 |
THURSDAY March 23, 2000 vol. 11, no. 59 SECTION ONESee why so many consider the Daily CATHOLIC as the "USA Today for CATHOLICS!"
e-mail: webmaster@dailycatholic.org |
|
| ||||
|
| ||
|
| ||
In his column today, Pat Ludwa illustrates so clearly why same-sex unions are wrong. He doesn't use the emotional approach as so many are wont to do with this controversy; no name calling, only a logistic approach based on both the truths of Catholic teaching, Sacred Scripture, and common sense in respect to the overall sensitivity of balancing the scales of sanity or insanity, morality or immorality. societal laws or anarchy, normal or abnormal, protection of the family structure or a dysfunctional miasma of individuals. By this argument he points out how the advocation of the homosexual lifestyle is systematically destroying the foundation of marriage as both an institution and a sacrament. For his column today, The Death Knell of Marriage? , see VIEW FROM THE PEW
The Death Knell of Marriage?
But what is marriage? As Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote:"No natural human good has been exalted so high in the New Testament. No other good has been chosen to become one of the seven Sacraments. No other has been endowed with the honor of participating directly in the Kingdom of God. This in itself suggests the infinitely precious value already attached to marriage in the realm of nature, the richness and grandeur it unfolds." (Marriage: the mystery of faithful love) Yet today, nothing seems so low or as irrelevant as marriage.
When I visited friends in Las Vegas, I noted the number of 'wedding chapels' around the town. "Get married in Vegas, divorced in Reno" was their quip. How simple, how utilitarian, how wrong. Tom Arnold, an actor and comedian, quipped on the "Today Show" how ridiculous it was that someone could get married to someone they knew only 35 seconds, yet homosexuals who've been together 20 years can't get married. How typical, using an error to justify a wrong, and all in the name of fairness?
Von Hildebrand says that marriage "has been endowed with the honor of participating directly in the Kingdom of God." How is that? The Father, with the words "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) begot the Son Who is the Word of God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:1-3). The love the Father has for the Son and the Son for the Father brings the Spirit of Love, the Holy Spirit, and through Him, life. And that life, is loved by God because it comes from His love.
Now, let's look at what happens in a marriage. "He (Christ) answered, 'Have you not read that He Who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one?' So they are no longer two but one'" (Matthew 19: 4-6).
The two shall become one. Not two separate people. Both, in a way, die to themselves and begin to live for the other. Mutual love and support, since to love and support the one is to love and support themselves.
This love is only partially expressed in the marital act, the sexual act. This is the total giving of oneself to the other. It isn't the center piece of the marriage. It isn't a conquest but a surrender, on the part of both. From this expression of love comes life, children. And since the children come from love, they too are loved. Can you see a sort of earthly trinity here?
God the Father and God the Son plus God the Holy Spirit = the Trinity.
Husband and Wife plus Children = an earthly trinity.
Recall the words of Dietrich von Hildebrand? "No other good has been chosen to become one of the seven Sacraments. No other has been endowed with the honor of participating directly in the Kingdom of God." (Marriage: the mystery of faithful love)
This creates a cycle of love, true love. The children, seeing their parents love each other, and them, seek this love themselves. A healthy, true love. "The love of husband and wife is perfected as it becomes triune; now there is the lover, the beloved, and love--the love being something distinct from both, and yet in both. If there is only the mine and thine, there is impenetrability and separateness. Not until there is a third acting element, as the soil in which the two vines intertwine, is there oneness. Then is the impotence of the I to completely possess the Thou overcome in the realization that there is a bond outside pulling them together, hovering over them as the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, turning the I and Thou into a We. It is this that lovers mean when, without knowing it, they speak of "our love" as something distinct from each." (THREE TO GET MARRIED;by Fulton J. Sheen, Ph.D., D.D.).
Now, we know that, for every good God does, for every action God makes, the devil, the enemy, makes a counterfeit, or acts to destroy what God has established. How to do that here? Remove the sacredness of marriage. Refer to it as only an institution, a political/social institution. We hear some say that marriage is only the legalization of what they already feel. That there's no reason to go through the 'formality' of marriage if they are already married in their heart. The problem here is that marriage without God is not a true marriage. The marriage is the Church's witness of their love, and God being a part of it. As Bishop Sheen wrote, it takes three to truly get married. The man, the woman, and God. We even hear some say marriage is nothing more than the institutionalized oppression of men over women. Again, this shows, not just a lack of knowledge or understanding of what marriage is, but an open attack on it. And who would that serve?
If marriage is nothing more than a socio-political institution, then it can be entered into with little thought. Love, true love, no longer is the basis of the marriage. The cycle we spoke of before, is broken. A man and a woman get married for other reasons. Some, living in poverty, abuse, etc, may see marriage as an escape. Marrying the first person they can find who will remove them from that life. The marriage is not founded on love, so any life that may come from it will most likely not be loved. In fact, we see that often, the children of these marriages are forced to relive the pains of their parents, and are likely to continue it themselves. Another, self centered cycle, begun.
Maybe the children's life isn't poor or abusive, but the love isn't there. So...they seek out love, any love. Which society has distorted into sex. Again, we see sex, not as a surrender of one to another, but a selfish act of escape or personal pleasure. The other, for one reason or another, isn't cherished, but used. Here, we see that a possible marriage is founded, not on love, but sex. In fact, it seems that society tells us that that's all marriage is, sex.
We have books extolling the virtues of 'spicing' up your sex life. Viagra, etc. is seen as a necessity. "Love is primarily in the will, not in the emotions or the glands. The will is like the voice; the emotions are like the echo. The pleasure associated with love, or what is today called 'sex,' is the frosting on the cake; its purpose is to make us love the cake, not ignore it. The greatest illusion of lovers is to believe that the intensity of their sexual attraction is the guarantee of the perpetuity of their love. It is because of this failure to distinguish between the glandular and spiritual--or between sex which we have in common with animals, and love which we have in common with God--that marriages are so full of deception. What some people love is not a person, but the experience of being in love. The first is irreplaceable; the second is not. As soon as the glands cease to react with their pristine force, couples who identified emotionalism and love claim they no longer love one another" (Ibid).
Over the years, due to this distortion and abuse of marriage, due to the replacement of love with sex, we have marriages failing. We see dysfunctional and abusive families. Children are not seen as gifts from God, as living expressions of a couple's love, but as a burden.
Now, with marriage under such attacks, with it as belittled in our society as it is, we're supposed to turn around and hold it up as something everyone has a right to? Again, an expression of marriage as nothing more than an socio-political institution. "The sexual revolution gradually brought us to the point where the complex fabric of laws and mores which together supported and sustained marriage and the family has largely been unravelled. We are beginning to see the effects on social behavior. More to the point, these changes have gradually eroded our understanding of what marriage is. No longer is marriage considered universally in the public mind as a permanent union; no longer is it considered to have any necessary connection to children; no longer does it universally bind to fidelity; and that sex should be reserved for it is today's unthinkable thought. Marriage has become a mere diaphanous thing. To Murray (Karen Murray of the Northern Virginia Journal), for example, it means a public declaration of 'the mutual devotion between any pair of adults,' a pledge of 'support, loyalty protection of the partner's privacy' which 'others are expected to honor and reinforce'" (Homosexual Marriage: Much to Fear; by Burman Skrable).
Hence, marriage is no longer the sacred union of a man and a woman from which life comes, not from duty but from love, to a means of social acceptance. Even though society generally doesn't hold marriage in the same esteem as it once did. "The evolutionary emptying of the concept of marriage, and the concomitant acceptance of homosexual relations - both products of the same revolutionary forces - largely explain the drive for homosexual 'marriage.' Who, homosexual or heterosexual, could conceive of same-sex 'marriage' if marriage meant more than it does today? More than anything else, our increasing technical ability to sever the biological link between sex and children, and the contraceptive mentality that grew from it - the belief that to separate sex from its natural consequences was not only natural but a right - probably paved the way for tolerating homosexual relations. But tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance. And even though marriage may now be but a shadow of its former self, it still retains some power to make sexual activity legitimate. So, same-sex couples grasp at it even when so many heterosexual couples find it superfluous. They may not believe society needs the institution of marriage, but it would salve their consciences and help them hold their heads high in public" (Ibid).
This concept, now evidently embraced by the Vermont State legislature, could not have occurred if the true concept of marriage was maintained. In order for this to occur, marriage had to be all but destroyed. In order for this to be accepted, it had to go from the notion of if it's right to if it's fair. "To Murray, same-sex marriage is a simple issue of justice to gays, will promote a more stable lifestyle among gays, and will redound to the advantage of any children being raised in gay households" (Ibid).
I can't imagine what kind of 'advantage' a child would have living in a gay household? Except that they would be raised under the erroneous misconception that this is an acceptable and 'natural' lifestyle. What would the consequences be to marriage? It would essentially kill it.
"1) It would remove marriages sole original defining characteristic, that it is a union of one man and one woman.
2) Although it would not change much of what is left of marriage-because not much is left today-it would lock in the 'gains" of the sexual revolution. That, by itself is extremely serious: what society really needs is the restoration of marriage; same-sex marriage would continue marriage on its present search for the bottom. That would further solidify the notions that sex need not have a necessary connection to procreation, nor marriage to children. Similarly, it is hard to imagine that same-sex couples-especially males-would want to see marriage restored to being a permanent and exclusive union. Male homosexual relations are inherently so transitory that many gay activists opposed same-sex marriage on the grounds that it would be so restrictive of the gay lifestyle that failure would be virtually guaranteed. In short, marriage would be further solidified as a meaningless institution in which society has no inherent interest, unless one makes the leap (not uncommonly implied today) of saying that society's real interest is in making us all feel good by legitimating every conceivable choice.
Allowing homosexual marriage would further dilute the uniqueness of marriage by opening it to all who want it, regardless of their potential to fulfill an essential societal function. If a privilege is open to all, it is no longer a privilege. This great leveling process would further diminish the incentives to bear and raise children. Homosexual marriage is a chimera of the real thing on which society depends for its continuation and health. It would further reinforce the sexual revolution's notion-which is too strong already-that any connection between sex and children is purely optional. It sends the subliminal message that everything should be a matter of choice, that nothing is a given or need be permanent, and that sexual differences are imaginative fictions imposed through socialization. I believe that these effects are enough to fear from extending marriage to same-sex couples" (Ibid)
Before anyone says that there are many homosexual couples who remain together and faithful for years, they are the exception rather than the rule, as is true of unmarried heterosexual couples living together. If we were to accept that, then we'd still have to reject the notion of same sex marriages since approximately 50% of heterosexual marriages do the same. But to justify the 'new' socio-political order, the exceptions are emphasized in both cases.
"There are two reasons for the primacy of sex over love in a decadent civilization. One is the decline of reason. As humans give up reason, they resort to their imaginations. That is why motion pictures and picture magazines enjoy such popularity. As thinking fades, unrestrained desires come to the fore. Since physical and erotic desires are among the easiest to dwell upon, because they require no effort and because they are powerfully aided by bodily passions, sex begins to be all-important. It is by no historical accident that an age of anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, such as our own, is also an age of carnal license" (THREE TO GET MARRIED;by Fulton J. Sheen, Ph.D., D.D.).
The only reason why anyone would advocate the marriage of homosexuals, when marriage is so little regarded today, is to legitimize the lifestyle. And it would serve only to not just further lessen marriage, but ultimately destroy it.
Pax Christi, Pat
Today we continue with our new series in the search to uncover the wonderful treasures of the Church contained in the great Deposit of Faith. Today we present the catechesis on the Seven Deadly or Capital Sins with today's fourth and fifth sins of Anger and Gluttony as explained in My Catholic Faith. These two sins deal strongly with the need for self control for Anger especially contributes greatly to misunderstanding and tension in society today. For the 137th installment, see APPRECIATING THE PRECIOUS GIFT OF OUR FAITH
Anger, or wrath, is a temporary madness. A man with this vice flies into a rage at every little thing. He always puts the blame of his anger on others, and even when he is alone he gets angry. "The wrath of man does not work the justice of God" (James 1:20).
Willful murder, one of the "sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance", arises from anger. When the first willful murder took place, and Cain killed his brother Abel, God said to Cain, "The voice of thy brother's blood crieth to Me from the earth" (Genesis 4:10).
He who indulges in anger injures his health, becomes hated, incurs damnation. Many men have had a stroke of paralysis brought on by anger; some have even died. If anger is so hurtful to the body, how much more to the soul!
When we feel ourselves becoming angry, we should never speak or act, but try to calm ourselves by prayer. Saint Francis de Sales said: "I have made an agreement with my tongue never to utter a word while my heart is excited." "Let every man be slow to speak and slow to wrath" (James 1:19).
If we should be so unhappy as to have offended anyone by our anger, we should hasten to apologize. "Do not let the sun go down upon your anger" (Ephesians 4:26).
A just anger against sin and injustice is praiseworthy. We may hate the sin, but not the sinner. Jesus Christ had this just wrath when He drove the sellers from the Temple. Holy Scripture says, "Be angry and do not sin" (Ephesians 4:26).
Gluttony is an excessive desire for or indulgence in food or drink. Our Lord showed how hateful gluttony is in the parable of the rich man, Dives, and the poor Lazarus. Dives was so greedy that he would not even give scraps to Lazarus, who sat at his gate. But when Dives died, he went to hell, while Lazarus went to Heaven. The brothers of Joseph were so envious of him that they sold him to some merchants going to Egypt. God rebuked their sin by blessing Joseph in Egypt, and causing him to be in a position to help his envious brothers later.
Gluttony is greediness, intemperance in eathing and drinking. Of the gluttonous, Saint Paul said that "their god is the belly" (Philippians 3:19). We should not be either too greedy or too dainty about the nourishment we take. The virtue opposed to gluttony is temperance. We should not eat more than we need to support life. "We do not live to eat, but eat to live." We must not take what is injurious to health, even if its taste is pleasing. We must have regular hours for our meals. We should not be too particular about food, eat what is set before us, and not get angry when a dish is not very appetizing. The purpose of food is to give strength for the work we do while still on earth preparing for our final end.
Gluttony produces dullness of mind, laziness, and sensuality. The vice of drunkenness is a terrible evil, leading to worse sins. A man when drunk loses his reason, and often makes a fool of himself. If reason is the chief difference between man and the beast, why should one extinguish it by drunkenness? "The sensual man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:14). "He who sows in his flesh, from the flesh also he will reap corruption" (Galatians 6:8). It is well for young people to abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages and smoking till after they are twenty years of age. If they do this, the likehood is that they will not contract vice and hopefully never take up cigarettes or chewing tobacco considering the dangers discovered in recent decades.
Tomorrow: Seven Deadly Sins: part four Envy and Sloth
Today's and tomorrow's liturgy are both Lenten Weekdays plus today's optional feast of Saint Toribio de Mogrovejo, Bishop. For the readings, liturgies, meditations, and his profile, see DAILY LITURGY.
Special Prayer for Thursday in the Second Week of Lent
Grant we beseech Thee, O Lord, the help of Thy grace: that duly applying ourselves to fasting and prayers, we may be delivered from enemies of mind and of body. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever. Amen.
"If they do no hearken to Moses and the Prophets, they will not believe even if someone rises from the dead."
Our hearts are dulled to danger!
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but the words of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen have been known to launch a thousand images in one's mind, one of the ways this late luminary did so much to evangelize the faith. Because of the urgency of the times and because few there are today who possess the wisdom, simplicity and insight than the late Archbishop who touched millions, we are bringing you daily gems from his writings. The good bishop makes it so simple that we have dubbed this daily series: "SIMPLY SHEEN".
"Modern man has become passive in the face of evil. He has so long preached a doctrine of false tolerance; has so long believed that right and wrong were only differences in a point of view, that now when evil works itself out in practice he is paralyzed to do anything against it."
