Tag: Marriage

Posted on

Some Are Incapable of Marriage Because They Were Born So

In today’s Gospel  reading for Mass the Lord says the following: Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. In speaking this way the Lord was leading up to say that there is a noble place for celibacy, freely chosen in the Church, in the Kingdom of God. These are those who have freely renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom.

Looking at the Translation: However, the Lord also speaks of those incapable of marriage either by being born so, or by having been made so by others. The translation we are using in the lectionary is somewhat more interpretive than literal. What the Lectionary text (NAB translation) renders as “incapable of marriage” is in Greek more literally: εὐνοῦχοi (eunouchoi) – a eunuch, a castrated male. In the ancient world monarchs would often keep castrated males around to watch over their harem and sometimes over children since they were thought to be less of a threat for obvious reasons. There were other reasons that men were castrated as well, sometimes due to crime, torture, etc. Jesus also refers to those who are eunuchs because they were born that way.

Now one might expect Jesus to rail against the practice of castration here but, strangely he does not. His main purpose is to teach that some are incapable of marriage and that others, though capable,  live like eunuchs in order to witness to the Kingdom and serve it exclusively (cf also 1 Cor 7).

Who are “those incapable of marriage?”  The first and most obvious interpretation is that some sort of birth defect or later physical mutilation has rendered them anatomically incapable of the marriage act (sexual intercourse). One need not conclude they are wholly lacking in every anatomical detail but just enough that somehow they are incapable of the marriage act. To be incapable of the marriage act is to be incapable of marriage since, the marital act is integral to marriage. This is still in marriage law today in the Church and part of the pre-nuptial inquiry that takes place is to ask the engaged person if they are capable of sexual intercourse. Such a question must be answered affirmatively for the marriage to proceed.

There are wider causes of being incapable marraige – Now thus far we have  considered “eunuch” as referring only a physical matter. But Jesus uses the term not only to refer to physical defect but also in a wider way as referring to being a kind of “spiritual eunuch.” The primary form of this is those who freely renounce marriage to witness to a serve the Kingdom. They have the physical capacity for intercourse,  to be sure, but they freely renounce its use. Hence we are invited to broaden our view of being a eunuch beyond mere physical defect.

It is a true fact that some are incapable of marriage due not to physical deformity of the sexual organs but due to other factors. Some may be mentally ill, or developmentally disabled or have significant physical illnesses. Some are very shy and lack self-esteem, or struggle to form close relationships.  Others have financial limits that may be temporary but for now make marriage unreasonable. Some simply have never met the right person. This may just be bad luck or it may be due to having unreasonable standards.  And so on. But it is a true fact that some, an increasing number in our culture it would seem, are temporarily or permanently incapable of marriage. In all these cases one who is truly or temporarily incapable of marriage is called to live chastely, as a kind of spiritual eunuch witnessing to the Kingdom

The Question of Homosexuality  As we have already seen, it is possible to see that the wider context  the Lord uses here of the word eunuch seems also to permit a wider interpretation. Namely that the incapacity is about more than physical defect and may also be seen to refer to a wider notion of incapacity such as a lack of affection for the opposite sex.

Many today claim they were born with a homosexual orientation. While this may be a debatable point (is it nature or nurture), it is the teaching of the Church that such individuals are “incapable” of marriage in that they are not permitted to enter into unions with members of the same sex as many demand today. Rather they are called to live heroically by embracing a celibate life. If their orientation renders them averse to the traditional marriage act, they are thus incapable of marriage either because they “were born so” or because they were “made that way by others.” But either way they are incapable of marriage. They are called to be eunuchs for the Kingdom.

Now notice that the Lord did not express disdain or aversions for those born or made eunuchs but he does state that they are incapable of marriage. As such they are invited to  freely accept that they are incapable of marriage and to live like the eunuchs who freely embrace the chaste and celibate state. If they do this freely they too have a high calling in the Kingdom, a calling which the Lord commends. The same can be said for homosexuals who, by that fact are incapable of marriage. They too can imitate those who have freely renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom by freely and wholeheartedly accepting the Church teaching that they remain chaste and embrace a celibate state. In so doing they too advance the Kingdom and witness to it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The Homosexual inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most [homosexuals] a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (CCC 2358-2359).

What the Church must do – The demands that the Church accept and bless Homosexual Unions is increasingly common today. But the Church cannot depart from Scripture and cannot give everyone what they want. In the end the best we can say is that some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, others because they were made so by others. We cannot do more than what Scripture teaches and must commend chastity and celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. It is a high calling if freely embraced.

Posted on

Should the Government Have Any Role at All in the Institution of Marriage?

David Harsanyi has written an interesting article over at Townhall.com wherein he argues that the Government should get out of the marriage business completely and have no involvement or interest whatsoever in any “personal relationship”  that individuals choose to enter. I would like to excerpt the article here and then raise a few points and ask for your thoughts. The full article by Mr. Harsanyi can be read here: Time for a Divorce. Here follow the excerpts in bold, italics and indented:

In the 1500s, a pestering theologian instituted something called the Marriage Ordinance in Geneva, which made “state registration and church consecration” a dual requirement of matrimony.

We have yet to get over this mistake. But isn’t it about time we freed marriage from the state? Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman — or no one at all — and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives…..

I believe your private relationships are none of my business. And without any government role in the institution, it wouldn’t be the business of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, either.

As the debate stands now, we have two activist groups trying to force their own ethical construction of marriage on the rest of us. And to enforce it, they have been using the power of the state — one via majority rule and the other using the judiciary (subject to change with the vagaries of public opinion)……

Is there any other personal relationship that is defined by government? Other than in legal terms, of course, this one isn’t, either.

Yet we have decided that a majority on the Supreme Court or, perhaps, a majority of the voters in your state or, even worse, a majority of the legislators in your state have the power to define what is often the most intimate bond of your life.

In our Utopian vision, no group is empowered to dictate what marriage should mean to another. And one of the great perks would be the end of this debate.

I will admit, there are times where the Libertarian perspective seems refreshing. (I am not sure if Mr. Harsanyi is Libertarian but his argument is). The Libertarian approach appeals to an instinct many have to simply an de-clutter in a civic world where government regulations and involvement leads to bewildering complexity and a tax code only a computer could love. It can be appealing to show Government the door in our lives and ask that it do less, far less. But I want to object to Mr. Harsanyi’s perspective in the matter of marriage on several counts and then ask for your input.

  1. Marriage is not a purely “private relationship” as Mr. Harsanyi states. Marriage involves the most essential and serious task of any community, state or nation, that of the procreation of the human species. Because there are children involved the merely private yields to a third party if you will, that of the child or children usually conceived in traditional marriage. And since children are involved who will venture forth as they mature into the wider society, it is a fact that others have a concern for marriage in terms of its definition, its quality, its stability and so forth. The quality of marriage and family life effects children profoundly and children affect the wider civic order profoundly, for better or worse. While others may wish to call their essentially non-fertile unions marriage and one might argue that such unions are private, one cannot argue that about traditional marriage which involves children. Neither can one remain completely disinterested in non traditional unions which involve the adoption or other of inclusion of children in their midst.
  2. Hence, the State does have legitimate interests when it comes to marriage. “State” here should not be seen as a mere abstraction or merely in governmental terms. Take “State” here to mean, the wider community as well. It is right and makes sense that there should be policies which protect and encourage traditional marriage. Further it makes sense that the State should insist on some degree of stability for this essential union that so involves children and their well-being. Until 1969 it was a rather lengthy and difficult process to get a divorce in this country. After 1969 most states passed “no-fault” divorce laws that made marriage the easiest contract in America to break. Since then, realizing the terrible impact that divorce was having on children, many States have begun to require waiting periods prior to divorce and some insist on counseling prior to divorce proceedings. It also makes sense that the State has some more proactive policies meant to strengthen the family. This may involve tax policy, emergency assistance to families in crisis and so forth. It is true that reasonable people will differ on the degree of help that should be provided and that at some point too much help makes people dependant. Nevertheless, due to the fact of children, there is an interest in the wider community that traditional marriage, as an institution, be strong.  It is a true fact that the many states have recently become ambivalent to the traditional view of marriage and we may wish to dismiss any governmental role based on this. But in the end, due to the presence and interests of third parties, there is going to be some governmental involvement and it is up to the Church to continue advocating for the traditional view of marriage there due to that fact.
  3. Mr. Harsanyi’s argument opens the door to Government – He calls his vision of marriage a “contractual agreement.” Oops. Where there are contracts there are laws. Where there a contracts there are often breeches of contract, lawsuits and the like. And where there are legal actions there is need for a judiciary. And where there is a judiciary there is Government. So even in his “Utopian” and libertarian world the government is not far behind.

So I think the purely libertarian argument of Mr. Harsanyi has flaws in it that fail to recognize the legitimate third-party interests involved in the fundamental institution that traditional marriage has always been. The most significant “third-party” involved is children who have needs and rights that must be fostered and protected.

But I would like to recast Mr. Harsanyi’s argument in reference to the Church and ask what you think. This recasting of the argument does concern the intersection of Church and State in the matter of marriage. I wonder if we were to consider what might ultimately become necessary anyway and do what many other nations already do? That is, what if we were to detach the Church’s role from the Civil License altogether? Currently in most U.S.  jurisdictions, when the priest or deacon officiates at at a wedding he is wearing two hats: Sacred minister and Justice of the Peace, he is acting on behalf of the State as well as administering a Sacrament. In other nations the couple goes to the civil magistrate and gets civilly “married.” Then they go to the Church, sometimes on the same day, and receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. As the rift gets wider between the world and the Church as to what we mean by marriage I wonder if this sort of separate arrangement will not become necessary here in America?

One drawback of course is that many Catholic couples would get civilly “married” and delay the Sacrament. Hence they would be living in an invalid union. However, this often happens now even in the current dispensation through cohabitation and various forms of invalid marriage. Catechesis as always would be essential to avoid the drawback.

But I must say, here in Washington DC, which recently voted to recognize same-sex “marriage”,  I feel increasingly troubled to be signing civil licenses. What am I affirming as I sign the license? At one level I am merely saying that the couple in question stood before me and entered into what the State recognizes as the “civil contract” of marriage. But as a legal functionary (I have a civil license issued by DC to witness marriages and sign civil licenses) of the District of Columbia, am I not cooperating in something that I believe is wrong? Every time I sign a license, in effect am I not affirming the civil definition of Marriage that underlies that civil license? Should I be cooperating in this way and issuing licenses that lend credibility to a flawed notion of marriage?

I ask these as true questions. I am not being rhetorical here. I think it is important for us clergy in these circumstances to ponder with our bishops what is to be done and what are the moral implications of it. This is terra incognita (unknown territory) and in the years ahead the Bishops Conference may also wish to take this up. I have argued elsewhere that we may want to consider using more widely the term “Holy Matrimony” to describe the Sacrament and distinguish it from the world’s notion of marriage.

Hence, while I think Mr. Harsanyi’s argument is ultimately flawed,  there may be in the near future a need for the Church to more clearly distinguish herself from the State when it comes to the question of marriage. As the individual states of this land begin to define marriage in a radically different way than the Church, distinctions, even legal separation, may be necessary. What do you think?

This video depicts why strong marriages are important for the “third party” of marriage: children.

Posted on

Being a Christian Man

When  I was a growing up my father would often exhort me to “be a man.” He would summon me to courage and responsibility and to discover the heroic capacity that was in me. St. Paul summoned  forth a spiritual manhood with these words: We [must] all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ. (Eph 4:13ff)

But today, too many Christian men are passive fathers and husbands. They have not matured in their faith but remain in a kind of spiritual childhood. They are not the spiritual leaders of their home that scripture summons them to be (cf Eph 5). If they go to Church at all, their wife has to drag them there. They do not teach their children to pray, read them Scripture, or insist that they practice the faith. They too often leave this only for their wife to do.

Gratefully, many men do take their proper role. They have reached spiritual manhood and understand their responsibilities in the Lord. They live courageously and are leaders. They are the first up on Sunday morning leading their family to Church and they insist on religious practice in the home. They intitate prayer and Scripture reading with their wife and children and are vigorous moral leaders and teachers in their family, parish and community. They are willing to battle for the truth and speak up for what is right.

You see the Lord is looking for a few good men. Are you a Christian Man? Have you reached spiritual manhood? This is not the kind of manhood that comes merely with age. It comes when we pray, hear and heed scripture and the teachings of the Chruch. It comes when we couargeously live the faith and summon others to follow Jesus without compromise. When we speak the truth in love and live the truth. It is when we fear God and thus fear no man, for when we are able to kneel before God we can stand before any threat.

Here are two good websites for Catholic Men. Let me know if you know of others.

Catholicmountain.com

dads.org

If you’re a Christian man or aspire to be one, I hope you’ll find this video as inspirational as I did.

Posted on

What is an Annulment?

The Biblical Root of Annulments.  The Lord says this in regard to marriage: “What God has joined together, let no one divide (Mat 19:6). On the face of it, divorce and any sort of annulment is forbidden would seem forbidden by this. But actually the text serves as a basis for the Church’s allowance of annulment under certain circumstances. The text says What GOD has joined together cannot be divided.

Now just because two people stand before a Justice of the Peace, or a minister or even a priest and swear vows, does not mean that what they do is a work of God. There have to be some standards that the Church insists on for us to acknowledge that what they do is “of God.”

There are a number of impediments that can render what they do ipso facto invalid. Things such as prior bond, consanguinity, minor status, incapacity for the marriage act, and crime to obtain consent. There are others as well. Further, it is widely held that when one or both parties are compelled to enter the marriage or that they display a grave lack of due discretion on account of immaturity or poor formation, that such marriages are null on these grounds. All these are ways that the Church, using her power to bind and loose, comes to a determination that what appeared to be a marriage externally was not in fact so based on evidence. Put more biblically, the putative marriage was not “what God has joined together.”

You may ask, “Who is the Church to make such a determination?”  I answer that, “She is in fact the one to whom the Lord entrusted, through the ministry of Peter and the Bishops the power to bind and loose (Mt 18:18) and to speak in His name (Lk 10:16).

Annulments are not Divorces– A decree of nullity from the Church is a recognition, based on the evidence given, that a marriage in the Catholic and Biblical sense of the word never existed. Hence, since a person has not in fact been joined by God they are free to marry in the future. In such a case a person does not violate our Lord’s declaration that one who divorces their spouse and marries another commits adultery (cf Matt 19:9).

There are some who wonder: Are we giving too many annulments? While it is clear that the Church has some pretty clear canonical norms regarding marriage, like any norms they have to be interpreted and applied. Certain American practices and norms have evolved over the last thirty years that some question as being too permissive and thus no longer respectful of the binding nature of marital vows. I am not without my concerns that we may give too many annulments but there is nothing intrinsically flawed with the Church teaching here, concern is directed only to the prudential application of the norms.

Annulment cases vary greatly. Often it isn’t as cras as somebody coming in and saying, “Well I got rid of my first wife and have got me another I want to marry, let’s get the paperwork going Father.” It is usually far more poignant than that.

Perhaps someone married early, before they were really very serious about the faith and they married someone who abused them. Now, years later after the divorce they have found someone who is able to support them in their faith. Perhaps they met them right in the parish. Should a marriage that was in young and foolish years and lasted all of six months preclude them from entering a supportive union that looks very promising? Maybe so, some still say.

Another more common scenario is often the case where in a person shows up at RCIA who has recently found the Catholic faith and wants to enter it. However, they were married 15 years ago in a Protestant Church to their current spouse who had been married before. Now, mind you, their current marriage is strong and they have both been drawn to the Catholic Faith. They have four kids as well. What is a priest to do? Well I can tell you that this priest will help the one who needs an annulment to get it. I can tell you a lot of cases come to the Church this way. It’s hard and perhaps even unjust to say to someone like this that there is nothing the Church can do for them, they will never qualify for sacraments. No, we just don’t do that, we take them through the process for annulment.

Perhaps too another person shows up at the door, A long lost Catholic who has been away 30 years. During that time he or she did some pretty stupid stuff including getting married and divorced, sometimes more than once. Now they show up at my door in a current marriage that seems strong and helpful and which includes children. The person is in desperate need of confession and Holy Communion. What is a pastor to do? He takes them through the process of annulment to get them access to those sacraments.

So there it is. There are very grave pastoral issues on both sides. The current instinct of the Church, given the poisonous quality of the culture toward marriage is to be more willing to presume there were problems.

If you are in a second marriage, please consider contacting your parish priest. Don’t presume you’re unwanted, or can never receive the sacraments. The tribunal process isn’t that difficult and the Church stands ready to assist you.

Posted on

Do We Need a New Word for Marriage?

Here in Washington DC today Gay and Lesbian couples lined up to apply for “Marriage”  Licenses. 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 DC City Council means.

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 the DC Council, along with 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, this is not the first redefinition of marriage that has occurred in America. The redefinition has actually come in three stages:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 offspring as integral to its very nature. Now the American culture saw this aspect as optional at the will of the spouses.
  3. This final blow 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. Is it time for us to accept this and start using a different word? Perhaps it is and I would like to propose a new (really an old) 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 Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from SECULAR marriage.

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 be wed next summer.” or to say, “We want to have a wedding next summer.”  Such dramatic changes seem unlikely to come easily. Perhaps we cannot wholly drop the terms “marry” and  “married.” So the 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?

Posted on

Marriage and Womanhood

This blog is a complement to Msgr. Pope’s January 4th blog, Marriage and Manhood. There, he laid out some ground rules for men concerning marriage. Fabulous blog, in my opinion!

As a follow-up, I felt the need to encourage women to do their part as well. So with my own experiences and the input of a single marriage-minded man, I’ve compiled this list.

1) If you are interested in attracting a man, look the part: choose feminine dresses over androgynous pants; fitted contours over ill-fitting clothes; enhancing colors over plain blacks; natural, youthful makeup over heavy, concealing makeup; and always choose a smile over a blank stare or a scowl.

2) Never ask a guy out! If he is interested and is a real man, he will ask you out. If he doesn’t ask you out, he either isn’t interested or isn’t a real man. This point could not be more clear or more important.

3) Do not have an intimate friendship with a man who is not dating you. If you are hoping that someday he will date you, it’s very unlikely. (Sorry, Taylor Swift.) This can also be a red flag that this man does not have intimate friendships with other men. This is a problem since men need other men to be real men.

4) Ok so you’re on your first date, and this guy starts sounding an awful lot like your ex…give him a chance! If you start projecting your ex’s worst characteristics on this new guy, you are inviting your own disappointment. Each man is unique, so give him the respect he deserves. It has been said that a man’s desire for respect is comparable to a woman’s desire to be cherished.

5) Once a man initiates a friendship, continue letting him pursue you as you get to know each other. Let him plan the dates. Let him pick you up. Let him pay. Let him set the pace. Let him be the first to use the words relationship, dating, boyfriend, or girlfriend. Follow his lead, and don’t make assumptions.

6) Dress modestly and act chastely. Despite what television and commercials tell you, seduction is entirely unnecessary! Your beauty and the fact that you are a female is enough.

7) If a relationship doesn’t work out, don’t let that affect your relationship with God or your appreciation of yourself as a woman. (I just got on a proud-to-be-a-Catholic-woman kick. Above my bed is a recently-purchased painting of the Blessed Mother and baby Jesus, and on my bedside table is my rosary and my current pile of books: “The Privilege of Being a Woman” (von Hildebrand), “Woman” (Stein), “Theology of the Body for Beginners” (West), “Graced and Gifted” (Hahn), “Introduction to the Devout Life” (de Sales), and “The Soul of Elizabeth Seton” (Dirvin). This is new venture for me, but I can tell you that so far it’s been entirely enriching!)

Try all 7 of these guidelines, and let me know how it works for you! And if you’ve been grazing in one pasture for a while, try a new one! God never promised that your future husband would live within a 20 miles radius.

God bless your journey toward marriage!

“When one finds a worthy wife, her value is far beyond pearls.” Proverbs 31:10

Posted on

A skeptic discovers that marriage ought to be taken seriously

I’ve had a lot of conversations about marriage over the last couple of months and in many of them, I am asked to defend what people call the outdated, antiquated teaching of the church. I am always looking for ways to show how in the two thousand plus years of experience the church has had with marriage it has learned some incontrovertible truths. I am always looking for help in making the connection between culture and faith. One of the gifts of truth is that it makes sense yesterday, today and tomorrow.

 Help from the most unlikely places

Much to my surprise, help has come in the recently published book by Elizabeth Gilbert. Imagine this—you are an acclaimed author, you write a hugely successful book in which you conclude, among other things, that you will never marry again. However, than man with whom you fall in love with at the end of the book and with whom you imagined being together, forever without the benefit of marriage, needs to get married in order to be able to live happily ever after–legally– with you in the U.S. What’s a woman to do?  If you are the author you write a book. Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage is the story of how it all works out happily ever after. But let’s go back to the beginning.

Elizabeth Gilbert’s book, Eat, Love Pray was an Oprah Book Club sensation. It hit a cord with millions of women as she explored with honesty and humor her difficult divorce, her awful rebound relationship, and her year-long journey of “spiritual seeking” through Italy, Indonesia and India. Why the tour through the three “I’s?” She chose Italy for pleasure, India for its spirituality and Indonesia as a place to explore the balance of the two. I believe a lot of the book’s appeal is that it speaks to so many people who have lived through the pain of a failed marriage and a divorce and it speaks to a common longing for a chance to escape it all in a grand way.

To Gilbert’s credit, when faced with the real question of marrying though having publicly stated her rejection of the institution, she chose to spend 10 months research and studying the history and meaning of marriage so as to be able to honestly enter into another marriage. Though I have not read Committed, I have been reading and watching a number of interviews with her and have gained some insight into her thinking.

 Marriage Fundamentals

Let me state clearly that Gilbert does not espouse a Christian understanding of marriage. Why I find her insight helpful is that she realizes that certain fundamental concepts are critical to marriage and make the institution of marriage beneficial to couples and society. She asks many of the right questions and her answers provide the makings of a very interesting conversation.

Before she began work on her book she thought of marriage as a “repressive tool, suffocating and irrelevant.” In a recent interview(wsj.com), when ask about what she thinks of marriage now, she writes of marriage “as having a capacity to evolve and adapt(over thousands of years) in a way she finds miraculous and kind of inspiring.” Furthermore, she believes that we carry into modern marriage the expectations and social memory of thousands of years of history…” In Christian language we talk about the concept of marriage existing from the very beginning of God’s plan for creation.  We talk about marriage as a private relationship with a public significance and indeed Gilbert writes “marriage is both a public and private concern, with real-world consequences.” She writes wisely of how easily people confuse marriage with weddings. Marriage requires a maturity that thinks about life beyond the wedding day. She writes however of how she has come to respect the public significance of marriage beginning with the importance of ritual and ceremony for people, families and societies. She believes that the vows publicly recognize that the status of the couple has changed and they are moving into a new phase in life. As Catholics we use the language of the grace of the sacrament and the commitment to be a sign of God’s love and fidelity to the world. We insist that marriages take place in a church building because the church building symbolizes the role the couple’s marriage will play in the life of the community.

Self-Giving

One area in which her interviews have engendered a lot of conversation is that she claims that marriage is not for the young! She suggests that one needs a certain maturity to endure the disappointments, and even contradictions, one discovers about marriage. It seems to me that it is not so much age as the ability of spouses to grow together that enable one to navigate the ups and downs of married life. More importantly, it is the model of Jesus’ self-giving love that teaches us the most about married love. While Gilbert, in no way embraces this nuance, she does admit that one thing she fears– and the one thing which every married person with whom she spoke talked about—is how critical the act of self-sacrifice is to marriage.  Marriage, she finds provides the space needed to learn how to live this self-giving love.

It is interesting to see that in a time when popular culture seems to reject the teaching of the church on marriage, one critic of marriage, especially Christian marriage, appears to have re/discovered some of the church’s age-old wisdom.  We can only hope that this discovery will eventually lead to a full understanding of sacramental marriage as the fullest expression of married love.

Posted on

Guest Blog – What it Means to Be a Woman – Sr. Maria Theotokos, SSVM

Sr. Maria Theotokos is a Religious Sister of the Congregation of the Servants of the Lord and the Virgin of Matara. She resides with 25 other sisters in the Convent of my parish (See photo at right). This is a wonderful new order (founded 1988) of Religious Sisters who love the Lord, our Lady and the Church. They are blessed by many young vocations and have a very good formation program. I have encouraged Sister to write from time to time so that we might have the perspective of Women Relgious here. In this post Sister writes a book review and also provides a critique of Feminism.

“An Unusual Little Book” 

Sister Maria Theotokos Adams, SSVM

Recently a friend of mine lent me an unusual little book with the pointed comment that she thought I really should read it.  As a religious sister, I typically focus first on my spiritual reading: scripture, saints, classic authors of the interior life, patristic commentary on the Scriptures.  Then, there is always academic reading, new magisterial documents, and news.  So where does this new book fall?  And to what does it owe this particular treatment?

Suspicious Title!  – Priesthood of the Heart: The Unique Vocation of Women(original publication in French 2003, Eng. 2007) by Jo Croissant has a title which threw me off the first time I heard it.  As a young woman religious in my early 30’s I love my vocation as a spouse of Christ and a mother of souls—simply put, I know that don’t want to be a priest.  Furthermore, like so many young women my age I passed through a period of academic feminism in high school which gave me a heavy enough dose of feminist writings to leave me thoroughly disenchanted.  I remember reading in my teens the classic texts which revealed the “true condition” of women’s lot: Kate Chopin, Sylvia Plath, Simone de Beauvoire, Virginia Woolf.  A Room of One’s Own attuned my vision to what would lay ahead if I were to pursue academics and writing in particular.

Problems with Radical Feminism – In all these readings, essential roles of identity—daughter, wife, and mother—were all devalued since they depended on others and therefore left woman in an endless cycle of subordination.  When in college, I rebelled against this feminist model, and began to investigate Catholic teachings on women, marriage, and love as “gift of self.”  We are relational beings by nature.  It is a lie to tell women that only by being autonomous from all others are they free.  And, so there ended my “orthodox” feminist perspective and began my searching into JP II’s “Theology of the Body” and the figure of the Virgin Mother of God.    During my years at college in the late 1990’s, conversations among friends revealed again and again that many in our generation—raised by baby-boomer mothers deeply shaped by the feminist movement—were sad to have missed out on fathers and mothers who worked together as a family.  Whether due to conditions of divorce, actively chosen single motherhood, or professionalism that produced total autonomy between husband and wife, our families had all suffered, we had all suffered something intangible and seemingly inevitable. A month after graduation from college I entered religious life, and so my attention has been more and more focused on the particular virtues and gifts proper to the consecrated woman.

A Genuine Catholic Thinker! Recently then, my first glance at Priesthood of the Heart  was mixed with disinterest (“more feminism?”) and suspicion (“more Catholic feminism!?!”). Thirteen pages into the book, the reader will find what is so appealing about Croissant’s work: its strikingly contemporary voice.  In a flash both my disinterest and suspicion were vanquished by the humor and intensity of this genuine Catholic thinker.  Jo Croissant, the wife of Ephraim, founder of the Community of the Beatitudes, is a French woman who has lived through the hopes and disappointments of the women’s movement and now speaks to the conditions of today.  To read a Catholic book about the vocation of women in the light of the feminist movement and of the contemporary crisis of family, society, and the world has offered me a renewed interest in these critical issues.  It is not enough to proclaim the “inherent dignity of women” and to sigh for a past time which will never come again—and which may have had its own problems anyway.  As young Catholic women of today, whether lay women or religious sisters, we are children of our age.  We cannot easily embrace the depth of Catholic teaching without acknowledging what injustices women have suffered in the past, what confusion women have suffered as a result of feminism and what active role we are called to in the world today.

The Identity Crisis afflicting many women –  In Priesthood of the Heart, Croissant first unveils the identity crisis and complex sorrow afflicting many women.  Through short testimonies, she draws on the experiences of women who have tried to live as “liberated” or “autonomous” women, only be crushed over and over by the conflicts of identity in broken relationships.  She then rebuilds a vision of woman through a study of the essential feminine vocation to love: as daughter, wife, and mother.  Only as a relational being is woman complete.  These relations must begin first in the light of God, so that woman as “daughter of the Father” can find her confidence and first identity outside of herself.  When a woman tries to deny or manipulate these elements of her person in an attempt to grasp absolute freedom and independence, she looses herself.

God-Given Feminine Characteristics –  Croissant points out that the natural desires to soothe, to nurture, to love through self-sacrifice are not “socially reinforced patterns of repression” but God-given feminine characteristics.  By developing these virtues in a life of sacramental grace, women can fulfill the depths of spousal love, harmonize family life, and raise happy healthy children.  God has assigned women a key role in building up marriage and family which are the foundations of society and of civilization.  Never missing a chance to apply these true feminine gifts in all states of life (single, married, religious), Croissant has drawn out foundational Catholic teachings on the vocation of women with a fresh voice.

The Priesthood of the Baptized is distinct from the Ministerial Priesthood but supports it –  In her final chapter on the “priesthood of the heart,” Jo Croissant builds on the common priesthood of the baptized.  She develops the spirituality of intercession and sacrifice through which women perform a “priestly” role between God and humanity.  Far from being any innovation on her part, Croissant is in line with the scriptural and magisterial teaching, expressed in #87-90 of Pius XII Mediator Dei (1947) and Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium  (1964), #10-11.   Especially helpful during the Year for Priests, the appropriate and complete understanding of women is for us to hear the call: “like living stones [to] be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pt 2:4-5).  Women can engage fully in this papal initiative of the Year for Priests by turning our prayers and attention to the unique gift of the ministerial priesthood in the Church, and understanding better the subsequent distinction between their role of Alter Christus (“another Christ”) and ours of the “priesthood of the heart.”  The natural outcome will be praying for priests, committing to spiritual maternity, and learning how to offer up to God the needs of our families, communities, and our world.

A Gift to the Present – Now I can understand why this unusual little book struck such a chord with my friend, and why she thought it would with me too.  We all must face the reality of being “children of our age” even within the walls of a convent and clothed in long flowing habits.  There is no “going back” to some other time, but rather Catholic women in all states of life have a gift to bring once more to the world.  We must learn again how to love through sacrifice, fruitfulness, and silent strength.  Imitation of the Virgin Mother of God is forever timely and forever fresh.  We must help to build up our families, our parishes, our places of work, and the children entrusted to us by living fully as the women God made us to be.  The needs of the world are urgent, and authentic change begins with the conversion of one child at a time, one family at a time, one woman at a time.  For women in all states of life or discernment there is something of interest for you in this unusual little book.

 Priesthood of the Heart: the Unique Vocation of Women (2007) Jo Croissant, Alba House, 152 pages, original French title: La Femme Sacerdotale, Ou Le Sacerdoce Du Coeur (2003).

Essential Reading: -Pope John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem (1988)

Further Reading: -St. Edith Stein, Essays on Woman (ICS Publications);  -Alice Von Hilderbrand, The Privilege of Being a Woman (Sapientia Press);  -Maurc Hawrke, Women in the Priesthood? (Ignatius Press)

Saints to Get to Know:  -St. Catherine of Siena: consecrated virgin, international ambassador, Doctor of the Church;  -St. Teresa of Avila: consecrated virgin, reformer, author, Doctor of the Church  -St. Therese of the Child Jesus: Carmelite at 15 years of age, playwright, author, Doctor of the Church  -St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, wife, mother, Episcopalian convert, foundress, religious sister, American saint  -St. Edith Stein, philosopher, Jewish convert, Carmelite contemplative, martyr -St. Gianna Beretta Molla, physician, wife, mother, martyr for life -Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, religious sister, foundress, Nobel Prize winner, true friend of Jesus in His distressing disguise of “the poorest of the poor”

The Following Video depicts the History of the Religious Family of the Incarnate Word of which The Servants of the Lord are the women’s branch: