feminine-genius

Why NFP?

John and Sheila Kippley have an ongoing forum to promote the precious gift of Natural Family Planning. This week, they remind us of the four important reasons to teach the method: health, effectiveness, morality and evangelisation. With all the difficulties surrounding marriage, couples who live the honesty required in NFP have a far better chance of growing in love and giving witness to God's plan for the family.

The teaching of Christ as it comes to us through the Church calls married couples to authentic love. We all know that. And we have heard many times from the First Letter of St. John that “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.” What about the opposite? Can something close to perfect fear cast out love? Why do some couples refuse to accept the teaching of the Church regarding marital love?  Isn’t it fear? Specifically, isn’t it fear that another child in the family might bring anything from inconvenience to real hardship? And isn’t there a fear either to accept the discipline and self-control involved in systematic NFP or a fear of an unplanned pregnancy? In short, isn’t it a fear to have that change of heart that Jesus calls for, a change of heart that involves carrying the daily cross of self-control and trusting God and not just ourselves? And isn’t a prime task of the Church to help its members to undergo that change of heart that allows real trust and casts out fear?

Their site is worth a long look. Kindly remember that they are no longer with Couple to Couple League, which they founded many years ago, but have moved on to NFP, International which carries on their vision and work.

Multiculturalism

With the deconstruction of the family in the West, we leave ourselves open to anything and everything that passes for culture. One of the tenets is the mandate that no culture is to consider itself superior to another -- for all spring dynamically from peoples who structure their communities as they see fit.

Thus we have cultures of the Middle East that have combined their ancient traditions with the teachings of the prophet to say that family is based on marriage: marriage that allows men as many wives as each can support, so that they are virtual possessions. This easily devolves into sad stories like this one, showing that the mindset allows men to barter even their children like cattle.

Then we have the commune in Texas, in which the marital bond, again, is centered on a man and as many wives as he can entice into his den of iniquity, where nuptial intimacy is a one-way street in which women give all to him, and he shares himself with all who will humour him.

Each of these have their equivalent in the West, which also caters to the sexual appetites of men, who are free to become intimate with any cooperative soul, so that there is no life-long exclusive "I-thou" relationship, but "wow for now" in its place. Of course this wouldn't be possible without ready access to birth control and abortion, which deludes women into playing along, thinking themselves liberated with "no strings attached."

While other Christian communions have made their peace with birth control, divorce and remarriage, and even cohabitation, the Catholic Church remains firm in its support of the only definition of marriage that honours the human person -- both husband and wife. The Catechism states:

1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."⁸⁷ The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,⁸⁸ some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."⁸⁹

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.⁹⁰ Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"⁹¹

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."⁹² The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.⁹³ "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."⁹⁴ The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."⁹⁵

Please note this phrase above, which was pulled from Gaudium et Spes: "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life." All cultures are not equal because, at their heart, some do not honour women, their fundamental equality and dignity before God, their rights in the nuptial relationship, and the guarantee that their children will have the security of a loving parents exclusively bound to one another and the welfare of their family.

Consider these things in light of the early sexualisation of our children through the mass media, the way that they are encouraged to step away from the family circle in order to "fulfill themselves" through promiscuity and autonomy, and the way that marriage is deconstructed to include any sexual coupling that serves the immdiate gratification of the pair. This cannot last, and it will not serve.

Remember, although we offer our own daughters up to the depraved "culture" that insists that fidelity, monogamy, and chastity are oppressive, this may be no worse than other cultures, which considered foot-binding, female infanticide, the immolation of widows and female genital mutilation as appropriate to the "fairer sex."

When we make hierarchies of cultures, we have to see which have honoured the dignity of women, and protected children, both of which are essential to a healthy state. None, I submit, can come close to the loving plan that the Church proposes -- loving in every aspect to all involved.

Pray for families.

A house divided

Certainly, there are landmines and chasms in the Episcopalian world, which the members have to navigate regularly, beginning with finding a parish priest who has similar religious beliefs, and then finding a bishop who will dispense his authority in a way consonant with the Gospel. Those who hold to that confession (as opposed to "poping") have all sorts of headaches, but imagine the divide coming right down the center of your own dining room table.

A recent obituary highlighted by Get Religion showed that the family of Bishop Ronald H. Haines (a former bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, D.C) had just such a chasm, that his wife was forced to deal with, considering his support of all sorts of causes with which she disagreed.

Bishop Haines ordained the Rev. Elizabeth L. Carl, an open lesbian who was pastor at Church of the Epiphany in Washington. The move sparked a period of protests and internal examination, and the matter still has not been fully resolved within the church.

During the ordination ceremony June 5, 1991, Bishop Haines asked whether there was any “impediment or crime” to prevent Carl from becoming a priest. Two people, including a priest of 50 years’ standing, came forward to declare that homosexuality was inappropriate in a church leader.

He ordained her anyway -- making the question almost frivolous. (Better not to ask, then to ask and then ignore the answer, no?) But evidently his pro-abortion stance was also problemmatic in the family.

According to a 1992 article in The Washington Post, one of the bishop’s most vocal critics was his wife, Mary, an antiabortion activist who was vice president of the National Organization of Episcopalians for Life. She even favored her husband’s censure, which he narrowly avoided, at a national gathering of bishops.

“All our family opposed the ordination, except maybe one,” Bishop Haines’s son Joshua said in 1992.

(To follow that link above is to discover that there are all sorts of elements in the pro-life movement that one might not expect, proving that the Holy Spirit goes where He will.) But to the subject at hand, it must be admitted that a plethora of families suffer a philosophical divide, which gives impetus to our need to pray for marriage, and remember that the suffering at its very heart must be offered for ultimate union with Christ one day. Difficult. Very difficult.

Endearing contortions

I just ran across Simcha's acrobatics concerning wifely obedience.

This is what my husband told me to do, after clearing a narrow alley for his car to escape through. His exact words were, "You should hire a plow. If you try and shovel this stuff, you will kill yourself." (Except he didn't say "stuff.") So I said I would.

Then, I craftily waited until he drove away, and I went out to take a look for myself. He comes from Los Angeles; what does he know about snow? True, he's been living in New England for over twelve years and has done about 90% of the shoveling for our family, but still.

I gave a few exploratory jabs with the shovel, and yeesh, yeah, the stuff was pretty heavy...

Enjoy! (not that she did, especially.) Funny thing is that her mother was writing in a similar vein, just as entertainingly on the same topic fifteen years ago when Canticle was in its infancy. This one ends sweetly (as though anything in New England in February can really be defined as sweet) and it shows how marriage and grace are form-fitted from couple to couple. A soggy, late Valentine, I suppose.

Alert!

The Bishops offer this support for marriage. Spread the word!

Erasing the hard drive

Two pieces on the web this week require a response and linking them is the best response I can think of. First of all, a priest in Monterosso, Italy is in hot water for a sexual affair with a parishioner. His bishop has defrocked him, which means that he cannot provide any sacraments, and a replacement has been given to his parish. The folks there are unhappy-- but not at the randy cleric; they're angry with the bishop. They really liked their former pastor, despite his transgressions, despite the fact that he did not keep his vows.

But the daily La Repubblica reported that "only four faithful, all elderly women, attended mass celebrated by the new priest Monday evening, a sign of Monterosso's solidarity with the rebel priest."

Young people in the town have even had T-shirts made with the inscription "We are all children of Don Sante," alluding to a rumour that the priest had a child with the parishioner, who is reportedly separated from her husband.

The second piece is on Christianity Today, which takes note of the stark fact that most children live in "blended" families and implores all pastors to deal with it and learn to provide guidance and support of the new situation.

The heart of divorce is the hardheartedness of men and women. As Shelly points out, divorce is offensive to God, yet pardonable like any other sin. In many cases, divorce is indefensible, bringing serious consequences to adults and children. It should not be taken lightly. Yet to deny someone full forgiveness and the right to live life to the fullest in Jesus Christ denies the healing power of the Cross. God brings light out of darkness. His redemptive work in the lives of imperfect people restores the hearts of men and women and turns them back toward him. His grace forgives and transforms.

Forgiveness. That is the heart of both stories, and in both stories it is mistakenly applied. Please, I am not limiting the graces of a generous God -- that is nothing even remotely close to my point. My point is that it is completely inappropriate for a person to forgive someone of a transgression that didn't hurt him. This isn't rocket surgery. If a drunk driver kills my neighbour's child, it is ridiculous for me to go find that driver and forgive him. Of course I cannot judge him, but the forgiveness is not mine to bestow. Those who have been injured have the duty to undertake that difficult task.

The parishioners seem to have "forgiven" their errant priest -- but he didn't hurt them. He betrayed one particular couple by his scurrilous behaviour, and he betrayed God by forsaking the vow he made at His altar. He scandalised the parish, but that is not something they can forgive. Their "forgiveness" simply indicates that they prioritise his company above the sanctity of both Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony. In actuality, it's what's called "giving a pass."

In the case of the protestant clergy "supporting" the blended marriages, depending on how it's applied it has the potential to send mixed message to all the families in their pews. "I will witness your vows, I will pray for your fidelity; but I will witness the next vows you make should you need to 'move on.'" What does that say to the couples who weather storms and exercise self-control? What does that say to children who suffer abandonment and have to witness a community forgive the transgressor on their behalf? Yes, the children will ultimately find peace in forgiveness one day, but it is the family that is shredded; thus it must be individuals in the family who extend forgiveness, not the next door neighbours. They were not the victims of the broken vows.

There is a difference in the Catholic Church between welcoming the sinner and inviting him to participate in Communion. The latter should be distinguishable from the former by the choices made by each of the faithful. No matter what the person has done, he is welcome to join the community in giving glory to God. But "communion" would be a lie if his heart hasn't been reconciled to God after his sins. Without such a distinction, the protestants are left to "welcoming the sinner" into the building -- or not. Tough choice, and inadequate -- theologically.

I find it fascinating that this article quotes the same rabbinical tradition that Jesus noted in this very context. But in that passage, Jesus stressed that divorce was not part of the divine plan. Here, the author asks the pastors to extend God's forgiveness -- even when the sinner doesn't repent of his sin.

Remarriage ministry simply responds to broken lives, as Jesus did to the woman at the well (John 4), with grace and compassion. In addition, it calls couples to honor their remarital covenant and to live holy lives starting from today.

Starting from today? But they're still in a problemmatic union. What about the previous family? (Of course the article uses hard cases that the Catholic Church would most probably indicate were null to begin with.) To "honour the remarital covenant" makes a mockery of the "marital covenant." Words, in this case, mean nothing. Honour cannot be given to sin.

But for a video game/computer generation, "delete" and "start over" are as simple as a press of the button: Oops, sorry! New game...

[As comments accrue on the CT site, it becomes obvious that the lines are hopelessly blurred between divorce, remarriage, and unions that are null. That makes the discussion rather useless. That's also why I value Church teaching on the matter. ]

An open marriage

One doesn't have to imagine long to see how devastating it would be if your prospective husband offered you a ring with a caveat: "But let's still be swingers. I love you to pieces (and your lemon merangue pie is to die for!) but there are lots of other partners out there and we can both have fun whenever we want...!" The ring would probably end up jammed in his esophagus and his shin would ache from your parting shot.

But what if the wedding nuptials had passed and one partner got a wild hair? What would that do to the marriage? The interesting distinction between the Anglican/Episcopalian communion and the rest of the protestant world is that the former has an ecclesial structure resembling that of the Church, which still reveals the nuptial relationship between Jesus Christ and the visible reality of a bridal entity. Sadly, the bride has suffered a mental illness that allows her to cling to her Spouse while heaving herself at all sorts of passing fancies that undercut her dedication to His defining love.

In this piece, the liberals would endorse her need to pursue an "open marriage," while conservatives are hung up on those blasted vows from "once upon a time:"

The liberals insist that what defines Anglicanism is theological diversity, and the conservatives claim Anglicanism requires a commitment to doctrine. The liberals are saying, “Can’t we all just get along,” while the conservatives are saying, “Can’t we all just get in line?”

Hardly a Christian spectacle, the rivalry has been more like a log-rolling contest where the conservatives and the liberals are battling to push each other off a spinning log, while trying to make it look as if their adversaries voluntarily jumped. Now, with the ultimatum, the liberals may need a lot of deft footwork to stay on the log.

Passions run so high that on the more than 150 Anglican blogging sites, the name-calling is vicious. The conservatives call their liberal colleagues “Episcopagans,” apostates and revisionists, and refer to themselves as the “guardians of the faith.” Liberal bloggers hurl epithets like “ChristiaNazis” and “Neo-con Anglicans.”

The whole question echoes the concrete battle over "marriage" itself which is waging at the heart of society. Either revelation is true, or it's a social construct that can be redefined. That's the essence.

Terry Mattingly recalls particular instance in which some members of the Church were called to choose.

Our story begins with a liturgy entitled “A Women’s Eucharist: A Celebration of the Divine Feminine,” posted among the online offerings of the Episcopal Church Office of Women’s Ministries. Digital sleuths easily connected this rite to Tuatha de Brighid, a “Clan of modern Druids.” Then before insiders could say “Episcopagans,” critics found links between its use of milk, honey and raisin cakes and Asherah, Astarte and rituals banned in the biblical book of Hosea.

As a rule, rites connected to Baal are frowned on in Christian churches.

Yes, our God is a jealous God -- a point He made clear from the start. Jesus doesn't want to partake of a threesome, and it's only fair that the free will He gave us be used to choose. Even pagans promoting Almighty Choice don't seem to want to distinguish clearly; often "choice" to them means, not "I'll take this rather than that," but "I'll have a bit of both."

Sorry, not an option. Terry makes this assessment of the news coverage of the split:

This battle is global and actually focuses on the redefinition and the defense of classical, creedal, sacramental teachings in the church. This is the latest round in the battle between premodern Christianity and modernity (not to mention postmodernity).

Perhaps, in one sense. But I think it's more specifically related to the theology of the body and the developing creedal understanding of nuptial realities. One Bridegroom, one visible bride, total mutual dedication in order to populate heaven. It's sad, but a necessary trial for those who forget such things.

Fascinating twist

I'd be one of the first to warn about the duplicity of the same-sex attraction crowd in their push for marriage. Despite the crocodile tears about benefits and public professions of fidelity, they do not pursue marriage with a desire to settle into "Ozzie and Harriet" lives, but in  order to transform society -- to blow family wide open as a counterblow for family having failed them. I don't doubt the integrity of their suffering, or the darkness of their wounds, or the tragedies they've weathered in a search for love and acceptance. But I also don't trust their claim that they only want to validate their relationships with a "trip down the aisle." Bosh.

That said, I'm fascinated with their political maneuver in Washington state:

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

Once again, shallow attempts at defending marriage have obfuscated the entire issue, making it hard to defend. Heterosexuals contracept, they abort, they divorce and remarry, and they marry later in life when no children are possible. Is it any wonder that we've lost the ability to define what marriage truly is?

This is a wonderful opportunity for someone to step in armed with the theology of the body -- in order to explain the fundamentals of human sexuality and the intrinsic nature of marriage. Of course, a hue and cry will keep theological foundations out of it in the political sphere, so it will have to be based on natural law and girded with statistic. Tough, but not impossible. Any takers?

Forty is the new thirty?

This is the most depressing article I've read in a long time, not because it deals with poverty, death, disease, or disaster -- but with the drama of the best and the brightest seeing what they perceive as their only chance of happiness slip through their hands like sand through a sieve.

More recently, women decided their early 20s are strictly for fun, and now the Relationship Window opens at 28 and closes at 35. So, you'll find single, childless women reaching their mid-30s increasingly hysterical that they might have missed their moment.

What if they have to face their 40s still frantically dating, while trying to quell their worst fears that they might end up alone — and childless?

In his latest book, The Good Life, social commentator Jay McInerney documents the Relationship Window for single girls in New York, describing it as 'the female equivalent of the two-minute warning in an American football match: time left — but not that much'.

What was all that fun about if smart women couldn't do the math? Perhaps they bought the lie that motherhood was a trap and real joy lay elsewhere. What were they doing instead?

Mairead Molloy, who runs the elite dating agency, Berkeley Sweetingham International, would agree that people are more painfully aware than ever about their Relationship Windows, and are frantic not to miss the boat.

Mairead believes there are two reasons for missing out on this first Relationship Window — women are consumed by their independence and are too busy for commitment while they are building their careers, or they are having affairs with married men.

It's not easy for Mairead find them the necessary matches, no matter how elite her rolodex, because of the emotional state of these women:

'While it is the easiest thing in the world to place a single girl of 35 with a single man of 40, if she's desperate for a baby, however much she tries to disguise it, she's in too much of a rush.

'She can't hide her screaming ovaries, and men are totally put off.' Mairead sees an increasing number of highly organised women in their early 30s determined not to miss their first Relationship Window.

To be clear, she says there are two windows: the first is late 20's to mid-thirties, and the second is at age 40, when the "starter marriages" have broken up and men are ready for Round Two. (What can be more depressing than that thought?)

However, just as the mounting despair is palpable in the thirtysomething career woman suddenly desperate for a baby, Mairead says her second most difficult placement is the 45-year-old woman who has missed her second Relationship Window.

'A 45-year-old woman wants a maximum 47-year-old man, or a good-looking 50-year-old, but a 47-year-old man wants to find a 40-year-old woman.

'The problem is that the 45-year-old woman doesn't want to date the 60-something man who wants to go out with her, and yet she's terrified of facing 50 alone — and projects that.'

This is the upstairs version of the same old meat market that puts a woman in the commodities trade show based on her breast size, whiteness of her smile, designer tag on her clothes, and sexual availability. As the years pass, we'll see how she holds up, the effects of gravity, her earning potential, how much she'll put up with, and recertify her sexual availability. She may finally realise she's missed out on companionship, emotional maturity, domestic tranquility, and the joys of motherhood, but she got high marks in ... sexual availability. What went wrong?

I know a successful interior designer, aged 49, who left her husband, an artist, on her 40th birthday. She walked out on him, taking their two children, because she couldn't face another decade supporting him, while living with his seething resentment of her financial independence.

Now, facing 50 and single, she is achingly aware she made a mistake. She's full of regret, not that she left her husband, but that she didn't wise up sooner to the opportunities of her second Relationship Window.

'When I first left my husband, I was so busy with the children that I didn't want serious commitment,' she says. 'I had affairs with married men, which suited me because they were less time-consuming.

'However, I should have spent my early 40s dating properly, because now I'm competing with much younger, fresher women. I worry desperately that I have missed my chance for a second relationship.'

Ah, regrets. With hindsight like this, there will be no wisdom to pass along to the children. Oh, I forgot -- what children?

UPDATE: Dawn Eden has a sharp closing thought on the same piece:

According to the article, a "Relationship Window" opens only twice in one's life. Thankfully, the heart is capable of opening much more often. But one has to listen in order to hear it over the din of those "screaming ovaries."

She also emphasises the joy in working to fulfill others, rather than being so absorbed in self-fulfillement. Excellent.

B16 to the marriage tribunal

DISCOVER THE BEAUTY OF THE "TRUTH OF MARRIAGE"

VATICAN CITY, JAN 27, 2007 (VIS) - This morning in the Vatican, Benedict XVI received the dean, judges, promoters of justice, defenders of the bond, officials and lawyers of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, for the occasion of the inauguration of the judicial year.

  At the beginning of his address to them, the Holy Father pointed out that "the expression 'truth of marriage' loses all existential significance in a cultural context marked by the relativism and juridical positivism that consider marriage as a mere social formalization of the ties of affection. Thus, marriage not only becomes contingent, as human affections can be contingent, but appears as a superimposed legal structure which human will can manipulate at will, even denying its heterosexual character."

  The Pope warned against those who believe that "the conciliar doctrine on marriage - and in particular the description of that institution as 'intima communitas vitae et amoris' - necessarily leads to denying the existence of an indissoluble conjugal bond," on the grounds that this is "an 'ideal' which not all 'normal Christians' can be 'obliged' to follow."

  "The anthropological and salvific truth of marriage - also in its juridical dimension - is already present in Holy Scripture," said the Pope, and he quoted: "[He] 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. ... What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." The Book of Genesis, he continued, also "presents the truth of marriage at the 'beginning'," a truth that achieves fullness "in the union of Christ with the Church."

  "Each marriage is certainly the fruit of the free will of a man and a woman, but their freedom puts into effect the natural capacity inherent to their masculinity and femininity. ... The indissolubility of marriage does not derive from the definitive commitment of the two parties involved; rather it is intrinsic to the nature of the 'potent bond established by the Creator.' The contracting parties must make a definitive commitment because such is the nature of marriage in the plan of creation and redemption."

  "Against the subjective and libertarian realization of sexual experience," said Benedict XVI, "the tradition of the Church clearly affirms the naturally juridical nature of marriage, in other words the fact that, by its very character, it pertains to the field of justice in interpersonal relationships." In this context, he went on, "the law interweaves with life and love. ... Love [between husband and wife] is the fruit of their freely seeking the good of the other and of the children."

  Referring to the danger of the erroneous interpretation of current canonical norms, the Holy Father encouraged his audience to react "with courage and trust, ... without allowing yourselves to be seduced by interpretations that entail a break with the tradition of the Church."

  "The contribution of ecclesial tribunals to overcoming the crisis in the significance of marriage, both in the Church and in civil society, may seem to be some somewhat secondary," he said. However, "precisely because marriage has an intrinsically juridical dimension," it is of fundamental importance to be "wise and convinced servants of justice in this delicate and important field. ... You, dear prelate auditors, are committed to a task in which responsibility for truth is especially felt. ... Remaining faithful to that task, seek to ensure that your activities become a harmonious part of a global rediscovery of the beauty of the 'truth of marriage' - the truth of the 'beginning' - that Jesus taught us, and of which the Holy Spirit reminds us continually in the Church today."