Today, in conjunction with the response of the Archdiocese in opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Archbishop Wuerl also issued a Pastoral Message for Homosexual Catholics in the Archdiocese of Washington. You can read the whole message by clicking on the title highlighted in color in the previous sentence. Here are a few excerpts:
Of the many teachings of the Catholic Church, perhaps some of the most challenging for Catholics in today’s culture involve human sexuality, including homosexuality. Modern cultural pressures and assumptions are often at odds with the teachings of Christ handed down through the centuries. For some parishioners the issues are deeply personal. Living out the Church’s teaching can be a difficult challenge. Yet, no one needs to do this separated from the grace and love of the Church.
It is important to affirm that the Catholic Church is and always will be welcoming of any person who seeks who seeks a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ….The Catechism of the Catholic Church upholds the human dignity of every person and condemns any form of unjust discrimination (2358).
After setting forth the Scriptural foundations of Catholic teaching and our opposition to same-sex marriage the Archbishop goes on to express his pastoral concern and prayers.
As you may be aware DC Council Member David Catania has introduced Legislation requiring the District to recognize so-called “Same-Sex Marriages.” Here is a statement from the Archdiocese of Washington. My own comments follow in RED below:
Statement of the Archdiocese of Washington on DC Council Bill to Redefine Marriage in the Nation’s Capital:
Marriage is a personal relationship with public significance. Marriage between a man and a woman transcends cultures, religions and all time. Marriage is about more than two people who love and are committed to each other.
It also is about creating and nurturing the next generation. As natural law and biology dictate, this requires both a man and a woman. Men and women complement each other physically, psychologically and emotionally and each has distinctive gifts for a child’s upbringing. They are not interchangeable.
Nature intends for children to have a mother and a father. Research tells us a healthy marriage with a father and mother provides the most stable and nurturing environment for a child. This is the reason that civil governments have given marriage special recognition throughout time.
The bill introduced today by some members of the District of Columbia City Council to redefine marriage is at odds with marriage’s fundamental purpose. You cannot redefine biology.
The “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009” is not about religious freedom. In fact, there are legitimate concerns that this legislation will result in a loss of religious liberty of the people of the District of Columbia. If passed, the bill could require Catholics to make choices between a “law” and the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church.
This is the second time in six months that the DC City Council has sought to redefine marriage. In the spring, the Council pushed through a bill recognizing same sex marriages from other jurisdictions, without an opportunity for residents to give input.
Today’s action by the DC City Council would put the District of Columbia in the minority nationwide. Forty states have constitutional or legislative protection of marriage, while only five states have redefined marriage. We urge our elected officials to respect the purpose of marriage as the union of one man and one woman for their mutual benefit and for the rights of children.
A request for a ballot initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman was filed by a coalition of groups in September. The Archdiocese of Washington submitted a letter supporting thatrequest before the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics.
You will note that the Archdiocese in setting forth its objections has done so on the basis of Natural Law. Scripture is not quoted in the document. This is done in speaking to a secular world to make it clear that our objections are not on religious grounds only. They are also based on psychological, sociological and biological grounds. It is clear that nature itself intends that nurturing and raising a child is to be done under the influence of both a father and mother. Men and women are not interchangeable and both provide aspects of development that the other cannot simply supply. Men (fathers) have important things to teach their children. So do women (mothers). It is true that even in the world of nature, sometimes due to death, both parents cannot be present to raise the child but this is an exceptional situation and law should not be based on exceptional situations.
I am also pleased to see that the statement indicates the conception and raising of children to be “marriage’s fundamental purpose.” Many do not think of marriage in these terms today. They speak of it merely as existing for the happiness of the couple and the expression of their love. These purposes are not unimportant but marriage has its fundamental design from nature and God for the sake of children. Marriages should be heterosexual and stable (no divorce) for the better sake of children. Children are best served by a stable marriage where they are conceived and then nurtured by both a father and mother, receiving from their parents the complimentary witness of masculinity and femininity. This is what marriage is essentially and fundamentally about: the good of children. This is why the Church must oppose redefining marriage in this way. It also explains why the Church has opposed no-fault (easy and quick) divorce laws.
While it is true that the Archdiocese has spoken today on the grounds of Natural Law, as seems necessary since not all share or agree to religious premises, many of you who read this blog do accept religious grounds as a basis for discussion. For that reason I might encourage you to read a previous post at this blog which discusses the biblical basis for opposing same-sex “marriage.” You can read it here:Same Sex Marraige is Contrary to Biblical TeachingI also preached a sermon on this topic that you can listen to or download to iPod here: Sermon on Same Sex “Marriage“
Please note that the Church’s position is both principled and respectful. There are bigots in our world today who may reject Gay Marriage from less than noble motives. But the Church is the servant of God’s Word and the Natural Law. We cannot be otherwise and we cannot thus remain silent on this matter. But we speak with respect and from a principled poosition that reverences what God has taught us an told us to proclaim.
I was interested in Laura’s last post since she is saying what I say to most of the couples I prepare for marriage: Unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.
“What’s that?” You say. Well, think about it. Have you every been told by a friend that a certain movie is the best thing they have ever seen and that you have not truly lived until you see it? They built the movie up into a life changing event. And then you go and see the movie and it’s OK, you like it, but there is a certain disappointment when it doesn’t live up to all your expectations. Part of the problem was the sky-high expectations. Had you gone to the movie without them you might have enjoyed the movie more! At least it wouldn’t have had to live up to the “better than the second-coming” expectations.
This is often what happens with marriage. Despite all our cynicism about so many things today, many people still have powerful notions of the perfect marriage, the perfect mate, the “happily ever after” scenario. When marriage fails to live up to these sky-high expectations, there is disappointment and resentment. This is what I mean by the expression “Unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.”
What if marriage was a more normal thing? Rather than being an epic drama or romance, what if it was a normal way of living in a less than perfect world? What marriage had ups and downs like everything else in life? What if spouses didn’t have to be perfect but could be like everyone else, having good points and things we wish were different? What if our expectations of marriage were more down to earth and accepting of the human condition?
Sadly though, many people want their marriage to be an ideal, and if there’s any ordeal, they want a new deal!
Almost every couple I have ever talked to who had what I’d call a “good marriage” admit that there are difficulties and challenges in their marriage. Most speak of difficult periods in their marriage, times of transition and adjustments, times of financial difficulties, struggles related to the kids and so forth. Yet also there were great blessings, shared love, support, encouragement. The secret seems to have been that they were willing to take the bad with the good and accept that marriage is good but not perfect. At some point the perfect can become the enemy of the good. That is, the insistence on the perfect blinds one towhat is good and adequate.
A few thoughts to conclude:
Be careful who you marry. But sure that you share fundamental values and faith. Being “in love” isn’t usually enough. We all have certain “non-negotiables” and we need to honest with ourselves about what they are.
But don’t wait for the perfect spouse to come along, as Laura said in her post. Our insistence upon the perfect candidate will leave us frustrated, resentful and alone. Somewhere we have to accept the fact that we going to marry a sinner, and that we ourselves are also sinners.
Once you are married, ask God for the grace to continue to see the good things in your spouse. Thank God every day for your spouse and express that gratitude to your spouse.
When you experience the imperfection of your marriage say this before you say anything else, “My marriage is not perfect because I am in it.” Begin with your own “stuff” and realize that you aren’t always easy to live with either.
Realize that even difficult things in a marriage are often times “gifts in strange packages.” Spouses do not only bless each other with the good things, but even the bad things can help us grow in holiness. Spouses give each other plenty of opportunities to learn to forgive, be patient, be kind, be understanding, be slow to anger, be merciful. Last time I checked these are basic virtues we must grow in if we ever hope to enter heaven.
Get over the fairytale stuff and live in the real world. You married a sinner and you are a sinner. Unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.
Baby steps. Organic growth. Your marriage can and will get better and better if both of you cooperate with God. But grace builds on nature and it is our human nature to change slowly, almost imperceptibly. Forgive, be patient, keep praying, keep loving, and did I say forgive? Yes I think I did say that.
Here’s a video of a couple who have fallen out of love, are resentful and know each other’s bad habits a little too well. They both want a better spouse, a perfect spouse. You might say they have unrealistic expectations. Once upon a time they were in love but the “I Do” became “You’d Better!” and they grew apart. Can this marriage be saved? Buy the movie FIREPROOF and see.
A few months ago, I invited a friend to go see a new romance/drama that had just come out in theaters. It had gotten good reviews, and I thought we’d make a girls night of it. To my surprise, her response was “No thanks, I don’t see movies like that anymore.”
I was curious what she meant. “Well ya know how people say chick flicks are like porn for women? So I don’t go anymore. It’s unhealthy for me cause it creates unrealistic expectations about guys.”
I was really impressed with her commitment!
It made me think of a comment that “Some Guy in CA” had written in response to Msgr. Pope’s blog Marriage Can Wait. He wrote:
I think the main problem is that most women (including faithful Catholics) have extremely excessive expectations of what they expect from their “suitor”. If the initiative that he takes falls anywhere short of the kind of nonsense they see on TV and read in magazines, then it is not happening…There are certain types of good, orthodox, faithful, single Catholic girls that I meet that I find attractive but have learned at this point to not bother with because I can sense that they have this unhealthy view of romantic relationships. Guys: just don’t bother with those particular gals. It is up to them to fix themselves.
Wow, I can definitely see where he’s coming from! Honestly in my mind I’m probably looking for some combination of Mr. Darcy (wisdom and real estate), David Beckham (athleticism and edge), Enrique Iglesias (he’s Latin and he sings), and the-holiest-man-on-the-planet-who’s-not-celibate (whoever he is).
Mea culpa, gentlemen. What I do is exactly what I accuse guys of doing with regards to porn. With porn, guys can customize their experience with whatever woman they want in whatever scenario they want. With chick flick-supported fantasies, I get to imagine falling in love with the star soccer player after hearing him sing with his band during a party at his Georgian estate after which he escorts me home (instead of to his bedroom) confessing his deep love and respect for me as a sister in Christ.
But Laura, Mr. Darbeckiglamen doesn’t exist!
So I should probably get real and:
1) pray for purity of heart and mind
2) follow my friend’s example and not watch chick flicks
3) stop comparing the men I meet to Mr. Darbeckiglamen
4) encourage all men in their realistic pursuit of realistic women
It was always drilled in to us when I was growing up that the planet was overpopulated. We were promised famines, and disease by the doomsayers. Clearly we were headed for disaster and only contraception could save us. Some also suggested forced sterilization and abortion for recalcitrant reproducers, like they have done in China.
But really! How overpopulated are we? What kind of a physical footprint do we really have on this planet? Try this on for size.
There are currently about 6 Billion people on this planet.
Lets put them, four to house on a quarter acre of land. This is the typical size of a traditional suburban lot.
Now, physically, how big is the suburb of houses we’ve created?
Let’s see, 6,000,000,000 four to a house is 1.5 Billion houses.
1.5 Billion Houses on a quarter acre each is 375 Million Acres.
What does 375 Million Acres compare to? Well lets see, The state of Texas is 171904640 acres. 375 Million Acres is just over twice the size of the State of Texas (2.18 Texases to be exact). It also equates to 3.6 Californias. Why Alaska at 420 Million Acres could hold them all and still have 45 million acres left over.
So there you have it. “But Father, but Father… we can’t all live in a suburb like that. We need roads, shopping centers, parks, farmland, schools, etc.” Yes indeed, but as you can see there is a lot of land left over. I think we’ll squeeze it all in somehow. Point is, there’s plenty good room. We are a long way from fulfilling God’s mandate to “be fruitfull and multiply to fill the earth and subdue it.” (Gen 1:28)
What of famines? True there are shortages in the world here and there. We have plenty of food here in America but it is sometimes hard to get it to famine regions due to war and corrupt governments. We have the food, it’s getting it there that is the problem. That’s why allowing starvation is so immoral. We have so much abundance in the god ole USA that our government actually pays farmers not to plant to help keep prices higher.
What of water? Fresh water is limited. But we can desalinate. Right now it costs too much but I have little doubt that as the need grows for more fresh water we will find more cost-effective ways to desalinate.
What about climate change? – not too sure about that. It does seem clear that the climate’s always been changing, quite radically actually, and we have adjusted.
Why is this on a Catholic blog? Well think about it, contraception, abortion, sterilization, even euthanasia all march under banners that, among other things, appeal to fear about overpopulation. The Church has often been ridiculed for being out of touch and insensitive to the great question of overpopulation. This little presentation has had as a goal to spark a discussion if such fears are really justified or is it just another fear mongering myth? How say you?
The following video gives a little more background to the history of overpopulation concerns. I think its a good video but, as you will see, I think they underestimate a little the acreage necessary to house six billion. They say one Texas I say two. But hey, it’s all pretty clear, we’ve got a lot of land, God’s been generous. Also, the video says population will peak in 30 years and then start to go back down. I am not sure how they say that or know it.
This week in most parishes of the Archdiocese of Washington, priests are being asked to review with their congregations some basic teachings on marriage and to explain why the Church opposes (so-called) “same-sex Marriage.”
The Archdiocese has issued a flyer to be placed in every bulletin and you can read it here: MARRIAGE FLYER. But rather than repeat what is said there I would like to add some additional insights.
There are many good reasons to oppose same-sex “marriage,” some of them sociological, some of them psychologicalal. But, at the end of the day, the most fundamentalal reason that the Roman Catholic Church opposes a redefinition of marriage is that the Church is the steward and guardian of the truth God has given us in the Scriptures and formal Teachings of the Church. Many people want the Church to do what she simply cannot do. The Church is NOT ABLE to throw scripture and natural law overboard. We must continue to insist on what scripture teaches. We cannot nullify it. The Church has received the mandate to preach and teach God’s word whether in season or out of season. Whether popular or unpopular (2 Tim 4:2).
God established marriage in the Book of Genesis and we are taught the following essentials about marriage there:
It was not good for Adam to be alone. He needed a “suitable partner.” (Genesis 2:18) Now notice the word “suitable” a word which the dictionary defines as “apt, proper or fitting.”
The suitable partner for Adam is first of all human – for none of the animals proved to be suitable for Adam. (Gen 2:20)
The suitable partner for Adam was a woman. God created Eve, a woman, not Steve, a man. (Gen 2:22)
The suitable partner for Adam was one woman. For God did not created Eve and Ellen and Jane and Sue. Hence polygamy is not of God’s design. True enough a number of the Old Testament Patriarchs DID have more than one wife. But what the Bible reports as a fact does not necessarily imply approval. Fact is, the Bible shows how polygamy ALWAYS leads to trouble. As Biblical history unfolds, polygamy begins to disappear.
Adam is to enter a stable relationship with his suitable partner Eve for the text says that man should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife (Gen 2:24). To cling means to adhere, to stick like glue. Hence, divorce and disunity are not part of God’s vision for marriage. Husbands and wives are to strive for unity and stability by God’s grace. The easy (no-fault) divorce of our culture is hostile to God’s plan for marriage. Couples should not seek easy ways out, they should do the work necessary to preserve union and stability in their commitment of marriage.
Adam and Eve are told to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it (Gen 1:28). Now here is the essential rationale as to why their marriage should be stable and heterosexual. In the first place marriage should be stable because that is what is best for children. Secondly, the procreation and rearing of children is an ESSENTIAL end of marriage. Some argue that gay couples can adopt. True enough, under civil law, they can adopt but they cannot procreate. Their ability to procreate is instrincally impossible. It is true that some older couples cannot have children and they are able to marry in the Church. But their infertility is due to a natural quality given by God. It is intrinsic to the feminine nature that fertility decreases with age and ultimately ceases. Homosexual union is intrinsically sterile an can never meet the requirement of being fruitful and multiplying. Adoption is not procreation.
Jesus reiterates the teachings of Genesis in Matthew 5 and 19 (inter al.) saying that “At the beginning God made them, male and female….hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two of them become one flesh.” Jesus does not say a man clings to his partner, rather his “wife.” Jesus then says with his own authority: “What God has joined together, let no one separate.” This text surely forbids divorce but one might also argue a wider interpretation wherein Jesus forbids us to tamper with what God has established. (cf Matt 19:varia)
Here then is the data of Scripture. The Church is the guardian of Scripture. We are not free to tear out pages, cross out sentences, substitute words etc. Some claim we are simply bigots, homophobes, or whatever the latest name or label they wish to attach. But in the end the Church can do nothing other than to uphold what God definitively teaches us. We are to do this in season and out of season. Right now, insofar as popular culture goes, we are “out of season,” but faithful to the Word of God anyway we speak. We can do no other.
In today’s Washington post Michael Gerson wrote a piece entitled “Lost in a World Without Courtship”. I would like to put excerpts here with my own comments in RED. You can read the full article HERE.
By Michael Gerson, Wednesday, September 16, 2009, The WASHINGTON POST
There is a segment of society for whom traditional familyvalues are increasingly irrelevant, and for whom spring-break sexual liberationism is increasingly costly: men and women in their 20s. Interesting. He describes them as disaffected with the “casual sex” culture but not ncessarily convinced to return to more traditional family values. Here too is another sign that we as a Church have not presented God’s plan for sex and marriage in a compelling manner. OR even more significantly, we have not communicated with many young people AT ALL. Our world view may not even be on their radar.
This is the period of life in which society’s most important social commitments take shape — commitments that produce stability, happiness and children. But the facts of life for 20-somethings are challenging. Puberty — mainly because of improved health — comes steadily sooner. Sexual activity kicks off earlier. But the average age at which people marry has grown later; it is now about 26 for women, 28 for men. Yes, I have noticed this quite clearly. When I was first ordained 20 years ago most of the couples I prepared for marriage were in their early 20s. Now they are in their early 30s. Also the number of weddings I celebrate has dimished by more than half.
This opens a hormone-filled gap — a decade and more of likely sexual activity before marriage. And for those in that gap, there is little helpful guidance from the broader culture. Notice here again the author makes no mention of the Church as offering helpful guidance to young adults. I do not observe this by way of a judgement of him. Rather, here again is more proof that we are not on the radar of most young people and to the extent we are, if our author is right, we have no compelling message or vision to offer young adults. Actually we do, but we have not communicated it well. Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, argues that the “courtship narrative” in the past was clear: dating, engagement, marriage, children. This narrative has been disrupted without being replaced, leaving many 20-somethings in a “relational wasteland.” I remain struck at how many young people tell me this same thing. In this “communication age” it seems harder and harder for young people to meet on a meaningful level.
The casual sex promoted in advertising and entertainment often leads, in the real world of fragile hearts and STDs, to emotional and physical wreckage. But it doesn’t seem realistic to expect most men and women to delay sex until marriage at 26 or 28. Such virtue is both admirable and possible — but it can hardly be a general social expectation. So religious institutions, for example, often avoid this thorny topic, content to live with silence, hypocrisy and active singles groups. Alot of hard truth here. It is difficult to remain sexually abstinent all those years. However, I am not quite as pessimistic. I have been faithfully celibate since ordination and even before. However, I’ll admit that I am helped by the expectations upon me and by the fact that I do not date and am never alone with women. This is not usually the case with young adults. It is also true and sad that many clergy and religious leaders avoid talking frankly about sex before marriage. Growing up in high school and college, I never had a priest, deacon or catechist say a word to me about sex before marriage. As a priest, I have tried to remedy this terrible silence by speaking frankly and clearly that the Scriptures and Church teach that pre-marital sex is a serious sin. I am not unaware that young people have a difficult time fully living this and counsel them to be serious about chastity but to seek God’s mercy if they fall. But under no circumstances should they ever thing that pre-marital sex is “no big deal.” It is and infractions should be brought to confession. Gerson’s point about silence of the Church is however tragically the case for too many young people. We need to be clear, encouraging and helpful as well as understanding of the difficulty young adults face.
In the absence of a courtship narrative, young people have evolved a casual, ad hoc version of their own: cohabitation. From 1960 to 2007, the number of Americans cohabiting increased fourteenfold. For some, it is a test-drive for marriage. For others, it is an easier, low-commitment alternative to marriage. About 40 percent of children will now spend some of their childhood in a cohabiting union.Yes, as usual it is the children who suffer. I often grieve for children today who have to live with such confusing circumstances: mom here dad there, they have since split and are now with other partners; a mess and a terrible burden for children.
How is this working out? Not very well. Relationships defined by lower levels of commitment are, not unexpectedly, more likely to break up. Three-quarters of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents split up by the time they turn 16, compared with about one-third of children born to married parents…..
So apart from the counsel of cold showers or “let the good times roll,” is there any good advice for those traversing the relational wilderness? …
First, while it may not be realistic to maintain the connection between marriage and sex, it remains essential to maintain the connection between marriage and childbearing. Marriage is the most effective institution to bind two parents for a long period in the common enterprise of raising a child — particularly encouraging fathers to invest time and attention in the lives of their children. And the fatherless are some of the most disadvantaged, betrayed people in our society, prone to delinquency, poverty and academic failure. Cohabitation is no place for children. Amen! Just the point I have been trying to make in previous blog posts here. Marriage is fundamentally about children and what is best for them. We have to change our thinking today that so overemphasizes the emotional well being of the spouses (or co-habiting adults) and get back to being sober about the effect that this has on children. They deserve better. Marriage is meant to be a stable, lasting union where a man and woman cling to each other because that is what is best for children. God does not make arbitrary rules. He establishes them for good reason.
Second, the age of first marriage is important to marital survival and happiness. Teen marriage is generally a bad idea, with much higher rates of divorce….But people who marry after 27 tend to have less happy marriages — perhaps because partners are set in their ways or have unrealistically high standards. The marital sweet spot seems to be in the early to mid-20s. Early 20s is still early for many young people. We take a long time to grow up in our culture. But I think mid 20s is reasonable.
Third, having a series of low-commitment relationships does not bode well for later marital commitment….Serial cohabitation trains people for divorce.
[Bottom Line is]….Delaying marriage creates moral, emotional and practical complications…..The answer, even in the relational wasteland, is responsibility, commitment and sacrifice for the sake of children. There we go again, CHILDREN, responsibility and commitment for their sake. We have to be more serious and realize that my lfe isn’t merely about me and what makes me happy.
This Year marks the 40th Anniversary of No-Fault Divorce. With the signature of Governor Ronald Regan on Sept 5, 1969, the State of California became the first State to enact “No-Fault Divorce.” Other states quickly followed and within 15 years it was nationwide. In effect this law simplified divorce and streamlined it by allowing only one party to petition for divorce. By this act Marriage became the easiest contract in civil law to break.
Prior to 1969 the States processed divorce requests but the process was long and difficult. Shouldn’t it be? The breakup of marriages has potentially powerful implications for families and for society. It is especially children who suffer from unstable family situations. The State and the wider society has good reason to insist that couples remain faithful to vows they have made (to use Church language) and to “contractual obligations” binding on them (to use the language of civil law). With the introduction of “No-fault Divorce” the notion of obligations and duties toward Children and the wider society was set aside. Marriage became a whimsical arrangement subject to easy and rather sudden end – no questions asked. “Irreconcilable differences” is all that needs to be said.
Late in life, Reagan admitted his son, Michael that, signing the bill was one of the worst mistakes he ever made in public office.
How have we done since 1969? Well no one would say marriage is a healthier institution as a result. Divorce has skyrocketed. Now more than half the children of this country no longer enjoy a stable nuclear family but instead are sent back and forth between the households of divorced parents. Often they have to endure the confusion and turmoil of their parents’ second marriages, half brothers and sisters, moms and step moms, dads and stepdads and every other sort of relationship you can imagine. What sort of a toll has this taken on children in terms of things like drug use, suicide rates, premarital sex, SAT scores, etc.? Well, you know the answer. And how do we fare as a society, as a nation, as Church when our most basic pillar is on shaky ground? Here again, you know the answer, we have not fared well.
There was a time in this land when divorce was rare. When it occurred people were shocked and whispered about it. Really it was not so long ago. I who am only 48 remember those times from my early childhood. It is not as though every marriage was happy before 1965. Indeed, there were many “unhappy marriages.” But people had a different outlook which emphasized the importance of staying true to commitments that had been made and to sticking them “for the sake of the kids.” These attitudes were enshrined in law which made divorce difficult. Marriage was for the Children and children had needs for stability and for parents who stuck to their commitments. Today, the attitude is that marriage is for the adults and the needs of children are somewhat secondary.
Do you also see how this had led to the current trend to “redefine” marriage. If Marriage is essentially only about the relationship of the adults involved and children are only an optional accessory, who is to say that marriage should be stable or even heterosexual? Or so the thinking goes. But if, as the Church continues to teach, the procreation and rearing of children is an essential end of marriage then it makes sense that God would establish marriage as between one man and one woman till death do them part. As God puts it, “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24) God goes on further to command them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28).
So here we are today, marriage, family, and children are all on the ropes. Our own strength as a civilization depends on us getting this right again. The first major and serious blow took place 40 years ago this month. God invites us to return.
To those who are divorced, I mean you no disrespect. Many are divorced today due to complicated reasons. Not all wanted the divorce they had. Others made decisions early in life that they now regret. Still others had unique situations too complicated to speculate about here. But I’ll bet most who are divorced would be the first to describe its pains and ramifications in the family. Easy divorce has not made life easy. “Amicable solutions” are seldom pain-free and they are seldom solutions at all. Rather they unleash a whole new set of problems. Somewhere in the midst of all this God is calling to us and he invites us all to rediscover his plan for marriage and the family.
Today, in conjunction with the response of the Archdiocese in opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Archbishop Wuerl also issued a Pastoral Message for Homosexual Catholics in the Archdiocese of Washington. You can read the whole message by clicking on the title highlighted in color in the previous sentence. Here are a few excerpts:
