I have proposed before on this blog that we may be coming to a point where we should consider dropping our use of the word marriage. It is a simple fact that word “marriage” as we have traditionally known it is being redefined in our times. To many in the secular world the word no longer means what it once did and when the Church uses the word marriage we clearly do not mean what the New York Legislature or an increasing number of states mean.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Marriage in the following way:
The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament (CCC # 1601)
The latest actions by New York, along with Washington DC, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa have legally redefined the term marriage. Other states will likely join the list. The secular world’s definition of marriage no longer even remotely resembles what the Catechism describes.
To be fair, as we noted yesterday, this is not the first redefinition of marriage that has occurred in America. The redefinition has actually come in three stages:
In 1969 the first no-fault divorce law was signed in California. Within 15 years every state in this land had similar laws that made divorce easy. No longer did state laws uphold the principle which the Catechism describes as a partnership of the whole of life. Now marriage was redefined as a contract easily broken by the will of the spouses.
The dramatic rise in contraceptive use and the steep drop in birthrates, though not a legal redefinition, amount to a kind of cultural redefinition of marriage as described in the Catechism which sees the procreation and education of offspringas integral to its very nature. Now the American culture saw this aspect as optional at the will of the spouses. Having sown in the wind (where we redefined not only marriage, but sex itself) we are now reaping the whirlwind of deep sexual confusion and a defining of marriage right out of existence.
This final blow of legally recognizing so called gay “marriage” completes the redefinition of marriage which the Catechism describes as being a covenant, …which a man and a woman establish between themselves. Now secular American culture is removing even this, calling same-sex relationships “marriage”.
Proposal: So the bottom line is that what the secular world means by the word “marriage” is not even close to what the Church means. The secular world excluded every aspect of what the Church means by marriage. Is it time for us to accept this and start using a different word? Perhaps it is and I would like to propose what I did back in March of 2010, that we return to an older term and hear what you think. I propose that we should exclusively refer to marriage in the Church as “Holy Matrimony.”
According to this proposal the word marriage would be set aside and replaced by Holy Matrimony. It should be noticed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to this Sacrament formally as “The Sacrament of Matrimony.”
The word matrimony also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complimentarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = “mother” and mony, a suffix indicating “action, state, or condition.” Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimonyas heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from SECULAR marriage.
Problems to resolve – To return to this phrase “Holy Matrimony” is to return to an older tradition and may sound archaic to some (but at least it isn’t as awkward sounding as “wedlock”). But clearly a new usage will be difficult to undertake. It is one thing to start officially referring to it as Holy Matrimony. But it is harder when, for example, a newly engaged couple approaches the priest and says, “We want to be married next summer.” It seems unlikely we could train couples to say, “We want to enter Holy Matrimony next summer.” or even just to say, “We want to have a wedding next summer.” Such dramatic changes seem unlikely to come easily. Perhaps you, who read this blog can offer some resolutions to this problem.
Perhaps, even if we cannot wholly drop the terms “marry” and “married” a more modest form of the proposal is that we at least officially discontinue the use of the word marriage and refer to it as the “Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.”
What do you think? Do we need to start using a new word for marriage? Has the word been so stripped of meaning that we have to use different terminology to convey what we really mean?
When I proposed this over a year and a half ago, many of you we rather unconvinced and some were even perturbed that we were handing on over our vocabulary to the libertines. That may be, but we already know that gay will never mean what it used to, and maybe marriage will never again mean what it did.
A secondary but related proposal is that we begin to consider getting out of the business of having our clergy act as civil magistrates in weddings. Right now we clergy in most of America sign the civil license and act, as such, as partners with the State. But with increasing States interpreting marriage so differently, can we really say we are partners? Should we even give the impression of credibility to the State’s increasingly meaningless piece of paper? It may remain the case that the Catholic faithful, for legal and tax reasons may need to get a civil license, but why should clergy have anything to do with it?
We would surely need a strong catechesis directed to our faithful that reiterates that civil “marriage” (what ever that means anymore) is not Holy Matrimony and that they should, in no way consider themselves as wed, due to a (meaningless) piece of paper from a secular state that reflects only confusion and darkness rather than clarity and Christian light.
Here too, what do you think? Should the Catholic Bishops disassociate Catholic clergy from civil “marriage” licenses?
New York State’s redefinition of marriage is the latest domino to fall in the trend sweeping the nation of legally recognizing so-called “gay marriage.” Many people, especially younger people, are prone to shrug and wonder what the big deal is about all this. Many, too, of all ages, have bought into the notion that this is all about fairness, and being unbigoted.
Perhaps part of the reason for this is that we in the Church, and other defenders of traditional marriage, have allowed this to become a discussion about gay “marriage” only, rather than about the overall and devastating effects of the sexual revolution, and the sexual liberationist movement in general.
Gay “marriage” is only the latest battleground. It was preceded by the no-fault divorce wave that swept the country, beginning in 1969. The battleground is also about the explosion in divorce rates. It is about rampant promiscuity and shacking-up (or more politely “co-habitation”). And gay “marriage” is now the latest coffin nail, as secular culture buries traditional marriage.
Sadly too, in many of the other “nails” mentioned in the previous paragraph, even Christians have long engaged in these practices and the Church has been too silent in the last forty years and lacked the prophetic voice we are only lately (too late?) rediscovering.
To those who are dismissive or minimizing of concerns related to the State defining marriage out of existence, we must re-articulate, in a credible way, that traditional marriage does matter, and that its demise is not only lamentable, but devastating for the future of Western culture as we have known it.
Consider the following quote from Robert P. George, a Professor at Princeton University and interview in National Review. He is answering the question, “Why should people care” :
Well, people should care because the whole edifice of sexual-liberationist ideology is built on damaging and dehumanizing falsehoods. It has already done enormous harm — harm that falls on everybody, but disproportionately on those in the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of our society. If you doubt that, have a look at Myron Magnet’s great book The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties’ Legacy to the Underclass, or some of the writings of Kay Hymowitz and other serious people who have examined the social consequences for the poor of the embrace of sexual liberalism by celebrities and other cultural elites. Marriage is a profound human and social good; its weakening and loss is a tragedy from which affluent people can be distracted (and protected) by their affluence for only so long. The institution of marriage has already been deeply wounded by divorce at nearly plague levels, widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation, and other damaging factors. To redefine it out of existence in law is to make it much more difficult to restore a sound understanding of marriage on which a healthy marriage culture can be rebuilt for the good of all. It is to sacrifice the needs of the poor, who are hurt the most when a sound public understanding of marriage and sexual morality collapses. It is to give up on the truth that children need both a father and mother, and benefit from the security of their love for each other. [1]
I have personally experienced what he is describing about the poor being the first to be hit with the effects. Having lived, as I did, in the one of the poorest sections of Washington DC, the breakdown of marriage and its effects were very clear. In that neighborhood, 80% of the homes were headed by single mothers. It was not unusual for women in their late 20s to be grandmothers already. The effects on the children of having no father, of children having children, and living in dysfunctional situations plagued, with many layers of promiscuity and confusion was very clear. 60% of the children in that neighborhood never graduated high school. Of those that did, 40% of them, were functionally illiterate. Over 70% of the young men had police records by age 15 and the teenage pregnancy rates hovered near 65% for girls by their 15th birthday. STDs are quite high and the District of Columbia has the highest AIDs rate in the nation.
Some want to blame all this merely on poverty. But prior to 1965, when poverty rates were worse in the Black community, more than 80% of children lived with two parents, graduation rates were much higher, teen pregnancy rates were quite a bit lower along with STD rates. The sexual revolution is a huge factor in the devastation of the poor, and it is rightly said, from a statistical point of view, that single motherhood has the highest correlation to poverty of any other factor.
And the fact is, this breakdown is reaching the suburbs where gang violence, youth crime rates, promiscuity, STD rates, teen pregancy, abortion rates, and many other deleterious effects have been on the rise for decades. And sure enough, all of this is happening at a time when the numbers of suburban children who no longer with both both parents is approaching 50%.
We who live and work in the “inner city” like to say, “We’re the canary in the mine.” This image goes back to coal mining days when the miners brought a canary down in a cage. If gas levels rose, the canary died first, signaling trouble, and sounding an alert that it was time to get out. So for years as the wider US population either shook its finger at the inner city, or pitied those living there, the fact is they were ignoring the canary in the mine. The gas has now reached the suburbs, and the effects are spreading. And the main ingredient of the gas is the breakdown of marriage and the traditional family.
We ought to care that traditional marriage is in crisis. It is clear that children thrive best under the care of a mother and a father, and that removing this fixture from our culture is devastating to children and to our culture. The canary is not lying. If we do not fix marriage and family, we are doomed.
As professor George states above, legislators defining marriage out of existence is going to make any restoration of it quite difficult. Some may argue that the phrase “defining marriage out of existence” is too strong, and that judges and legislators are merely widening its scope. But at some point, if anything is marriage, nothing is marriage.
This juggernaut will not stop. The polygamists are next (just google polygamy and see that the steam is building). After them come the incest crowd and other odd combinations. And there will be little legal basis to resist them. And in a secular culture that has lost any basis to morally reason, or determine right from wrong, who among the secularists will be able to say “nay?” Yes, in the end, if anything is marriage, nothing is marriage. Marriage, as a culturally recognizable institution seems doomed, it is being legally defined out of existence.
Tomorrow on the blog I want to revisit a notion I raised more than a year ago, when I wondered if we need to find a new word for what we mean by Christian Marriage. For it would seem that the word is losing any meaning with each year that goes by in the secular world. More on that tomorrow.
For now, we have every reason to be very alarmed at the demise of marriage in modern times. Those who want dismiss or minimize the effects of the loss of traditional marriage ought to think again. Try visiting my prior inner city neighborhood, look at the devastation. Heck, try visiting my old high school in the suburbs where the drafting lab, where I learned mechanical drawing, is now a nursery for all the single high school “moms” to park their kids while they try to finish high school. What was once unthinkable is now the “new normal.” And as traditional marriage and family continue to take a beating we are foolish to think that we are headed anywhere but into serious trouble and ultimate ruin.
When God set forth marriage as described in the Book of Genesis, there is poetically but clearly set forth a set form for marriage: one man for one woman in a stable, lasting, fruitful relationship of mutual support. For God said, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable helpmate for him (Gen 2:18). Already we see that “helpmate” is singular, not plural. After teaching the man that the animals are not suitable, God puts Adam in a deep sleep and, from his rib, fashions Eve (cf Gen 2:21). Note again that in presenting a suitable helpmate for Adam God created Eve, not Steve. And so we see any notion of homosexual marriage excluded. But neither did God create Eve and Ellen and Sue and Jane and Mary. And here too, implicitly and poetically, but clearly, we see excluded the notion of polygamy.
God’s plan for marriage is one man and one woman. The scripture goes on to insist that marriage be a lasting union for it says that a man shall “cling” (Hebrew = דָּבַק = dabaq) to his wife (singular, not wives), and the two, (not three, four, or more) of them shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24). God went on to tell them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28).
So far, clear enough: one man for one woman in a stable, fruitful relationship of mutual help and support.
But then, what to make of the polygamy (multiple wives) of the patriarchs such as Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David, Solomon, and many others? Does God approve of this? There is no evidence that he thunders from on high at their seemingly adulterous and clearly polygamous behavior. The fact that they have several wives goes un-rebuked, and is said, more in passing in the Scriptures, and narrated with little shock. For example, Nathan the Prophet has many things for which to rebuke David, but having multiple wives is not among them.
What of this polygamy?
We ought to begin by saying that the Scriptures teach in various ways. There is the methodology of straight rebuke, wherein sin is both denounced, and punished. But there is also a more subtle and inductive way that Scripture teaches, more through story, than prescription. And in this way, the Scriptures teach against polygamy. For, we learn by story and example, how polygamy causes nothing but trouble. In fact it leads to factions, jealously, envy and outright murder. The problem is less the wives, than the sons they have borne. As we shall see.
But,to be clear, polygamy was a common thing among the Old Testament Patriarchs. The list is not short:
Lamech (a descendant of Cain) practiced polygamy (Genesis 4:19).
Abraham had more than one wife (Genesis 16:3-4; 25:6, some called “concubines”).
Nahor, who was Abraham’s brother, had both a wife and a concubine (Genesis 11:29; 22:20-24).
Jacob was tricked into polygamy (Genesis 29:20-30), and later he received two additional wives making a grand total of four wives (Genesis 30:4, 9).
Esau took on a third wife to please his father Isaac (Genesis 28:6-9).
Ashur had two wives (1 Chronicles 4:5).
Obadiah, Joel, Ishiah, and those with them “had many wives” (1 Chronicles 7:3-4).
Shaharaim had at least four wives, two of which he “sent away” (1 Chronicles 8:8-11).
Caleb had two wives (1 Chronicles 2:18) and two concubines (1 Chronicles 2:46, 48).
Gideon had many wives (Judges 8:30).
Elkanah is recorded as having two wives, one of which was the godly woman Hannah (1 Samuel 1:1-2, 8-2:10).
David, had at least 8 wives and 10 concubines (1 Chronicles 1:1-9; 2 Samuel 6:23; 20:3).
Solomon, who breached both Deuteronomy 7:1-4 and 17:14-17, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-6).
Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21), and sought many wives for his sons (1 Chronicles 11:23).
Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21).
Ahab had more than one wife (1 Kings 20:7).
Jehoram had wives (2 Chronicles 21:17).
Jehoiada the priest gave king Joash two wives (2 Chronicles 24:1-3),
Jehoiachin had more than one wife (2 Kings 24:15).
Well, you get the point. So we have to be honest, polygamy, at least among wealthy and powerful men, was practiced and the practice of it brings little condemnation from God or his prophets.
But the silence of God does not connote approval, and not everything told in the Bible is told by way of approval. It would seem for example, that God permitted divorce because of the hard heart of the people (cf Matt 19:8). But to reluctantly permit, as God does, is not to command or to be pleased.
And, as we have noted, God teaches in more than one way in the Scriptures. For the fact is, polygamy, whenever prominently dealt with (i.e. mentioned more than merely in passing), always spells “trouble” with a capital “T”.
Consider some of the following internecine conflicts and tragedies.
1. Jacob had four wives whom he clearly loved unequally: Leah (who he felt stuck with and considered unattractive), Rachel (his first love), Bilnah (Rachel’s maid) and Zilpah (Leah’s maid). Leah bore him 6 sons and a daughter : Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulan, and Dinah. Rachel, his first love, was stubbornly infertile, but finally bore him Joseph, and later, Benjamin. Bilnah bore him Naphtali and Dan, Zipah bore him Gad and Asher.
Now all these sons by different mothers created tension. But the greatest tension surrounded Joseph, who his brothers grew jealous of, and began to hate. His father, Jacob favored him, since he was Rachel’s son. This led to a plot to kill him, but due to profit, and Reuben’s intervention, he ended up being sold into slavery to the Ishmaelites. At the heart of this bitter conflict was a polygamous mess and the unspoken, but clear teaching, among others is, “Don’t do polygamy.”
2. Gideon, as we have seen, had many wives (Jud 8:30) and by them many sons. Scripture shows forth a story of terrible violence and death that results from many sons, by different mothers all competing for kingship and heritage. Scripture tells the terrible story:
Now Gideon had seventy sons, his direct descendants, for he had many wives. His concubine who lived in Shechem also bore him a son, whom he named Abimelech. At a good old age Gideon, son of Joash, died and was buried in the tomb of his father Joash in Ophrah of the Abiezrites. Abimelech, son of Jerubbaal (i.e. Gideon), went to his mother’s kinsmen in Shechem, and said to them and to the whole clan to which his mother’s family belonged, “Put this question to all the citizens of Shechem: ‘Which is better for you: that seventy men, or all Jerubbaal’s sons, rule over you, or that one man rule over you?’ You must remember that I am your own flesh and bone.” When his mother’s kin repeated these words to them on his behalf, all the citizens of Shechem sympathized with Abimelech, thinking, “He is our kinsman.” They also gave him seventy silver shekels from the temple of Baal of Berith, with which Abimelech hired shiftless men and ruffians as his followers. He then went to his ancestral house in Ophrah, and slew his brothers, the seventy sons of Jerubbaal (Gideon), on one stone. Only the youngest son of Jerubbaal, Jotham, escaped, for he was hidden. (Judges 9:1-5).
At the heart of this murderous and internecine conflict was polygamy. Brothers who competed for kingship, power and inheritance, and brothers who lost little love on each other since they were by different mothers. Abimelech’s loyalty was not to his brothers, but to his mother, and her clan. Thus he slaughtered his brothers to win power.
Among other lessons in this terrible tale is the lesson of chaos and hatred caused by polygamy, as if to say, “Don’t do polygamy.”
3. King David had at least eight wives – Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, Eglah, Maacah, Abital, Haggith, and Bathsheba, and “10 concubines.” Trouble erupts in this “blended family” (to say the least), when Absalom (the third son of David), whose mother was Maacah sought to overcome the line of succession and gain it for himself. When his older brother Chileab died, only his half brother Amnon stood in the way. The tensions between these royal sons of different mothers grew very hostile. Amnon raped Absalom’s full sister Tamar, and Absalom later had Amnon murdered for it (cf 2 Sam 13).
Absalom fled and nourished hostility for his Father David, and eventually sought to overthrow his Father’s power by waging a rebellious war against him. He is eventually killed in the ensuing war, and David can barely forgive himself for his own role in the matter (2 Sam 18:33).
But the family intrigue isn’t over. Solomon would eventually become king, but only through the court intrigues of his mother, Bathsheba, David’s last wife. As David lay dying, his oldest son Adonijah, (Son of David’s wife Haggith) the expected heir (1 Kings 2:15), was acclaimed King in a formal ceremony. But Bathsheba conspired with Nathan the Prophet, and deceived David into thinking Adonijah was mounting a rebellion. She also reminded David of a secret promise he had once made her that Solomon, her son, would be king. David thus intervened and sent word that Solomon would be king. Adonijah fled, returning only after assurances of his safety by Solomon. Yet, still he was later killed by Solomon.
Here too, are the complications of a messed up family situation. Sons of different mothers hating each other, wives playing for favorite and securing secret promises, conspiring behind the scenes and so forth. At the heart of many of the problems was polygamy and once again the implicit teaching is, “Don’t do polygamy.”
4. Solomon, it is said, had 1000 wives (700 wives, 300 concubines). Again, nothing but trouble came from this. Scripture says,
King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women….He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord.… (1 Kings 11:1-6)
The tolerance of pagan religious practices encouraged by these wives, along with other policies led to great hostility and division in the Kingdom and led, after Solomon’s death, to the northern Kingdom of Israel seceding from Judah. There was never a reunion and both kingdoms were eventually destroyed by surrounding nations.
Lurking in the mix of this mess is polygamy and the lesson, once again is “Don’t do polygamy.”
5. Abraham’s dalliance with his wife’s maid Hagar, while not strictly polygamy, more adultery really, also leads to serious trouble. For Hagar bore Ishmael, at the behest of Sarah. But, Sarah grew cold and jealous of Hagar and Hagar fled (Gen 16). She eventually returned and gave birth to Ishmael but later, when Sarah finally bore Isaac, Sarah concluded that Ishmael was a threat and had to go. She had Abraham drive her away (Gen 21).
Ishmael went on to become the Patriarch of what we largely call the Arab nations, Isaac’s line would be the Jewish people, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Polygamy, once again, lurking behind a whole host of problems. Don’t do polygamy.
So, the Bible does teach on polygamy and, through stories, teaches us of its problematic nature. We ought not be overly simplistic with these stories as if to say that polygamy was the only problem, or that these things never happen outside polygamous settings. But polygamy clearly plays a strong role in these terrible stories.
It would seem that God tolerates polygamy in the Old Testament, like divorce, but nowhere does He approve it.
In Matthew 19, Jesus signals a return to God’s original plan and hence excludes divorce. For he says, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, unless the marriage is unlawful, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matt 19:8-9) He also says, Have you not read, that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate (Matt 19:4-6).
Back to Plan A – So, what ever one may argue with regard to the Old Testament’s approach to marriage, Jesus makes it clear that we are going back to plan A: One man for one woman in a stable fruitful relationship of mutual support.
Pay attention though, polygamy is coming next. Already, in the wake of so called “Gay Marriage,” the polygamists are stepping up and insisting the Bible approves their way. Just Google “Polygamy” and you’ll see a lot of sites devoted to this thinking, and to the promotion of polygamy. It’s coming next, indeed, it is already here, in a big way on the Internet.
Do you have a cell phone? Does your cell phone tell you who it is that is trying to call you? Do you usually check that caller ID and decide, based on who it is, whether to answer the phone or not?
“Answer”, “Ignore” or “Send to voicemail”?
I do! In all honesty, when someone at my school says to me, “You have a call on line one,” I almost always ask, “Who is it?” Then, I decide if the person is worthy of my time, if I am prepared to talk to that person, if I don’t like that person or if it is conversation I would prefer to have later. I am sure the same thing happens to me when I call others as well. I am not offended , trust me, I am a high school principal. Try calling a parent in the middle of the day.
Caller ID
I love caller ID. When I know who is calling, I know how I am going to react. I am going to pickup the phone if it is my mom or wife because I want to make sure they are OK. I am going to pick up my calendar if it is my Pastor because he probably has something for me to do. I am not going to always pick up the phone if it is my best friend because, we will talk forever and I got to make sure I have time to sit and chat. I am not going to pick up the phone at all if I am driving because that is dangerous and I am not trying to kill anyone. Like many of you, I make these discernments each time my phone rings. And that it OK.
If it is God, pick up and answer!
But, when it comes to Christ, when it comes to God, you can’t hit the “ignore” button but so many times; Can I get an amen? I shouldn’t say to God,” I will call you back later.” You shouldn’t say to God, “Not now I am busy.” We shouldn’t say to God, “I have something more important to do.” You can’t say to God, “This isn’t a good time, go talk to someone else and get back to me later.” You can’t put God into your voicemail but so many times. When God calls, you must pick up the phone and answer. And unlike your mother, pastor, wife or best friend, don’t simply say “Hello.” Answer God’s call by saying, “Here I am Lord, what do you want me to do!”
Are you sure you have the right number?
Brother and sisters, I know at least for me, I have put God on hold many times in my life. I hit the ignore button, turned on my voice mail and took a message. And he kept calling. I tried my best to not be a deacon but God kept calling and I kept saying, “You must have the wrong number.” God said, “Follow me” and I said, but I don’t have the time. I said to myself, “Most Deacon’s are retired, I still have to work” (Which isn’t true by-the-way, but that was my excuse at the time). God said, “I gave you that job that keeps you so busy, want to keep it?” I said “God, I have not studied religion since high school, and I wasn’t all that great at it.” God said, “I am the perfect teacher, I can teach anyone, including you.” I even said “God, I am really not sure I am worthy.” And God said, “I know; That is why the Holy Spirit will be heavily involved in this endeavor.” Like the disciples on the Sea of Galilee, with me, God knew whom he was calling. Sometimes, we think God doesn’t know what he is doing don’t we? God’s doesn’t ask for a resume because he already knows our qualifications. This is important because we often ignore God’s call not out of spite for Our Lord but rather lack of confidence in the graces he has given us. You see, God is not asking us to change who we are, he is asking us to take the talents that he built into us and use them for the Kingdom of God.
I knew you before you were formed in the womb
I often meditate upon the reason why God chose fisherman to be the first disciples, the first Bishops of the flock. Maybe because fishing was a dangerous profession and he needed men who would not be frightened easily. Maybe it was because fisherman had to be patient and building the Kingdom of God requires among many things patience. Perhaps it was because fisherman had to be able to read subtle changes in the weather and water conditions in order to fill their nets and those same skills were needed in leading the early Christian community. Perhaps it was because fisherman rarely worked alone and they had a sense of community that he wanted in his Church on Earth. Maybe it was all of the above and maybe it was a set of qualities that I have yet to understand. But he never said to them, “Stop being fisherman.” Rather, I will take those skills I gave you and make yourselves “Fishers of men.”
Brothers and sisters, when God calls us, he knows what he is doing and he knows whom he is calling. When you answer God’s call, you will never hear God say, “Sorry, I dialed the wrong number!” I heard a priest say once, “God never calls the qualified but qualifies everyone he calls.”
Each of us has a talent or a gift that God wants us to use to build his Kingdom. God is calling us to use that talent. For some of us, you are being called to lector, join the choir, be a minister of holy communion, join the St. Vincent de Paul Society become active in any number of ministries we have in an average parish. Your phone is ringing, answer the call, it’s God! Some of you are called to be priests, deacons, religious sisters or brothers. Don’t send God to your voice mail, answer and say, “Here I am Lord.” Some of you are called to be married and to be parents, maybe even adoptive parents, God is calling, don’t text him back saying, “I am busy.”
Say yes!
Brothers and sisters, God is calling and when we answer yes, he doesn’t promise that our life will be easy. But, he promises that our life will be fulfilled. In your prayer life, God is calling; Through your friends, God is calling; Through the voices of your family, God is calling. Perhaps even through this blog post, God is calling. Answer the phone and say, “Here I am Lord. What do you want me to do?” Happy Easter!
The erosion of a coherent and shared vision for marriage in America continues. Nationally, the decision of the President to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), constitutes a shift in the position of the Federal Government. Locally in the Washington DC area, (already enduring a City-Council imposed redefinition of marriage), the Maryland legislature is debating a proposal to redefine marriage to include Gay Unions.
We have previously discussed on this blog the long road that has gotten us here. (eg: HERE). The fact is, the traditional and biblical understanding of marriage has been eroding for over fifty years in this nation. Most people, even Church going Christians, do not have a vigorous understanding of Marriage that is either biblical or rooted in Natural Law.
Because of this, advocates of so-called “gay marriage” have been able to successfully shift the conversation to a question of civil rights and bigotry. The President, in his order to the Justice Department to stand down from defending DOMA, stated that he thinks DOMA is an impermissible form of sexual orientation discrimination. Never mind that such a judgment is not his to make, that he is neither the judicial nor the legislative branch of Government. The point here is that the concept of “gay marriage” as a civil right has won the day with the President, and frankly with many Americans. In so acting the President more than suggests that supporters of traditional marriage are guilty of supporting unjust discrimination. To this the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Conference has this to say:
This decision represents an abdication of the responsibility of the Executive Branch to carry out its constitutional obligation to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. It is also a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman. Support for actual marriage is not bigotry, but instead an eminently reasonable, common judgment affirming the foundational institution of civil society. Any suggestion by the government that such a judgment represents “discrimination” is a serious threat to the religious liberty of marriage supporters nationwide. [1] .
The statement is well worded and forceful. And yet it remains true that It is clearly an uphill battle for the Church to reassert a vision for traditional marriage. Seeing the issue as a matter of civil rights, and not about the nature and purpose of marriage, is increasingly common in the public discussion and explains why even many Church-going Catholics support so called “gay marriage.”
Finding our way back – Part of the essential work we must do in re-establishing a coherent vision for marriage rooted in tradition, Natural Law and, for believers, Scripture, is to restore a proper reference point so that all the pieces of the discussion make sense.
And what is this proper reference point? Simply this, Marriage is about children and what is best for them. It is not essentially about civil rights. It is not merely about two adults being happy and fulfilled. It is essentially about children and what is best for them. If we use this as our starting point a lot of other things begin to fall in place:
1. That Marriage should be a stable and lasting union– Children require 18-20 years to come to maturity. A stable environment is obviously best for them. The modern scenario, in too many cases, is that children are shifted back and forth between parents who are often divorced or never married in the first place. One weekend here, another weekend there, summers here, summers there. The instability is terrible for children. Parents should seek, above all to resolve their differences and stay married.
Stable homes, even though imperfect (and all homes ARE imperfect) are an important way that children learn virtues and values such as trust, commitment, forgiveness, toleration, generosity, conflict resolution, love, loyalty, and integrity. A stable home, even if imperfect, inculcates in children a sense of true marriage and family, knits together important family ties at a multigenerational level, and sets them up to also form stronger families themselves. They also learn proper dynamics between men and women, how to treat and regard a member of the opposite sex, and so forth
Those who simply dismiss the traditional and stable family as no better or worse than other arrangements are ignoring what long experience has taught the human family in this regard. Scripture affirms the value of a stable family when it speaks of a husband clinging to his wife (Gen 2:24 Matt 19:1ffinter alia) and when Jesus forbids divorce (Matt 5, Matt 19, Mark 10 inter al). Marriage is about what is best for children. And stability, as a general rule, is what is best.
2. That Marriage should be heterosexual – Though, obviously heterosexuality is necessary for the actual procreation of children, this is not the main point here, for many Gays argue that they can adopt. The central point here is not the mere pro-creation of children, but what is best in raising them.
And the fact is, that children are best raised with a father and mother present. In terms of simple human formation, children are best raised with male and female influence. There are things that a father has to say and model for his children that only a father can properly and best do. There are things that a mother has to say and model for her children that only a mother can properly and best do. This is what nature herself provides in linking pro-creation, necessarily, to a father and a mother. Two fathers, or two mothers, or just one parent present, are not ideal situations for children. As a general rule it will always be best for children to be raised in a traditional family setting.
There are times were death or illnesses intervene. There are exceptional circumstances where a certain father or mother is unfit. But the general and common rule is that a traditional heterosexual marriage is ideal for children. Again, it is what nature herself has set forth, and for believers, it is also what God has set forth. In the rarer cases where a parent is missing from the family, it is essential for the remaining parent to provide opportunities for children to interact in a proper way with mentors of the missing sex. This can be accomplished most frequently with aunts, uncles, grandparents and the like.
But the bottom line is that traditional heterosexual marriage is optimal for children and their human formation. All other arrangements are less than optimal and to the degree possible children should always be raised in the optimal setting that Nature, and Nature’s God has set forth.
In adoption situations, married heterosexual couples should enjoy priority over single parent settings and homosexual couples. This is what is best for children. In terms of infant adoptions there is a usually a waiting list and these infants are thus best placed in the homes of qualified, married, heterosexual couples. This is not bigotry. This is what is best for children. As for older children, there is the sad reality that it is harder to find couples to adopt. But here too, married heterosexual couples should generally speaking be favored by that fact.
Again, the question is, what is best for the child. Not, how and whether certain adults may be offended by perceived bigotry, or whether the approach is politically correct or not. In the end we want what is best for children.
3. That traditional, heterosexual marriage should enjoy the favor of law and recognition – One of the great battle lines in the marriage debate has been that married couples do enjoy certain favors under law such as tax credits, inheritance scenarios, hospital visitation etc. Most fair minded people see room for some give on these sorts of things. On a case by case basis, it may make some sense to allow, under civil law, a greater capacity for Americans to legally enact a wider variety of arrangements for power of attorney, inheritance, tax issues and the like.
However, if what is best for children remains our starting point, then it also follows that traditional, heterosexual marriage should enjoy some legitimate favors. Strengthening traditional marriage is a worthwhile goal for public policy. It may be of value that some tax breaks that make it easier to form and keep traditional families. Granted, the degree of such proactive policies is debatable. Even among supporters of traditional marriage there are many who have a more libertarian preference when it comes to ANY government involvement.
But in the end, whether it is through tax breaks, or other laws, or simply through special recognition, a strong support and advocacy of traditional marriage is proper and good. For, whatever strengthens the traditional family is good for children. Whatever we can do as a society to uphold traditional marriage, insist on fidelity, limit divorce and give special recognition and honor to these families is good for children.
And this also is why simply calling other unions “marriage” is problematic. To use the same term “marriage” for traditional marriages and also for gay unions implies an equality and identical reality which is not true. Gay unions are not on the same footing with traditional marriage since they are not what is best for children. Traditional marriage is what is best for children and it should enjoy an elevated and special status on account of this. Using the same word for the two blurs all this and traditional marriage loses the favor it should have and the recognition is it should receive.
Enough said for now. But note again the fundamental point: Marriage is about children and what is best for them. When children and what is best for them is our starting point, traditional marriage is clearly a best and proper. This starting point not only challenges advocates of “gay marriage” but also challenges advocates of traditional (actual) marriage. For, it sometimes happens that those in traditional marriage do not always have what is best for children in mind either. Too often couples do not work at their marriage and overcome difficulties. Too quickly many rush to divorces courts. What is best for children too often takes a back seat throughout our culture.
I remember once being amused to hear that a certain Franciscan Theologian from the 19th Century (whose name I cannot remember) wrote a six volume “Life of St. Joseph.” Six volumes?! How could one possibly get enough material? We know so little of Joseph from the Scriptures. He seems to have been the strong, silent type. Not a word of his is recorded. But his actions have much to say, especially to to men. On this feast of the Holy Family we do well to ponder him as a model for manhood, for husbands and fathers.
1. A man who obeys God and clings to his wife – We saw last Sunday the Gospel that Joseph was betrothed to Mary. This is more than being engaged. It means they were actually married. It was the practice at that time for a couple to marry rather young. Once betrothed they usually lived an additional year in their parents’ household as they became more acquainted and prepared for life together. Now at a certain point it was discovered that Mary was pregnant, though not by Joseph. Now the Law said that if a man discovered that a woman to whom he was betrothed was not a virgin, he should divorce her and not “sully” his home. Joseph as a follower of the Law, was prepared to follow its requirements. However, he did not wish to expose Mary to the full force of the law which permitted the stoning of such women. He would thus remained quiet as to his reason for the divorce and Mary would escape possible stoning. To fail to divorce Mary would expose Joseph to cultural ramifications. Just men just didn’t marry women guilty of fornication or adultery. To ignore this might have harmed not only Joseph’s standing in the community but also that of his family of origin. But you know the rest of the story. Joseph is told in a dream not to fear and that Mary has committed no sin. Matthew records: When Joseph awoke, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. (Matt 1:24).
Now a man obeys God even if it not popular, even if he may suffer for it. Joseph is told to cling to his wife. He may suffer for it but he, as a man, “obeys God rather than men.” It takes a strong man to do this especially when we consider the culture in which Joseph lived, and in a small town, no less. Joseph models strong manhood and has something to say to the men of our day. In the current wedding vows a man agrees to cling to his wife, for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness or health. This is what a man is to do. Our culture often pressures men to bail out when there is trouble Joseph shows the way by obeying God over the pressures of prevailing culture, even if he will personally suffer for it.
2. A man whose vocation is more important than his career – In today’s Gospel set likely in Bethlehem Joseph is warned by an angel in a dream: Get up, take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him (Matt 2:13). Joseph may well have had much to lose in this flight. Back in Nazareth (or perhaps Judea) he had a business, a career if you will. He had business prospects, business partners and contacts. Fleeing to a distant land might mean others would take his business etc. But Joseph was a father and husband before he was a businessman. His child was threatened and his first obligation was to Jesus and Mary. His vocation outweighed his career. In a culture like ours where too many parents make their careers and livelihoods paramount and their children are too easily placed in day care Joseph displays a different priority.
It is true that many parents feel they have no choice but to work. But it is also true that many demand a lifestyle which requires a lot of extra income. Perhaps a smaller house, less amenities etc would permit a daycare free childhood for more of our children. Joseph points the way for parents: vocation has priority over career. For fathers especially Joseph shows that a man is a husband and father before he is a businessman.
3. A man who protects his family– And for men, Joseph also models a protective instinct that too many men lack today. Our children, like Jesus was, are exposed to many dangers. Our American scene does not feature a lot of physical dangers but moral dangers surely abound. Fathers, what are your children watching on TV? What are their Internet habits? Who are their friends? What do your children think about important moral issues? Are you preparing them to face the moral challenges and temptations of life? Are you teaching them the faith along with your wife? Or are you just a passive father, uninvolved in the raising of your children? A man protects his children from harm, physical, moral and spiritual. Joseph shows forth this aspect of manhood.
4. A man of work –The Scriptures (Matt 13:55) speak of Joseph as a “carpenter.” The Greek word however is τέκτονος (tekton, os) which can mean more than a worker in wood. It can also refer to a builder or any craftsman. It seems unlikely that Joseph and Jesus would have worked exclusively in wood since wood was more rare in the Holy Land and used more sparingly than in our culture. Stone was surely plentiful and so it may be that Joseph also worked with stone as well as wood in his work. It was and through his work Joseph supported his family. It is the call of a man to work diligently and to responsibly and reliably provide for his family. Joseph models this essential aspect of manhood. Paul felt it necessary to rebuke some of the men of his day for their idleness: In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teachingyou received from us….For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ that with quietness they earn the bread they eat. (2 Thess 310-12)
Joseph is a model for manhood. Nothing he ever said was recorded but his life speaks eloquently enough. He is referred to at the Guardian and Patron of the Universal Church. He has these titles for he was guardian, protector and patron(provider) of the Church in the earliest stage, when the “Church” was just Jesus, Mary and himself. But since the Church is the mystical Body of Christ, in protecting and providing for Jesus he was doing that for us for we are in Christ as members of his body. Men especially do well to imitate St. Joseph and invoke his patronage in all their endeavors as Husbands, Fathers and providers.
When I speak on marriage or do marriage preparation work, I sometimes get accused of being tough on men. I plead guilty, with an explanation, or two.
First of all I am a man and it’s just easier for me to speak firmly to men. I tend to be more polite with women. Secondly, I think most men are encouraged when they are summoned to duty. A lot of men I have talked to are a bit sick of all the hand holding that goes on in Church, literally and figuratively. Most men I know are more interested in hearing of their duty and being summoned to it in a manly way. (However, I must say I have experienced some very definite exceptions to this rule. Some men especially react with great bitterness that I do not better articulate women’s shortcomings when it comes to marriage. I suspect there is a personal dimension to this story). Finally, I believe in male headship when it comes to marriage. Some call me old fashioned, some call me misogynist. I just prefer to call myself “biblical” (Eph 5:19ff; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1). But headship in the Scripture means responsibility rather than privilege. Hence the husband has the first obligation to love, to sacrifice, to anticipate and fulfill the needs of his wife and children. So yes, I am tough on men.
In that vein allow me a moment to extend some old advice to men, especially those who are husbands. Women are surely invited to listen in and to apply some of this to themselves too! For although men have the first obligation, women are not thereby passive or without duty in this regard.
And here is the central question for a man: “How to handle a woman?” An old song from Camelot answers the question well, and biblically I might add:
How to handle a woman? There’s a way,” said the wise old man, “A way known by every woman Since the whole rigmarole began.” “Do I flatter her?” I begged him answer. “Do I threaten or cajole or plead? Do I brood or play the gay romancer?” Said he, smiling: “No indeed. How to handle a woman? Mark me well, I will tell you, sir: The way to handle a woman Is to love her…simply love her… Merely love her…love her…love her.”
Alright men, It’s not that complicated is it? Love her. Simply love her, love her!
In marriage counseling I will sometimes ask the husband privately, Do you love your wife…Honestly now, do you really love her? The answer is not always obvious. Many people confuse mere toleration with love. Because I put up with you means I must love you, somehow.
But my question goes deeper: Do you have a deep affection, a warmth, a compassion and desire for your wife? Do you like her? Some of the men who are more honest with themselves realize that many of these qualities are no longer operative and that, at best, they have a tense toleration for their wife. And there are often protests as well: Father, you don’t know how my wife can be!….She’s hard to love. (Actually I do have some idea. We priests are not mere bachelors and we too are called to love some people who are difficult to love). Love remains the answer. And so I inevitably invite the husband to pray for a miracle:
When you go home, get on your knees and pray for the miracle to really love your wife. Pray for the miracle of a tender and humble heart that will love her with a deep, abiding, compassionate, and passionate love. Pray to love her unconditionally, not because she deserves it, or has earned it, not because she feeds you or sleeps with you. Pray to love her “for no good reason.” Ask God to give you the same love he has for you. You and I are not easy to love, we have not earned God’s love and don’t really deserve it. But God loves us still the same. Yes, pray for a miracle. Your flesh may think of 50 reasons to be resentful and unloving toward your wife. Pray for the miracle to love her any way, deeply and truly. Pray for a new heart, filled with God’s love.
In the end, the only way to “handle” a woman is to love her.
I can hear the fear talking as well: Are you saying I should be a doormat? No, love speaks the truth and insists upon it. But only love can distinguish between respect for the truth and mere power struggle. Only love can distinguish properly between reverence for the good of the other and merely insisting on my own preferences. Love can speak the truth but it does so with love.
As a priest I have found that the more I love my people the better equipped I am to lead them to the truth. And when they know and experience that I love them, there is trust and they can better accept the truth I am summoned to preach. But it is love that opens the door.
Advice to husbands, How to handle a woman? Love her.
In case you’ve never heard the song from Camelot here it is. The Scene begins with Arthur furiously lamenting the short-comings of the Queen and then reacalling some old advice given him by Merlin:
Now, you will say, “Camelot ended badly.” Yes, but in the end we do not love merely with good results in mind, we love unconditionally, as God does. God loves because God is love and that’s what Love does, He loves. And so to for us, called to be possessed of God’s love, we love. We risk to love. The Lord was killed for the love he had for us. We do not love merely to get something from it, we simply love. Others may accept or refuse our love, but as for us we love. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him (1 John 4:16).
Simply love her, love her, love her.
Here’s another video clip that says it better than I. This is clip from the movie “Fireproof” wherein a husband struggles to love his wife. This scene is the turning point of the move, the breakthrough:
I was ordained just over 21 years ago. In those days, I used to have a lot more marriages and baptisms. In fact, my calendar was usually quite full from May – July with weddings. Sometimes I would have two weddings on one Saturday. There was real competition for a bride to get her date. And, as for baptisms, I remember that sometimes doing 15 at a time on a Sunday afternoon was not uncommon. Even in those days the older priests all said business was way down.
These days the decline in marriage is very evident. In some of the smaller parishes there hasn’t been a wedding for several years. Even in the larger ones, as few as four or five a year isn’t uncommon.
Most of my information on this has been anecdotal until now. However, I was introduced to a great blog by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA). The Blog is Here: CARA Blog. There is lots of good data available and plenty of graphs and charts that paint a statistical picture of the Church. Some of the pictures are troubling indeed. Consider this one that depicts the decline in marraige and baptisms over the past 50 years:
You can click on the Chart to get a clearer picture. The chart depicts the number of marriages and baptisms per 1000 Catholics in the USA. As you can see, the number of baptisms has really plummeted from over 36 in the 1950s to just over 12 in 2009. That’s a drop of 76%! Marriage has shown a similar and steady decline from about 12 in 1950 to just under 3 in 2009. That too is a drop of almost 75%
This depicts a major crisis in marriage and the family and I don’t think I am exaggerating to say that trends like these are civilization killers. Conditions are far worse in Europe it would seem, though I do not have statistics to present here.
The CARA Blog is more sanguine than I and states:
Despite these trends, the absolute number of Catholics in the United States continues to grow because the number of children born and raised Catholic has been generally sufficient to replace previous generations (life expectancies have risen as well) and other Catholics are added to the population through adult conversion from other faiths and through immigration of Catholics from other countries (even as some who are raised Catholic leave the faith at some point). Since the 1940s, the percentage of the U.S. population self-identifying as Catholic has remained remarkably stable at about 22% to 24%. [1]
In other words, thank God for immigrants. Without them the Church here would be in a far worse crisis. But even with them, it appears we are in a rather significant crisis and will likely see Churches and schools continue to close and consolidate in the years ahead.
More than ever, we the clergy and and Catholic families need to powerfully re-evangelize on the vocation of marriage emphasizing its high calling and dignity. It is absolutely essential that marriage become a frequent focus of preaching, teaching and parish celebrations. Marriage should be encouraged among the young, taught of soberly and realistically, but also in a way that emphasizes its dignity and high calling. Much celebration can and should accompany a wedding in the wider parish. Perhaps the old custom of announcing banns of marriage can be reintroduced. Newly married couples returning from honeymoons might be publicly blessed at a Sunday Mass and a yearly recognition of married couples at Masses should be considered.
A second facet of this should include a re-evangelization on the value of larger families. I ask the couples I prepare to consider having a larger family. I remind them that we are depending on them in very important ways to bring forth children and raise them Catholic. I remind them that the Scriptures say to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:18), not just to replace yourself. Hence three or more children is an expectation that seems implied by the Biblical text. Some of the couples think I’m crazy, but, little by little, my parish is getting used to hearing about larger families again.
And there is some good news on this front statistically. The percentage of people considering three or more children to be an ideal family size is going up again. This number reached its low in 1998 when only 36% of respondents considered three or more children ideal. But the number is rising steadily since then and last year 43% of respondents considered three or more children ideal [2].
So, here is a worthy task: recovering respect for the gifts of marriage and children. We may not see sudden reversals, but we can chip away at it. Even to get young people used to hearing of the blessings of marriage and children is a start. I have often joshed with my parishioners that one of the pillars of my evangelization plan is have our young people get married (FIRST), have lots of babies and raise them Catholic. They often laugh though they know I am not merely joshing. They’re getting used to hearing of large families again. To some extent that is going to have to be the first step: reintroducing concepts as rational and normal which had been discarded as crazy and out of date. Little by little, this tide can change. Little by little, brick by brick. The first step to making a 1000 mile journey is to put one foot in front of the other and just keep doing it.
Here’s a little sermon clip of mine that I posted originally back in January:
