and teach about marriage. These addresses were compiled into a single work which is now called Theology of the Body.


That the Pope spent seven years, every week, teaching about marriage, should tell us that as our Supreme Pastor, he saw that the fundamental problem with the church and the world was a problem with marriage, and more specifically, a problem with our fundamental understanding of who we are as men and women, male and female.

This should not surprise us. When John Paul II first began this series of talks, it was 1979. The sexual revolution had been raging for nearly a decade, and in its wake were millions of aborted children, rampant divorce, destroyed families, and otherwise very damaged people - in short, the Culture of Death, as the Pope would later famously call it.

Pope John Paul recognized that the fundamental problem was that we had been lied to by the world and we had believed the lie. We had been told “if it feels good, do it.” We had been told that “all you need is this pill and you can enjoy consequence-free sex forever.” We had been told that no-fault divorce was the answer to painful marriages and the key to self-fulfillment.

John Paul II, at the dawn of his pontificate, wanted to beat back that lie and chose to do it in the same way that Jesus did 2000 years earlier, by restoring marriage, and thus what it means to be male and female, to its original innocence and dignity.

In Matthew 19, Jesus is challenged by the Pharisees for his teaching on marriage as follows:

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no man must separate.” They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

John Paul II uses these words “from the beginning it was not so”, to construct the whole of his Theology of the Body which has as its goal, the same goal as Jesus at this moment in Scripture: to restore marriage to its origins, to God’s original design.

Jesus refers to God’s original plan for marriage when he says: “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’...?” The reference is to Genesis 1:27 which says: “God created man in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

But let’s put this verse in context beginning with Gen 1:26 through 28:

Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth. God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female* he created them. God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.

Now before we go on, let us remind ourselves that Pope John Paul spent nearly seven years developing this one passage. And here’s why. Man is the pinnacle of creation, and all creation is made subject to him. Thus when man falls, all creation falls with him. The whole world is wounded because of man’s disobedience.

God became man to restore man to God, but also to restore the whole of creation to its original order. But for that to happen, man, to whom all creation remains subject, must first be restored. Yet, though the saving work of Christ had given man the means of salvation, it was still up to man, having free will, to return on his own to his original image.

Thus John Paul asks us first to examine the words: “let Us make Man in Our image.” Notice first that this is God, himself, speaking. Notice next, that God, speaks in the first person plural: “let US make man in OUR image.” Who is he talking to? The angels? No, the angels, being created beings themselves, cannot create. Only God can. Thus he can only be speaking to the other persons of the Blessed Trinity.

Right at the beginning of Scripture, at the dawn of creation, we clearly see that God is not a single person, but a community of persons: Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, the Trinity. Thus when God makes man “in OUR image”, man too is a community of persons, or at least he is designed to be, because only in this way can man fully image the Trinity.

Next, the scripture tells us that man is made male and female: “male and female he created them”. In short, in this version of creation (there is another) man is made a couple from the beginning, a married couple, but  to fully image the Trinity, to fully image God, there must be a third. Thus God continues with the words “be fertile and multiply.”

I wrestled with how to explain this because it is important to know that the command to be fertile is not a separate act, some sort of afterthought to creation. It is part of the same creative act. Man is made, at the moment of his creation, a single, inseparable, life-giving community of persons which, because man exists in time, a child will follow, but because God does not exist in time, the child is already “now”.

So just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, a third person, a child, proceeds from the man and the woman, completing the trinity of persons and thus imaging God. This is not only “God’s Love Made Visible”, this is God, who IS LOVE, made visible.

NATURAL STERILITY AND CELIBACY

Now, before we go on, allow me to make a point about natural sterility. As married persons, we only have control over the procreative act, not procreation. In other words, we cannot bring about new life. We can only engage in an act which has the capacity to produce new life. However,  the creation of that new life is ultimately up to God, not us.

Thus the conjugal act is no less meaningful for a naturally sterile couple than it is for a fertile couple, since neither has control over anything other than the marital act itself.

Also, a point about celibacy. Celibacy, whether it is voluntary, such as that which is embraced by those who enter religious life, or involuntary, such as that which must be lived by those who find themselves single, either as the result of the death or illness of a spouse, or simply never having married despite a desire to, ultimately, celibacy anticipates the state to which we all are destined, heaven, where we will finally be joined to our only true spouse, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus the Book of Revelation reveals heaven as the eternal Wedding Feast of the Lamb. Marriage on earth only prefigures and images that which we will experience in heaven. This is important because, for most of us, even those of us who are currently married, will, as mentioned, through death, illness, or something otherwise, find ourselves at some point, single, and will need to embrace celibacy not as a loss or a curse, but as a preparation for heaven.

NOW, BACK TO MARRIAGE

I left off by saying that the conjugal act is how we most closely image God because the creation of man as male and female and the command to be fruitful and multiply, is all a single act. There is no separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. There is no “first the couple” and “then the children”. This is why the marriage ceremony, with the public exchange of vows and rings means nothing until the couple privately exchanges their vows and bodies in the act which has the capacity to produce a child, i.e. “consummate the marriage.”

And herein lies the problem. Many couples opt to put off having children UNTIL - until they finish their education, until they have enough money to buy a house, until they’re ready (whatever that means). The reality is, the intent to NOT allow their union to be fruitful, by whatever means (extreme circumstances notwithstanding), essentially violates and negates their vows. They are simply NOT married.

This is not the “mean-old church” coming up with some medieval rule to saddle a young couple with children, this is the Church keeping to God’s original design as set forth in Genesis 1: “male and female he created them...be fertile and multiply.”

This is not to say that at some point in the marriage it may be necessary to space or limit children for grave reasons through natural means as per the teaching of the popes, but the Church does say that if we do not intend to be fruitful from the outset, then we do not have a valid marriage.

There is a gray area here that I don’t pretend to have an answer to. As just mentioned, spacing children through natural means is considered by the Church to be moral when, as the Catechism says, “just cause” is present. However, the context of this teaching, especially as it appears in Humanae Vitae and the Catechism, is always in the context of an existing marriage, not a marriage-to-be.

In other words, because married partners are already sacramentally bound to each other under the unitive aspect of marriage, their bodies belong to each other. So in the case where “just cause” is present, married people are in conformity with the moral law when they intentionally engage in the conjugal act exclusively during the infertile periods.

Couples who intend to be married are not thus bound, and if “just cause” to avoid children is already present before the marriage, then it calls into question whether or not the couple is actually ready to marry.

Yet, I would venture to guess that natural family planning, or periodic abstinence, is taught to many pre-cana couples, not as a way to deal with difficult circumstances down the road, but as a way to start their marriage. Natural or not. Starting a marriage with the intent not to conceive from the outset calls into question the validity of the marriage and it certainly does not image our Trinitarian God.

At this point though, I would advise anyone who thinks differently to consult your pastor on the matter. Ultimately, your soul is in his care, not mine. I am only objectively restating the purpose of the marriage covenant as I have received it and as I see it.

However, I bring this up because marriage, at least God’s design for it to be a fertile, life-giving union, as found in Genesis 1, has never more been endangered. As we speak the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments for same-sex marriage, and by June there will be a ruling that may very well make same-sex marriage the law of the land as Roe v Wade did with abortion.

However, same-sex marriage never would have made it this far had not heterosexuals already gravely weakened the institution . We hear much about the tragic rate of divorce, but to bring this closer to home, did you know that Guam has the highest divorce rate in the world? According to the Guam Statistical Year Book there are 5.5 divorces per 1000 people in 2011. (1) According to the United Nations Demographic Yearbook, the nation with the highest divorce rate is Russia which has a divorce rate  of  5.0 divorces per 1000 population. Guam is not considered a nation so we are not ranked by the U.N., but our divorce rate is a full half a point higher than Russia, making our divorce rate the highest in the world.

Did you also know that thanks to certain lawmakers whom we elect, Guam is the second easiest place in the world to get a divorce, requiring only a 7 day stay, and that as recently as 2005, Guam was the mail order divorce capitol of the world, and we were  averaging a staggering 9.5 divorces per working day.

You may say that most of those divorces are outsiders, and maybe they are. But what does that say about us, an 85% Catholic island which has willingly allowed our Catholic homeland to become a divorce mecca? Just google the words Guam and divorce and you’ll see what I mean.

And while we can blame some of our divorce rate on our scandalous divorce tourism policy, we can’t blame our child abuse rate on anyone but ourselves. Child abuse is an indicator of family fragmentation and thus marital collapse, and the Guam Statistical Yearbook shows that in 2011 a total of 3294 children were abused or neglected. This is equal to a rate of 72.94 child abuse cases per 1000 child population. By contrast the national average is 10.22. What? We, our 85% Catholic island abuses and neglects its children at 7 times the rate of the rest of the nation?

(The Guam data for the above can be sourced here.)

But you don’t need these statistics to tell you this is true. Just read the daily police blotter in the PDN: family violence, family violence, terrorizing, family violence, family violence...

And of course the worst violence is the unborn children we allow to be put to death at the rate of one child every 1.3 days, where one child is aborted out of every 10 who are born, where 62% of those children are aborted by mothers who are Catholic or who most likely come from Catholic families, and where abortion regulation is the most liberal in the nation because of the obstinate opposition to pro-life legislation by certain lawmakers who were educated in our Catholic schools, but more so because most of use, by not examining the people we vote for, allow this situation to continue.

(See Guam abortion reports here.)


MARRIAGE AS SPIRITUAL WARFARE

Now, enough of the bad news and time for the solution, and the solution, as John Paul II illustrated in his first talk on marriage, is found in the words of Jesus: “in the beginning it was not so.” Married people should meditate every day, or at least mull over, Genesis 1:26-28: “Let us make man in our image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them...be fertile and multiply...” This is God’s plan.

But let me conclude by addressing two stumbling blocks to returning to God’s plan, one temporal and one spiritual. The temporal reality is that for the most part we who are still in our childbearing years, limit our fertility or at least our willingness to multiply, by our checkbook. To be blunt, money determines our openness to life. We excuse ourselves from the responsibility to procreate because we believe that it is more expensive to live today. Let’s talk straight about this.

Indeed while the consumer price index does show a ten-fold increase in the cost of living since 1960, the Social Security Administration also shows a ten-fold increase in average incomes. Thus it is no more expensive to live today than it was in 1960. So why does it feel like it? Because we want more.

Today we spend 10 times more on sports than we did in 1960, 37 times more on travel, 43 times more on games, 54 times more on hair care and cosmetics, 60 times more on pets, and 178 times more on our “phone” bill - which of course is not our “phone” bill, but the cost of assuaging our incessant need to be permanently connected to the rest of the world through an ever expanding array of gadgets that we just have to have.

True,  the cost of housing is 72 times more than it was in 1960, which, when compared to only a ten-fold increase in wages, represents a significant financial burden.  However, some of that is our own doing. While family size has nearly halved since 1960, the average square footage per home over the same period has more than doubled. In other words, we demand bigger homes for smaller families.

And of course there is healthcare, which today costs 30 times more than it did 50 years ago. However, the real “elephant in the room” is the cost of education, specifically “higher education”.

Today we spend 146 times more per family on education than we did in 1960. And since 1985, college costs have exploded, increasing a staggering 498.49%. By comparison, healthcare costs have grown at less than half that rate.

(The cost of living data for the above can be sourced here.)

While there is probably little we can do about the cost of health care except take better care of ourselves, there is much we can do to reduce the cost of everything else including education. Larger families like mine are increasingly pursuing homeschooling options for everything from pre-k through college. But we can talk about that another day. The fact is that most of our monetary obstacles to obeying the command to “be fertile and multiply” are of our own choosing. Sadly, in the end, our children are all that we have, and all that we can take to heaven. We must ask: Where is our treasure?

MARRIAGE AS WARFARE

Lastly, let me address perhaps the biggest obstacle of all to Marriage as God’s Love Made Visible, and the one which we are least prepared for. Once we understand that we, as married people, are the image of God, that we are “God’s love made visible”, then we must also understand that our marriage is ground zero for the Evil One.

Satan hates God, but cannot attack him directly. So he attacks the next closest thing: us, married people. We image God. Satan hates God. Satan attacks his image. Once we understand this we can begin to fight back against the powers and principalities which sleep not in their efforts to make our marriages a living hell and eventually to drag our souls into an eternal hell.

In the book HOW TO ACT RIGHT WHEN YOUR SPOUSE ACTS WRONG, the author’s central point is to understand that your spouse is not your enemy, the devil is. This understanding will save your marriage when nothing else can.

In the Revelation, Chapter 12 we read, beginning at Verse 7:

Then war broke out in heaven; Michael* and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back, but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to...where... (the) earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

For some reason, many of us modern Catholics believe that the Devil and his evil angels are chained up in hell. They are not. In fact, as in the vision of Pope Leo XIII and expressed in the prayer he composed to St. Michael, “Satan and all the evil spirits prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.”

Continuing on in Revelation, we read:

But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time.

Then after giving an account of Satan’s attack on “the woman and her offspring”, who we can assume to be Mary and Jesus, it says:

“Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.”

Let’s repeat that. Satan, the dragon, goes “off to wage war against...those who keep God’s commandments...” That would be us. And the closer we adhere to the commandments, the sacraments, and the One Holy Catholic Church, the more we can expect to be attacked.

And married people, particularly sacramentally married people, who, scripture tells us are the very image of God on earth, wonder why their marriage has become a battleground. The great tragedy, is that due to lack of preparation for marriage as spiritual warfare, the couple, who should be on the same side warring together with Michael and his angels against the forces of hell, have been tricked into warring against each other.

Sadly, almost all teaching about marriage today centers around communication skills and compatibility exercises and little to nothing about the cosmic war that will rage round about a married couple the minute they engage in the sacramental embrace. Satan must laugh at the hell he can create with the subtle jabs and pokes of small words, wrong looks, and perceived attitudes. We succumb to these tricks so quickly first because we are most vulnerable to the person we are married to, but second, because we have had no warning, no training, no weapons, and no strategy to not only fight back, but to even recognize the enemy.

The Church teaches that marriage is a path to heaven. It is also a path to hell. The good news is that through the sacrament of marriage, and the continued reception of the sacraments of penance and the eucharist, we have all we need to win the war against hell and win heaven for our families, our spouses, and ourselves.

And here is where the Church is needed. Given the dramatic failure rate of Catholic marriages and the increasing collapse of Catholic families, pastors need to seriously review what it is we are doing or not doing in regards to everything relative to marriage and family, for the numbers - the divorces, the abortions, the child abuse cases, the out-of-wedlock pregnancies, the cohabitation, the fragmentation of family after family -  tell us that either something is terribly missing or that we are doing something terribly wrong.

But meanwhile, we married people need to take control of our own destinies. We need to take our children back. We need to start teaching them and continue teaching them the truth at home instead of farming out their sacramental and moral formation to the classroom. “Drill this into your children” Deuteronomy says.

Empowering married people to take control of their destinies and return to God’s original plan for their marriage, to return to “the beginning” is why John Paul II did not simply put his thoughts into a book, but taught us publicly at his weekly audiences. Though he spent 7 years doing it and the collection of his addresses is now a tome, the whole  of the Theology of the Body can be found in the words “from the beginning it was not so.”

Lastly, I’d like to finish by exposing the error of an innocent story that is often told at many weddings. The story is told of a pig and a chicken getting together to have breakfast. The pig is to provide the bacon and the chicken the eggs. The pig complains that he has to contribute 100% to a successful breakfast and the chicken, not so much.

The story is used to illustrate that in order for marriage to succeed, the self-donation of the spouses cannot be 50/50 but 100/100. It sounds nice and everybody smiles, but in fact, it is not only incorrect, it may possibly set up expectations that will soon lead to disappointment and divorce.

The real success ratio for marriage is 100 to 0, because this in fact, is precisely what unconditional love is: the willingness to love fully and keep one’s commitment not only when there is nothing in return, but even when one’s giving is met with disdain, insults, and hostile rejection, and with no hope of that situation every changing.

And here is where I’d like to promote a couple of books to you. HOW TO ACT RIGHT WHEN YOUR SPOUSE ACTS WRONG is an excellent book to start. Most books try to address marital issues and propose solutions or communication techniques to solve those problems. This book takes the approach that reconciliation may never be possible, that marriage may continue to be painful, that perhaps you are being called to one long sacrifice. That may sound negative, but our call as Christians is to ACT RIGHT, to DO RIGHT, no matter what the challenge.

Also, for those who want to delve more deeply into marriage, the book that helped me the most in understanding marriage is COVENANTED HAPPINESS, by Msgr. Cormac Burke.

Lastly, rather than attempt to read one of the many interpretations of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body by popular authors, I would recommend you read the words of the Pope himself which you can do by either purchasing the whole collection in book form or reading the individual addresses for free online. Just go to ewtn.com and search for Theology of the Body. It will come up as the first item.

This is a good resource article for John Paul II's Theology of the Body and the challenge of same-sex marriage: IN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...