The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
On marriage, the bishops should start over
Oct. 12, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionWhen the U.S. bishops meet next month in Baltimore they should scrap the entire text of the proposed pastoral letter on marriage and start fresh (see related story).
The primary problem with the draft, obtained by NCR and available for viewing on our Web site (read the draft pastoral here), is that it is not, as advertised, pastoral.
In fact, it reads as if it was written by someone who has never once engaged in a marriage preparation program, let alone actually ever been married.
The bishops should demand a text that is specifically useful in helping young people prepare for marriage. Young couples come to the church for their marriage ceremonies not only because churches make good backdrops for the wedding photographs. And even if they do come for that reason, marriage preparation presents an opportunity to evangelize, an opportunity to teach about the vocation of marriage and the way that it is tied to our Catholic sacramental understanding of salvation. The document should be something a pastoral minister or parish priest can hand to a couple during their first meeting for marriage preparation, a sort of guide to what they are actually asking of the church and the mystery the church is about to celebrate with them. Instead, the first section of the draft spends too much time talking about the threats to modern marriage, such as high divorce rates, cohabitation, same-sex unions and, of course, contraception (an "intrinsic evil").
The lack of pastoral solicitude that characterizes the entire document is most prominently on display in the discussion of cohabitation, another "intrinsic evil." The draft states: "At the heart of cohabitation lies a reluctance or refusal to make a public, permanent commitment." Perhaps the drafters could have put the sentiment in a more positive light. Like it or not, many (most?) Catholic couples do cohabitate prior to marrying, and when they come for marriage preparation, the pastor can and should lead them to grasp the church's teaching in its fullness. But that is not normally achieved by hitting them over the head.
Similar sweeping denunciations of modern trends plague the discussions of other issues, such as same-sex marriage. In the section that treats gay marriage, the draft does speak of the dignity of all people, including gays and lesbians, but it does not lead with this insight. Nor does the current draft examine any approach beyond mere opposition to same-sex unions. In Latin America, some church leaders have proposed, with Vatican approval, that their governments enact laws that allow those with a "shared domicile" to obtain health care and other benefits, whether it be a same-sex partner or an unemployed cousin or a retired aunt who share the domicile. After all, the church is in favor of the extension of social benefits to all, so when the church's leaders find themselves opposing such an extension of benefits, they need to look harder to find creative ways to honor the integrity of the church's teaching.
This section will doubtless garner a great deal of media attention given the push in several states to enact gay marriage. The bishops have a real opportunity to differentiate their posture from the stance of those whose opposition to same-sex unions appears rooted primarily in bigotry.
Any rewriting of the document should begin with the Rite of Christian Marriage itself. From the pastoral perspective, it is this rite that will most interest young couples coming to their pastor to begin marriage preparation. The best way to teach our Catholic people about the sanctity of marriage is to provide them with something that explains the how and the why of the rite. The current draft mentions two of the blessings found in the nuptial Mass, but then moves on quickly. That is a shame, because the prayers and the readings at the nuptial Mass would help demonstrate the ecclesial, sacramental and biblical foundation for the church's teachings. The lack of focus on the rite and on the scripture results in a text that is strangely, and fatally, at odds with the texts of the Second Vatican Council.
Nowhere does the document state the simple fact that the sacrament of marriage is conferred in a nuptial Mass. Why is this so? Our Protestant brothers and sisters do not usually celebrate Communion as part of the marriage ceremony. This is a distinctive Catholic tradition and one worth explaining to young couples preparing for marriage. Indeed, one of the characteristics of a "letter," pastoral or otherwise, is that it is sent to someone. If this pastoral letter is not intended for couples preparing for marriage, to whom is it directed? Young people are coming to request the sacrament of marriage because some part of their heart is drawn to the faith. This is a moment to evangelize them, to help them flesh out their own aspirations for their marriage, and to unite their marital vocation to the vocation to holiness.
The bishops have been invited to propose amendments to the draft at their meeting in November, but there is almost no way to turn this turkey of a text into something that lives up to its billing as a pastoral letter. They should start from scratch and entrust the writing of a new text to someone who has actually engaged in marriage preparation. If young couples can't find themselves in the text, this unique opportunity to present the church's teaching in all its beauty and attractiveness will be lost. We simply cannot afford to lose such opportunities.
You should begin with CCC
You should begin with CCC 1623: "According to the Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Chrit's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church."
The spouses are the ministers, not the bishop or the priest! That is the fundamental teaching of the Church. The Rite of Christian Marriage is an expression of that reality: to be Christ's ministers. Now, who is fully aware of that?
Indeed...but one must be
Indeed...but one must be capable of receiving the sacrament no matter who confers it. For example, a cleric is by virtue of orders incapable of marriage. A married person may not enter into another marriage simultaneously. A man may not marry a tree because the treee is incapable of receiving the sacrament. Agreed?
"a cleric is by virtue of
"a cleric is by virtue of orders incapable of marriage" -- no, only clerits who are obliged to celibacy are forbidden to marry, not in virtue of orders but in virtue of church law. In fact many "laicized" priests do marry, and of course there are many married ex-Anglican priests.
Who can and who cannot marry is much more a question of legal fiat (which has varied hugely from epoch to epoch and from cultural context to cultural context even within Roman Catholicism) than of ontological necessity, as we are slowly discovering in the case of gay couples.
"A man may not marry a tree
"A man may not marry a tree because the tree is incapable of receiving the sacrament. Agreed?"
Nope, I don't agree...the 'tree' is incapable of giving consent.
For centuries in many
For centuries in many different 'Catholic' cultures, women were considered 'incapable of giving consent'. It was given by her father or another male member of her family; and it was done whether she agreed or not to the marriage.
Andre
Yes indeed what you wrote is
Yes indeed what you wrote is true. I concluded that the first physical relationship between a Virgin Man and a Virgin Woman creates a Permanent Physical bond (I concluded it alters a segment of the Genetic Code permanently.) That means any subsequent relationship with outside the original relationship is POLYGAMY and completely unjust and against God's permanent Design. the problem with cohabitation is that it does not necessary occurs between the two original virgins and not necessary with understanding the relationship is permanent. Therefore, my conclusion is either a relationship with the original partner or Permanent Chastity, if one desire to inherit the kingdom of God more than get his or her reward during the life on earth. You can read my full discussions and evidence in my book the Ultimate Good and Bad.
Fornication is wrong because
Fornication is wrong because it is a sin against one's own body because it is an abuse of the unitive nature of sexuality. We pay for that sin here and that erosion of the soul which endagers life hereafter. God does not make these rules for his sake, but for ours. Your comment (and much of the teaching of the Church on this matter) says otherwise, which is a pity.
Methinks you merely have a
Methinks you merely have a problem when Church doctrine is presented with clarity, because then you can't weasel out of it with feigned attempts at "nuance" or "being pastoral". Telling the truth is the first principle of being pastoral. Being pastoral never means deceiving or misleading or hiding the truth, yet that is apparently what you want the Church to do. Cohabitation, artificial contraception, homosexual acts and unions: all are intrinsically evil, grave threats to the spiritual well-being and salvation of those who engage in them. The bishops recognize -- finally -- that the culture of decadence has had more success in shaping young people's attitudes about marriage and sex than the Church, and they're trying to begin addressing that by stating with clarity what the Church's doctrine is. You would do better to help to support such an effort instead of trying to obfuscate and promote dissidence.
I agree with this..........
I agree with this..........
So "being pastoral never
So "being pastoral never means deceiving or misleading or hiding the truth" like the bishops and pope and priests did with the "Cohabitation, artificial contraception, homosexual acts and unions: all are intrinsically evil, grave threats to the spiritual well-being and salvation of those who engage in them" priests? And they are going to tell US what to do?
A simple Catholic on Oct. 12,
A simple Catholic on Oct. 12, 2009.
You stated:
"Methinks you merely have a problem when Church doctrine is presented with clarity, because then you can't weasel out of it with feigned attempts at "nuance" or "being pastoral". Telling the truth is the first principle of being pastoral. Being pastoral never means deceiving or misleading or hiding the truth, yet that is apparently what you want the Church to do. Cohabitation, artificial contraception, homosexual acts and unions: all are intrinsically evil, grave threats to the spiritual well-being and salvation of those who engage in them. The bishops recognize -- finally -- that the culture of decadence has had more success in shaping young people's attitudes about marriage and sex than the Church, and they're trying to begin addressing that by stating with clarity what the Church's doctrine is. You would do better to help to support such an effort instead of trying to obfuscate and promote dissidence."
------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that writing this poor excuse of a pastoral letter is going to re-shape young people's attitudes about marriage, sex and the Church? As some of the other posters noted, these bishops know absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing about marriage---how it is actually lived in American society and how American society shapes, reflects and forms the back-drop for this sacrament which is the most important unit in both the Church and civil society.
The Holy Spirit knows
The Holy Spirit knows everything He needs to know about Marriage, and he will continue to speak through His anointed Bishops on the important matters as He has for the past two thousand years.
Then, Michael, I wonder who
Then, Michael, I wonder who it is that gagged the Holy Spirit of speaking through His annointed Bishops before and during the revelations of the entire sex abuse scandal in the Church? That you think that this document is the best our US Bishops could offer the faithful as a guide to Catholic marriage serves to illustrate why the vast majority of Catholics disregard what the heirarchy tells us, just like they have done in Europe for hundreds of years.
Excuse me, but during
Excuse me, but during Vatican II, the college of Cardinals and Bishops have recognized and stated that the Holy Spirit works and acts in all of God's people, even the lowest, and that all the church benefits from this action.
The Spirit does not work exclusively through the Bishops.
Sorry LittleBear, Church
Sorry LittleBear, Church teachings based on natural law and the Gospel should shape American culture. American culture should not shape Church teachings. Churches that adapt sacred teachings to the times are soon lost in time. If being married was a requisite for speaking on marriage, Christ would have nothing to offer us nor would you.
If Jesus was not married, the
If Jesus was not married, the Gospels would have told us so. Paul tells us specifically that HE WAS NOT MARRIED----because not being married was so outside of the norm for Jewish society.
Chapter and verse? (Jesus,
Chapter and verse?
(Jesus, like all his brothers and sisters, like all his apostles, like all in his culture/religion, was married. Odd how some would accuse his parents of failing in their duty to find him a wife.)
LittleBear: Jesus is the
LittleBear: Jesus is the Bridegroom of the Church. If He had a human wife, you don't think the Gospels would tell us??? Really???
Submitted by Cyprian on Oct.
Submitted by Cyprian on Oct. 16, 2009.
You stated:
"LittleBear: Jesus is the Bridegroom of the Church. If He had a human wife, you don't think the Gospels would tell us??? Really???"
---------------------------------------------------------------
This term appears in the Old Testament prophets, who described Israel as God's bride or wife (for example Isaiah 54:5). John the Baptist talks in the Gospel of John 3:29 in terms of himself as a "best man" with the implication that Christ the Bridegroom (see also Matthew 9:15), is coming to meet his bride. But there is nothing specific to identify the bride. It could be another reference to Israel.
St. Paul in 2 Cornithians (11:2) speaks of presenting the church (at Corinth) as a pure virgin to Christ as husband. In the Book of Revelation, John (in chapter 21) describes the relationship between Christ and his church. However, in Revelation (chapter 21), the bride is explicitly the New Jerusalem AFTER the final judgment rather than the earthly church.
Actually, it was your patron saint Cyprian of Carthage, who really first applied that image to the Church. (Cyprian of Cartage, "De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate," pg 4-6)in 240-258 A.D.
Now, I certainly believe that Jesus has everything to say about marriage. And I do believe that the Gospels are not a biography per se, nor a history book, per se.
Would your faith be shaken if we knew for sure, that St. Joseph had been married before and his wife died leaving him with young children? Would that decrease, somehow, his goodness as a man of God, a husband and a father? What if Jesus was the youngest child in this family---the only child of Mary-----her "Firstborn Son". That would certainly give Jesus his great perspective on fathers and sons as seen especially his "Prodigal Son" story.
But that would not detract from Joseph's or Mary's holiness, would it?
We really don't know the behind the scenes into the family life of Jesus. But he was a great observer of simple family life, social life---from which his parables came---and he didn't get this all from studying theology at the "Greg" (Gregorian University in Rome).
The Old Testament prophets were married. The Apostles (maybe with the exception of John) were married---nobody talks about their wives or children either---but many were among the Lord's disciples. The early Church was very much a "family thing".
All Scripture are inspired.
All Scripture are inspired. The Gospels tell us nothing about Mary, Martha and Lazarus having spouses. Since you say that Paul told us that Jesus was not married, you would hold that Jesus would have nothing to offer about married life.
Submitted by Milbo 1 on Oct.
Submitted by Milbo 1 on Oct. 16, 2009.
You stated:
"All Scripture are inspired. The Gospels tell us nothing about Mary, Martha and Lazarus having spouses. Since you say that Paul told us that Jesus was not married, you would hold that Jesus would have nothing to offer about married life."
---------------------------------------------
Scripture is not exactly a history book not is it a biography. It does have
historical aspects to it and certainly some bits of biography---but that is not its chief purpose.
Paul told us that he (Paul) was not married, and would not be married, since he expected that Christ would be making his (Christ's) Second Coming soon. And that is why Paul encouraged Christian to "remain as they are". If not married, to remain so. If married, to remain so."
Paul's marital state was unusual for a Jew. In general, Jewish parents had certain duties to perform for their children, especially male children.
From all aspects, Mary and Joseph did this for Jesus. They are:
1) Circumsize the boy after 8 days of birth
2) Pay 'ransom' for the firstborn son (Exodus 34:19). Bring to the Temple after 40 days and offer either a lamb or 2 turtle doves as ransom.
3) Teach sons a manual trade.
4) Prepare son for bar mitzvah (becoming a 'son of the law') celebrated at age 13.
5) Find a suitable bride for son (between his 15th-17th)year. He was betrothed first (usually to a girl between her 13th-15th year). And in that time period, they were married. Given that the average life span was 25 years---marriage occured early.
We know that Mary was engaged to marry Joseph when she was around 14. Why wouldn't Joseph and Mary---fulfill their responsibilities to Jesus when he was between 15-17. Jesus' life after age 12, is not reported in scripture--but we can assume that it was a normal life--since Jesus "was obedient to them" (Luke 2:51-52).
Dear Milbo, your comment
Dear Milbo, your comment raises many questions.
Is it the American culture before or after Columbus "discovered" us that you speak of? Was there nothing sacred in this hemisphere before the pilgrims and explorers were welcomed by the images of God who were here already? Which "natural law" does our Church base its teachings on? When was the Gospel canonized? What were our Church's teachngs based on before the Book of the Gospels was available to all?
Jesus is the Son of God in the unity of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is the Source and Summit of all sacramental life, beginning with marriage. Because of this, not only did Christ have everything to offer, he took on our humanity so that he could offer us a share in his divinity.
This is the "marriage" of the Creator with his creation. This is the communion that Jesus prayed for and offered us at the Last Supper. This is the Good News that the Good Shepherd came to bring our human family. Unfortunately, many of our current pastors seem to be more concerned with herding the flock into corals rather than guiding our desire to go out into the world with the Word of God and the Word of God made flesh. Our bishops seem to be pointing out our inherent human weakness and ignoring our desire to realize the prayer of Jesus, that we all may be one.
Jesus first invited us to "come and see" and then sent us out "into the deep". Only when we come together in "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit", only then will the call to holiness be an invitation we all willingly answer and not just a law we must grudgingly observe. Jesus came to save us not condemn us.
Pax et Bonum, Rolando.
Rolando Rodriguez SFO, I do
Rolando Rodriguez SFO, I do not understand your point as to which American culture you are speaking of. My point remains the same. The Gospel should shape the culture--any culture--and not the other way. If you are into splitting hairs, American culture can only refer to post-Columbus since America was named after Americo Vespucci who made his expedition after Columbus. True, there was a culture before Columbus on these shores but it was not American. Regardless, all cultures should reflect the values and laws of the Creator.
Milbo 1 on Oct. 19,
Milbo 1 on Oct. 19, 2009.
You stated:
"Rolando Rodriguez SFO, I do not understand your point as to which American culture you are speaking of. My point remains the same. The Gospel should shape the culture--any culture--and not the other way. If you are into splitting hairs, American culture can only refer to post-Columbus since America was named after Americo Vespucci who made his expedition after Columbus. True, there was a culture before Columbus on these shores but it was not American. Regardless, all cultures should reflect the values and laws of the Creator."
------------------------------------------------------------------
The peoples who were here before Columbus came HAD a phenomenal culture and these cultures were far advanced beyond anything that Europe had. But the Europeans had weapons that the Incas, Aztec and descendents of the Toltec and Mayan peoples did not have. And the Spanish also carried diseases from Europe (like Small Pox), that almost destroyed the entire population.
It was Columbus who wrongly named the people "Indians". Because the Spanish (and other European countries) did not understand the culture of these people, they destroyed it.
They really weren't concerned about bringing any authentic Christianity to the Americas, they only wanted riches. The form of Christianity that was often introduced was demeaning to the dignity of the native Americans. They were made slaves, serfs--peons. They were taught that somehow they were "less" than their European conquerors. If that is how culture is to reflect the laws and values of the Creator---then the "Creator" whom these people were introduced to---was a savage. It certainly did not reflect any values of Jesus Christ.
Americo Vespucci was an Italian map-maker, not a conquistador.
LittleBear, I am well aware
LittleBear, I am well aware of history. You missed the point again. I made no representation that a violent culture represented the Creator. A violent culture certainly does not reflect the values and laws of the Creator. My statement was that every culture SHOULD reflect these values and laws. I am well aware that not all cultures do. Sadly, our American culture is more and more turning to a culture of death which does not reflect the laws and values of the Creator. Yes, Columbus did come for riches. Where did I say that he came to evangelize? Columbus did pave the way for the French missionaries--the North American Martyrs and other missionaries who brought the faith and the laws and values of the Creator. Not Europeans who came treated those who were already here in a Christian manner, but not all of those who were already here (it is wrong to call them Native Americans because they must have come from somewhere else. Also I am a native American and I'm sure you are also) were as peaceful and as loving as you revisionist would like to believe. Some of the (for lack of a better word) Native Americans were brutal and cruel. Also I never said Americio Vespucci was a conquisitador. He did make an expedition and I only said the country was named for him. In your attempt to disagree with everything I say, you fail to see what was written. Better luck next time.
Milbo 1 you are completely
Milbo 1 you are completely ignoring the Spanish conquest, which was brutal and did effect agrarian peaceful tribes quite disastrously. The Spanish Dominicans and Franciscans were not French Jesuits. They brought the Inquisition with them. The French Jesuits did not.
Milbo 1 on Oct. 20, 2009. You
Milbo 1 on Oct. 20, 2009.
You stated:
"LittleBear, I am well aware of history. You missed the point again...."
-------------------------------------------------
If anybody misses the point, over and over again---it's YOU. In spite of all of your blathering---Native Americans are people who are Native to North and South America. They are the indigenous peoples of the Americas, natives of the American continents.
You make many assumptions---I am not a revisionist. But I believe in reading the history from both sides of the question. The Native Americans were cheated out of their land. They fought for their homes, their right to hunt on the land without fences, their very right to exist. They were often moved to land so poor that nobody could eek a living from it. And when they fought back---they were considered 'savages'.
I'm not a Native American. But my name, Little Bear, was given to me by a Native American. When I was very young, we lived just about 8 miles from the PineRidge Reservation (Lakota) in South Dakota. We did visit there---my mother was a nurse--and helped there sometimes. I was barely 4, when the people were excited and said that a great and holy man was coming to the reservation. He was dying, had relatives there, and wanted to see them before he died. The day that he came, I had my hair in braids, and I played with the dying man's great, great grandchildren, until we were called inside.
When I saw him lying on a bed, I thought that he was the oldest person that I had ever seen(he was). He did not speak English---never did. He took my braid into his hands, fingered it awhile, looked at me, and then said something in the Lakota (Sioux) dialect. The women there, told me that he had given me a name----Little Bear with Yellow Hair. Neither I nor my parents knew who this man really was.
It was only many years later, that I learned who Black Elk was, his history and I learned about his spiritual journey as well. It helped me to see that God guides us, loves us unconditionally and is able to used even our sins, and mistakes to bring us closer to God.
LittleBear states: When I
LittleBear states:
When I was very young, we lived just about 8 miles from the PineRidge Reservation (Lakota) in South Dakota.
In a previous post, you said you grew up in the deep South and experienced "rednecks" When you were on the reservation, you read the unedited documents of Vatican II. You are amazing!
The topic here is marriage and not who is a Native American or not. I am a Native American. I was born here. I agree with you wholeheartedly that "God guides us, loves us unconditionally and is able to use even our sins, and mistakes to bring us closer to God." I might add that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God--Native Americans, immigrants---all people! The Native Americans that you speak of do not have a perfect history; they have their faults also. Please stop trying to divide people. Let us strive for a better future--learning the lessons of the past and striving to do better.
Milbo 1 on Oct. 23, 2009.
Milbo 1 on Oct. 23, 2009.
You stated:
"LittleBear states:
When I was very young, we lived just about 8 miles from the PineRidge Reservation (Lakota) in South Dakota.
In a previous post, you said you grew up in the deep South and experienced "rednecks" When you were on the reservation, you read the unedited documents of Vatican II. You are amazing!
The topic here is marriage and not who is a Native American or not. I am a Native American. I was born here. I agree with you wholeheartedly that "God guides us, loves us unconditionally and is able to use even our sins, and mistakes to bring us closer to God." I might add that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God--Native Americans, immigrants---all people! The Native Americans that you speak of do not have a perfect history; they have their faults also. Please stop trying to divide people. Let us strive for a better future--learning the lessons of the past and striving to do better."
---------------------------------------------------
My father was a career Army man (25 years)---we moved all over the United States. Rather than divide people---I learned to see African American and Native Americans close up and sit at the table with them, and listen to their stories. My father believed in the basic goodness of people---not in bringing up the worst in their natures. The people that I grew to love and admire---had these qualities---no matter their skin color.
Little Bear writes: My father
Little Bear writes:
My father was a career Army man (25 years)---we moved all over the United States. Rather than divide people---I learned to see African American and Native Americans close up and sit at the table with them, and listen to their stories. My father believed in the basic goodness of people---not in bringing up the worst in their natures. The people that I grew to love and admire---had these qualities---no matter their skin color.
*************
I am happy that your father did not bring up the worst in people's natures. You obviously did not learn that lesson from him. You certainly had some mean things to say about the Europeans. I, like your father, am a truthful man.
Milbo, well said. Natural
Milbo, well said. Natural law, that which is "written on the heart" is the beginning point of all Church teaching. Sadly, some want to disregard natural law, since what they want to practice is "unnatural". Such has always been human nature. It should not surprise us that this trend continues, even in the present day. What is sad is that so many within the Church herself oppose natural law and the teachings of Mother Church on issues as basic as matrimony.
Meanwhile, you are correct in asserting that Christ would have nothing to say to us about matrimony, since He was not married. By that same logic that is being used by some, since Christ never sinned He would have nothing to say to us on the subject of sin. Since He lived 2000 years ago, He would have nothing to say to us in our modern age, an age when we are faced with problems such that many people 2000 years ago could not possibly understand. It is easy to see how flawed such "logic" is.
Natural Law as interpreted
Natural Law as interpreted and preached by whom? Same guys who passed abusive priest on from parish to parish, same guys who time and time again defraud people financially.
Gimme a break. These guys are only out to protect the institution and their jobs in it--and gain red hats!
Why is this a "poor excuse of
Why is this a "poor excuse of a pastoral letter"?
And why is it that you say these bishops know nothing, nothing, nothing about marriage?
Could you clarify this for us?
Complaints about this not being based upon the Rite of Christian Marriage are unfounded; the first page has a prayer from the actual Rite, as well as the second page.
Maybe Catholics in American culture should be formed according to Catholic teaching instead of Catholic teaching being formed according to American culture. Because at the rate we are going, marriage is not going to win out, at least in the Church's understanding of marriage; fidelity, permanence, openness to children?
If we succumb to the present day culture, we might as well forget about marriage preparation or sacramental marriage and have people married at the JP's office.
Now THAT'S a legal situation that can be changed; sacramental marriage is a much different thing.
And by the way, I do marriage preparation. I'm not "insulated" from parish life. But it does not mean this message is easily accepted by young people who live in a "material world" and are bombarded with the message of self-fulfillment instead of self-giving.
Okay, LittleBear, go after me:<)!
These Bishops will continue
These Bishops will continue to negatively re-shape all our attitudes towards them, young and old alike, by continuing to make statements that sound like they surely must be coming from a bunch of Archie Bunkers!
The Bishops make comments
The Bishops make comments that sound like they come from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you have a problem with the Bishop's statements, you have a problem with the Church, not with "a bunch of Archie Bunkers." I strongly recommend you read the Catechism before you go off half-cocked making slurs against leaders of the Church.
Haskell Catholic, I read your
Haskell Catholic, I read your post and just could not pass up the oportunity to comment on what you said. To begin with, if a person has a problem with what a bishop say's or does, does not mean he has a problem with the Catholic church. Bishops are not the Catholic church. How did you ever get to the point to believe that. If I say that the bisops have squandered millions of dollars without accountability. If I say,that bisops have been involved in compounding the sexual abuse scandal, If I say that bishops have done much harm to the Catholic church by allowing abusive priests to go free , without having to register as sex offenders. Would I be telling lies? If not, how am I making slurs against the Catholic church? Their is nothing wrong with the Catholic church Haskell, it's soo many of our church leaders.
This is the kind of document
This is the kind of document I would expect from men who were never really parish priests. After a stint as a baby priest, it was on to the Chancery or teaching in the seminaries. After forty-five years as a priest, I have rarely met a Chancery official who did not think he knew everything about everything.
Great comment! Which I took
Great comment! Which I took to mean "If you can't be Pope, at least act like an infallible Pope".
Seriously, you point out a most serious problem with the educational and vocational path of far too many Church officials. The very system they work in reinforces their prejudices and foibles. That is just the opposite of those of us who work in the world.
Dear Simple Catholic, Could
Dear Simple Catholic,
Could this letter by the Bishops be a camouflage attempting to hide real intrinsic evil? We have a group of men that live rather schizoid lives (lives alone without any closeness of a partner) telling others how to live their own lives of togetherness. I have climbed many academic gauntlets with 2 doctorates and teaching on the Medical school, Medical Resident and Ph.D. levels and I have found with all this that experience has always been my best teacher. It is not what is written in an article or a textbook or any book that is important, but what is important is our response to real life situations. That is when we grow and develop as human beings or fail to grow. So, when the Bishops write about sex and family, they are not doing it at all from experience. Why do they find it so important to write about “intrinsic evils” of a group that they have no experiential knowledge?
The major experience the bishops have is apologetics for an institution that believes by using purely deductive reasoning from historical facts (they call it their faith), they can prescribe the ethical norms for society. It is also interesting that much of their historical facts are not at all as clear cut as they would pronounce them. So debated facts and current observations have nothing to do with what this group of narrow thinkers describes as ethical standards. Only what they say -because they say it and declare it an article of faith- is to be believed. What I have just described is nothing less than a totalitarian mind set and their actions are not at all truly ethical standards but only self apologetics with the object of self preservation of an institution that states it can not change its views no matter the evidence recent or past. Scientific observation can not be true science if it does not agree with the faith of these men.
When two people attempt to come together for a long time relationship, there will be starts and stops just as through the marriage it will be so. Richard Sipe, a Benedictine Monk for 18 years who later married, had a son and practiced psychological counseling reports data that only about 50% of the Roman Catholic clergy is really celibate and that virtually 98% of Catholic priests commit what the bishops describe as the mortal sin of masturbation. These are the very men that are calling a lack of celibacy in engaged couples and gay sex intrinsic evils. This is nothing more than a projection of their own guilt on to others.
When a priest has an affair with a woman and impregnates her, to remain a priest he need not protect his lover and baby, he need not see to the welfare of his new born, all he MUST do to remain a priest is to give up the woman. If only a couple in a failed marriage had it so easy. Ethically through our civil court system at least the children must be taken care of. How can these men, our Bishops, clearly and ethically speak about the intrinsic evil of divorce? They can not even openly and ethically solve their own problems of paternity.
When an organization can not protect its own children from rape by its own clerical workers and when that same organization then protects the rapist and does nothing for the children that were rapped --- we are truly seeing INTRINSIC EVIL. This organization can no longer speak in an ethical way and if we look at secular society over the last several hundred years, we will see that most if not all the advances in ethical understanding have come from this group not the clergy. There is a lot of intrinsic evil in the leadership of an organization that will bless the latest war but will not fight for the medical protection of its own people. I wish the Bishops were simply irrelevant to society, they are not. They are pointing out with their accusations of others and their silence in their own misadventures where the real intrinsic evil actually exists.
May we have peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Dear Dr. Porch, I am so glad
Dear Dr. Porch,
I am so glad that you as a physician have decided to speak up. I want to discuss your great first paragraph! You stated that, “So, when the Bishops write about sex and family, they are not doing it at all from experience. Why do they find it so important to write about “intrinsic evils” of a group that they have no experiential knowledge?”
I have long thought the same about our own profession (I am a family physician). For example, those Oncologists really get me. They should not be treating all those cancers without experiencing the cancers first themselves. It is outrageous.
And what about those Cardiologists? Shouldn’t they have the experience of a myocardial infarction first? Experience alone, and not all those words and information in medical textbooks should rule the Cardiology fellowships. I suspect you know this from your many doctorate gauntlets.
And even our Psychiatrist colleagues…I can’t think of a better group of individuals to first suffer schizophrenia or bipolar disorder before they dare to judge others on the DSM-IV criteria.
I myself gave up my obstetric practice because I couldn’t become pregnant (my gender prevents me). I just didn’t think it was right to treat pregnant women if I wasn’t pregnant. I don’t know how female obstetricians do it.
I am thinking you obviously know something about the DSM-IV criteria since it appears you are judging those Bishops as being schizoid. I can only assume you are schizoid yourself in order to judge our Bishops as so? If not, that could be a problem. I suspect that is why you put the qualifier “rather” in so as not to give ammunition to those who would point out this weakness in your assertion.
In any case, thank you for your enjoyable contribution. I can’t comment further because I have patients to see.
C. Treptow MD
Dear Dr. Treptow, Thank you
Dear Dr. Treptow,
Thank you for your reply, but your comparisons are very pale. In the end you attack me for being schizoid. As a fallible human, I do have problems but schizoid is not one of them. Sorry I don’t meet the criteria, DSM or otherwise. You see I am a father of a large family and welcome living together intimately with others, that is the experience that the bishops just don’t have. They do not welcome intimate experiences and either fell guilty or become a hypocrite for having them. They are forced into a live of deprivations causing them to live a schizoid life.
You begin your discussion by describing the medical dilemma of doctors without a disease attempting to treat others with a disease and imply that for this reason experience is not necessary. Well I beg to differ with you. For one thing scientific observation is an attempt to gain experience that we can not get in another way. You sir can not be either a physician or a scientist without learning from experience. There are some oncologists with cancer that have contributed in ways that those without cancer can not. The same is true for cardiology. Perhaps the reason we have so many female gynecologists is that women recognize that other women may well have more experience.
So, thank you for your attack on what I said, you only make my points stronger. What would you do Doctor as a gynecologist without the experience of a residency in Gynecology. Could any one trust you? Could you trust yourself? Could you think clearly without your past experience or could you simply follow the rules and regulations of a canonical medical text?
May we have more peace and understanding through clear and professionally clear thinking,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Dear Dr. Porch, I apologize
Dear Dr. Porch,
I apologize for the lateness of my response, and the likelihood that this thread has run its course. On the off chance you are still around…
It was not my intent to judge you as being schizoid. I do not know you and accept your word that you are not. Rather, the suggestion that you must be schizoid in order to judge those “schizoid” Bishops was used to make a point (Side Note: All, some, a few? Do you know all of them? Or is your assertion that by virtue of their office they are schizoid? Or is your assertion that ALL celibates, not just bishops, are schizoid? It is not clear…).
And to avoid confusion, let me try to clarify by four questions that are linguistically, philosophically, and logically similar:
1. Is it absolutely necessary for a physician to experience coronary artery disease himself (a heart attack) in order to make decisions about the treatment and prevention of coronary artery disease in others?
2. Is it absolutely necessary for a Catholic Bishop to experience marriage himself in order to make decisions about how marriage ought to be in others?
3. Is it absolutely necessary for a person to experience a schizoid state in order to make decisions about the schizoid state of others?
4. Is it absolutely necessary for a person to experience murder by witnessing it or being impacted by it indirectly in order to make decisions about how murder ought not to be in others?
Are your answers the same for all four? To be rationally consistent, they ought to be.
Let me be clear that I do think personal experience is helpful, but not absolutely necessary. I can cognitively make decisions and judgments about things without having experienced them myself. And that really is the key, is it not? I do not have to murder in order to know it is wrong. I do not have to have been in South America in order to know it exists as I teach my son.
In your paragraph above about gynecology, I am helping to care for women and their infants during the birth process. I am the outsider helping them. I am not giving birth myself, nor do I have to be in order to help them. The Bishops are the outsider helping us. They are not married, nor do they have to be in order to help us.
God bless.
Craig Treptow MD
Dear Dr. Treptow, In short,
Dear Dr. Treptow,
In short, it is necessary for a physician to study science and learn by the experience of a residency and ever continuing practice. The problem with the Bishops in prescribing intimate relationships is that they neither have studied about them nor have they experienced them.
Finally those that are forced to lead a life alone without intimate relationship are living a schizoid life.
May we continue to learn from our books, our observations, and our experiences so that we can actually be helpful to others.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Dr. Treptow MD your argument
Dr. Treptow MD your argument echoes a favorite line of those in the Church to justify the claim that the celibate clergy are qualified to make diagnosis on what ails marital sex (= inability of couples to control) and prescribe the cure (abstinence). Is this the same as diagnosing a physical illness and prescribing the right medication or surgical procedure? The experience that Dr. Porch is referring to is not mere physical experience but actual marital experience in its entirety which the celibates do not have.
Come to think of it at least among you physicians your medical diagnoses are always based on a thorough scientific analysis. Those bishops who have to toe the current Vatican line make use of a deductive approach that is un-scientific and does not take serious account of empirical data (unless the data suit their ethical position). The moral teaching of the Church on sexual matters will have relevance in so far as it is attentive to the complexities of the actual experiences of couples and is backed up by solid empirical data. In an a-priori approach to marital ethical issues experience and empirical data are not crucial factors.
P.S. Had my wife and I subscribed to the clerical diagnosis and prescribed cure we would not have enjoyed the graced bliss of marital sex (we've got three lovely kids) as we had for the past twenty years.
Dear Dr. Treptow, I wonder if
Dear Dr. Treptow,
I wonder if you see something wrong with having experience. I know that an oncologist with cancer or a cardiologist with heart disease may be too sick to work, but I see a woman OB who has had here own babies. Now I know that it would not be prudent nor even good experience for a surgeon to operate on himself and that is why he or she needs to get experience operating on others. It is not always possible for everyone to have the exact experience that they are working in but I bet you got plenty of experience before you were allowed to deliver any babies on your own. Perhaps you even learned a thing or two from well experienced nurses. The Bishops can never have experience living in a marriage, yet they seem to want to set rules as if they knew something about it. Did they study marriage counseling? - or the science behind sex and human relationship? You know the answer. I think you need to rethink what you told Dr. Porch as he seems to know a little more about what he is saying. By the way once on this blog I heard that he is a neurologist or something.
...overkill with a one trick
...overkill with a one trick pony.
Dr Porch, my answer to you is
Dr Porch, my answer to you is in this example. A man with 2 doctorate degrees was on a boat trip next to an old simple man. The Doctor introduced himself to the old simple man and asked him of his education. The simple man replied, "I am not educated" and the doctor answered him, "You just wasted half of your life. During the journey the weather got rough and broke the boat. The simple old man asked the doctor, "Did you learn how to survive?" the doctor replied, "No." The old man answered him, "You just wasted all your life." My conclusion writing and searching my two books, "The Ultimate Goal of Life book and the Ultimate Good and Bad" that there is a difference between Living Life goals and experiences and the purpose of life. Living Life goals and experiences gives you a reward During Life and what you see is what you get. However, if one desires to win The Ultimate Goal of Life then compliance with our sexuality to as it was designed by God becomes utmost importance. Bishops should be focused on helping us win the Ultimate Goal of Life by abiding by our choices we make during our short life. The trouble is people wants everything the now and an easy passing ticket for the life after death.
Dear Samer, Your story is
Dear Samer,
Your story is cute but I see it exactly opposite to you. Priests and Bishops did once marry and as I recall reading between the lines in my Church history classes the real reason to prevent this practice was to gain more power and real estate for the Church. Not a very good reason to suffer the privation of not having an intimate partner. There is a real problem with our leadership today as they are so fearful of scandal and the loss of their own power that they have lost the ability to critically think about what they know and don't know. Dr. Porch has found in them the emperors without clothes. They are making themselves more laughable to critical thinkers by the day. It is really a shame that they do not understand that they are causing enormous damage to the People of God and not humbly serving them at all. Those who would defend these charlatans are equally culpable before God. We as the People of God are beginning to demand better leadership and the course of the Episcopacy is to turn a deaf ear. I think there is more real sin here than calling every sexual sin mortal.
Unfortunately you are wrong
Unfortunately you are wrong on each of the assumptions that you make in calling for your no holds barred attempt at evangelization. Many things over the centuries have been given a "spiritual" or religious significance when in fact they are about the culture trying to impose restrictions on people's behavior. None of the things you mention are intrinsicallly evil - they are more culturally based. When pork killed people, we forbade cloven hoofs; likely with charging interest. Unfortunately the obfuscation is yours.
Dear Hello, I am a little
Dear Hello,
I am a little confused about whom you are addressing with your remarks! If you are addressing Dr. Porch, in what way is he obfuscating? He does not even hide his very name. Mr. or Ms. Hello, you make some rather curious statements such as a simpleton "Unfortunately you are wrong." You don't explain anything of what Dr. Porch said, you sound like the totalitarian minds that he derides. “We say it is so not because of our scholarship or evidence only because we say so.” There certainly is an intrinsic evil when a leadership of an organization does not protect its own children, when it blesses aggressive wars, and when it does not care about the health of its own people. No, Dr. Porch is not hiding anything he is simply showing that the emperor has no clothes! He is not laughing about it or making himself sound righteous, he is simply showing how horrible it is that our Bishops have so shamelessly misbehaved. I think he believes that this misbehavior is important and that these men need to be held accountable as any other human should.
Without full public reconciliation and no further Episcopal obfuscation, our Bishops will surly not be taken seriously by thinking People of God yet they may continue to do further damage to humanity. They have lost any sense of the authoritative and become themselves the foxes in the henhouses.
You didn't follow the
You didn't follow the indentations that signal who the comments or replies are to. Hello was not addressing Dr. Porch: Hello was responding to the earlier entry that Dr. Porch was also responding to. A little confusing, I know, but follow the indentations and it will be easier to understand what is what.
"Cohabitation, artificial
"Cohabitation, artificial contraception, homosexual acts and unions: all are intrinsically evil,"
There is no such thing as "intrinsically evil." An act or anything is intrinsically what it is, nothing more. It is imputed to be evil by human judgment; nothing else.
What a novel concept: have
What a novel concept: have someone who works with young couples at least give input! You know, Jesus talked a lot less about sex than he did about justice and caring for the poor. Pastorals have become narrow-focused teaching documents, and the young people I work with don't hear. Yes there are many, many good and true things in Christian marriage, and we can reach out to couples. While not at all arguing about the right or wrong ideas taught, I am not going to evangelization by emphasizing "intrinsic evil." I can explain why the Catholic church teaches as it does, and make a forceful presentation of the truth, but we really need a different starting place.
I have six marriages in various stages of preparation. Most of them aren't looking for a proper backdrop, but they often don't really know what they're looking for. What an opportunity!
Tom Craig: I suggest you read
Tom Craig: I suggest you read Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" as a preparation for dealing with young people desiring to marry.
Jesus didn't talk about sex? Well, uhm, that's not quite correct.
Understanding the deep meaning of human sexuality has to do with "self-gift" and "self-donation", which means, not being lustful and not using another for one's own gratification, as well as being open to life. Then, the love for the poor and disenfranchised can mean something.
In addition to young couples
In addition to young couples not able to find themselves in the text, here I am celebrating my 46th wedding anniversary today, and unable to find myself either.
Bishops really have no clue in so many areas. They are clanging cymbals, signifying nothing so much as their own blindness and insularity.
"Like it or not, many (most?)
"Like it or not, many (most?) Catholic couples do cohabitate prior to marrying?" And what planet does the author live on? This comment (and, unfortunately) much of the document shows a lack of understanding of both actual data and Catholic marriage.
This is just a stupid
This is just a stupid comment. The social science data supports the bishops and church teaching. Lets all bury our heads in the sand because we are all cowards and afraid to hurt someone's feelings by telling them whatt hey are doing is wrong. Christ condemned the wolves in sheep's clothing as strongly as he condemned the Pharisees.
Dear Bruce, By wolves in
Dear Bruce,
By wolves in sheep's clothing did you mean a group of men that would stand by while there employees rape children and then try to protect the rapists by getting them out of the area of the crime?
Dear Bruce,
As some one very familiar with the data, I certainly think that you are very much over simplifying your conclusion.
Did you mean men that would tell their priest to give up their impregnated lovers and return to their jobs never mind the needs of a pregnant woman or a new baby?
Did you mean men who would pretend to be experts in a field of relationships that they have no experience?
Did you mean men who would tell scientist that yours is not true science if you do not agree with what we preach?
The wolves in the sheep's clothing too often seem more to be the very leadership of our own Roman Catholic Organization.
We will not come to peace and understanding until the poor quality of our leaders is recognized and they entirely discredited.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Oh, please.... What will
Oh, please.... What will they think of next? Seems to me these guys must have serious underlying emotional/mental health issues OR this is just another attempt to deflect attention away from their own pedophilic crimes & impulses. Just what the INQUISITON O of American Women Religious & LCWR is about.
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more.
Got that right.
Got that right.
Cohabitation is toxic to
Cohabitation is toxic to subsequent marriage. Consequently, it is also dangerous to subsequent children and communities.
As a deacon who has done a lot of marriage preparation, and also been married, I know that someone has to say it. Cohabitation is toxic to a long-term, committed relationship. The divorce rates among those who subsequently marry is much higher than for those who come together for the first time in the Sacrament of Matrimony. The bishops know this.
Why is cohabitation dangerous to our communities? Cohabitation can only exist when both partners have agreed to avoid commitment. They establish conversation barriers to topics they don't wish to speak about with one another. They create and practice habits of avoidance. This way of living in a relationship is hardly fertile ground for creating a life of commitment. Cohabitation is a private society made up of many barriers to becoming one flesh. This is why they have a high failure rate.
NCR Editors want it both ways. Should we be kind to cohabitors? Pastoral, yes. But, someone has to name the elephant in the room. Yes, it might turn people off or hurt their feelings. But arsenic is poison. And so is cohabitation. Mankind has known that for thousands of years. When we will have the courage to say it. Wisdom is a valuable resource shared all too infrequently. That is why we have bishops, and wise pastors. NCR Editors, please, embrace and speak truth and wisdom. Our families and communities need wisdom.
Anonymous on Oct. 12,
Anonymous on Oct. 12, 2009.
You stated:
"Cohabitation is toxic to subsequent marriage. Consequently, it is also dangerous to subsequent children and communities.
As a deacon who has done a lot of marriage preparation, and also been married, I know that someone has to say it. Cohabitation is toxic to a long-term, committed relationship. The divorce rates among those who subsequently marry is much higher than for those who come together for the first time in the Sacrament of Matrimony. The bishops know this..."
--------------------------------------------
Deacon, how about a creative approach to this situation? What about contacting those couples who are cohabiting, but plan on getting married in church? What about a public blessing ceremony in which the Church acknowledges their engagement? In the ancient Jewish society, in Jesus' culture---a betrothal was a very important stage on the way to marriage---quite formal, in fact. We have stages on the path to the priesthood---including the diaconate (temporary), with the Church's blessings, prayers, support of the Christian community, etc. And they are all good.
But engaged, cohabiting couples need more than the Church throwing doctrines at them---they need understanding (the wisdom that you speak of) and as much encouragement as the People of God can give to them. They need to have their relationship recognized before they are married. They need to have their desire to marry recognized and supported. They need the prayers and blessings of men and women in the parish (married and single) as they prepare for marriage.
We are no longer living in a society that supports or even encourages stable married life. We need to give our young couples, who seek to marry, cohabiting or not, need all the spiritual, emotional support that we can give to them. And if that means establishing blessing rituals for those engaged---why not. Jesus would do no less.
The ancient Jewish betrothal
The ancient Jewish betrothal (i.e., the kind in which Mary was betrothed to Joseph) was a binding commitment, and it was taken in conjunction with the families involved (who presumably had already judged the suitability of the mate). There were real-world consequences to going back on the vows of betrothal (not least the potential for private reprisals from the family of the spurned).
Fast-forward to contemporary America. Our society has long used engagement rings, engagement parties, gifts, etc., to announce a pledge of future commitment, and yet the pledges mean increasingly less. In many places, we see "promise" rings exchanged to pledge a future engagement! The possibilities for recursion are infinite.
What these not-quite-commitment rituals do, just like premarital sexual relations, is create an illusion of commitment without the reality of it. These baby steps lead to couples who live out Zeno's paradox, moving toward commitment without ever actually getting there. And because dissolving illusory commitments is often as emotionally painful as dissolving real ones, people who should get out of an unwise not-quite-commitment often avoid doing so.
Adding a Church liturgy to bless an illusory commitment would make the problem even worse.
These binding commitments
These binding commitments were in reality property contracts. The wife became contractual property of her husband. That's a pretty one sided relationship even if it did eventualy evolve into a form of love.
Perhaps the bishops would prefer the West return to marriage as property contract. That is after all the longest standing tradition. Husband owns wife and children and wife submits to every act of sexual desire and bears all subsequent children--property. Stability is built in because the wife can not divorce her contractual owner.
Oh I forgot, we now call this situation the 'gender complimentarity as outlined in Genesis'.
Submitted by Anonymous on
Submitted by Anonymous on Oct. 13, 2009.
You stated:
"The ancient Jewish betrothal (i.e., the kind in which Mary was betrothed to Joseph) was a binding commitment, and it was taken in conjunction with the families involved (who presumably had already judged the suitability of the mate). There were real-world consequences to going back on the vows of betrothal (not least the potential for private reprisals from the family of the spurned).
Fast-forward to contemporary America...."
----------------------------------------------
Yes, the secular society has utilized many symbols for the engaged. But the couples who are planning to get married in Church---are receiving a Sacrament. It is not a private ceremony---but a Sacrament of Service, just as the Sacrament of Holy Orders is. And it is no less a sacrament than the priesthood. Having a blessing ceremony for the engaged in Church, for example, during the Sunday liturgies---would remind the couples that their marriages are not PRIVATE---and that the parish community is standing with them and in prayer for them.
And the "illusion of committment" that you refer to, could then become the 'reality of committment'.
So you are suggesting that we
So you are suggesting that we contact couples that are cohabiting and will not change, and have a ceremony to bless them?? Would you also suggest a "rite of blessing for picking up a box of condoms"? How about the "rite of sending to Planned Parenthood and prayer for safety of the mother as she has her child torn limb from limb"? We do have a rite for those cohabiting...it's called the Sacrament of Reconciliation!
That's the best comment I've
That's the best comment I've read on NCR. Get to confession! To approach and partake of the Holy Eucharist unworthily is much worse than the mortal sin that keeps you from being properly dispossed to communicate. But, most readers of this site are relativists and will rationalize thier sin away. Just go to confession and confess it.
Blessing rituals for engaged
Blessing rituals for engaged couples is a good idea, but you missed the deacon's point. Someone has to speak of the dangers of cohabitation. Should we bless couples who persist in violating God's law? Just because a thing is being done does not mean we should bless it. Since Catholic women procure abortions do you suggest that we have a blessing of a woman before her abortion?
Well, let's see now, Milbo 1,
Well, let's see now, Milbo 1, is there a difference between having sex with someone you are marrying (remember, people marry each other, including sacramentally) before a sacramental ceremony and having an abortion? Hmmmmmmm....gee, no, I guess not--everything "intrinsically evil" is intrinsically evil and enough said. amen.
yeah. okay. duh.
Post new comment