You Get What You Choose

Consider, today, the book of Sirach [1]. This book was written in Hebrew by Jesus Ben Sira, a wise Jewish teacher, almost two hundred years before the birth of Jesus, the Savior. It was later translated into Greek by his grandson. It is in the group of Bible books called Wisdom books. Chapter 15 verses 11 to 20 are his lecture notes on “free will”.

First he paints a picture that we are all familiar with from our childhood. Imagine that you are standing  before two pots. One contains a roaring fire and the other filled water. Now you are told to choose which pot to plunge your hand into. Even as children you knew that you get what you choose. One choice gives me a burned hand while the other choice gives me a clean hand.

Ben Sira then moves to a more adult choosing:
You have before you life and death, good and evil.
Whichever you choose, God will give to you.

As adults we realize that life is more complex than just hot or cold choices and we understand the examples like Jesus uses. If we plant weed seeds we are going to harvest weeds whereas if we plant  grain seeds we are going to harvest grain.

Grain or Weeds, Good Seed or Bad Seed you choose!
Life or Death, Good or Evil, You choose!

Ben Sira tells us that God never forces anyone to choose weeds, bad seed, death or evil. You see, God made us free. Free to choose good or evil. He honors our freedom and gives us many ways to discern what is good and what is evil. Jesus talked about this when he came among us.

Ben Sira makes his point in another way when he says that God grants no one a license to choose evil.

A few years ago I ran into an example of secular thinking that contradicts this. It has to do with a virtue and its opposite vice. That pair is the virtue Love and the vice Lust [2]. A virtue desires good and a vice desires evil.

I had been asked to speak at a non-Catholic wedding and in my talk I made the point that a successful marriage required that it be based on love and not on lust because lust was in fact the opposite of love. Now I knew that some of the guests present, unlike the bride and groom, had never thought this through. So I made sure to define the terms.

Love, the love required for a successful marriage, is self sacrificing love. You value the other for who she or he is, not what he or she can give you and you would even give your life for her or him.

Lust, is seeking self gratification in the form of pleasure, status, power or money and the other is viewed as an object from which these can taken.

At the reception the Justice of the Peace who had officiated approached me and objected to my talk on this very point. His view was that marriage was a license (by the state) to make lust between these two persons legal.

You most likely have heard this view even in your own community. Perhaps some of you have even thought this might be the way it is. Ben Sira and Jesus, in the sermon on the mount, however, make it clear that no one and no license will ever make evil into a virtue. 

-----------------------------------------------

1. Also Known as Ecclesiasticus. It was excluded from the Protestant Old Testament because it was thought to not have been written in Hebrew. Later research has established that it had been written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek as part of the Septuagint Old Testament which was used as scripture by the Apostles and early Christian writers. The NABRE translation of this book can be read here.


2. Pope John Paul, in his September 10, 1980 audience, spoke of the contradiction between lustful desire and self giving love. See: Translation by Micheal Waldstein: Man and Woman: He Created Them, 2006, Daughter of St Paul , Boston Ma.

Modern Day Babel

My recent posting about the meaning of the word 'marriage' got me to thinking about the ancient story told in the Jewish Scriptures (Genesis, chapter eleven) about the failure of an ambitious construction project in the region we now call Iraq. The project failed due to confusion caused by language differences among those working on the project. Even if you reject the role of God in the legend it is a real human problem even in our day.

Our culture has a number of intractable public issues that just won't go away. In the pubic discussions of some of these, the symptoms of the ancient Babel legend are apparent. Among these issues are the aforementioned marriage issue, abortion, torture and immigration. At some point the issue related babel may become so wide spread that our whole culture may itself take on the Babel syndrome and experience the  decline that has eroded many cultures in history.

I mentioned  a small example of babel in a posting a few days ago about the men and women praying quietly outside our local abortion center. They were praying for the mothers and fathers coming to have the human life of their fetus terminated.  They were praying for the staff and doctors that facilitate such terminations. And, yes, they were praying for the managers and owners of the center.  Inside a national TV reporter was interviewing the manager of the center. As the camera showed the men and women quietly praying on the sidewalk outside, the manager was describing them as "terrorists".

I don't know how these issues will ultimately be resolved but I am sure solutions would come sooner if we would all agree to use the same language/words and actually try to talk with each other.

Can Government Change Physical Reality

The physical union of a man and a woman that can naturally results in the conception of children has existed for thousands of years. Over those same years those man, woman and children units that have hung together fared better in the evolutionary journey that has brought us to our own time. The reality of this unit is  described here in its biological and evolutionary dimensions. 

As languages developed and diversified, words were coined to represent real things of importance to human communication.  I would speculate that the most dramatic  events would give rise to the need for words that are descriptive of the components of the event. An example might be be the physical experience of childbirth giving rise to words like "mother" and "child" to describe the two persons involved in the physical reality of birth. As the child matures he wants to have a word for the other member of the unit and like "father" (or "ojciec" in polish), "brother" or "sister" to designate the elements of the reality. To refer to one such unit collectively words like "perhe" (in Finnish) or "Family' were coined. 

In most language groups there are also words designating the components of the biological reality we are considering,  thus the English words like "husband, "wife" and "marriage" to refer to the male, the female and the procreative activity involved.

Since I have based this analysis on physical or scientific reality I have not mentioned words of philosophical, existential, or religious origin/meaning like "friendship", "loyalty" or "love".

However, for words that designate objective physical (scientific) realities we need to ask, can a state change the meaning of a word by law or decree? Since it is currently politically correct to answer yes to this question it is appropriate to ask some follow up questions.

If a government changes the meaning of the word "marriage" (at least with in it's boundaries) does that action eliminate the physical reality that it formerly referred to? Most assuredly it won't.

 Since the definition of marriage currently being championed removes the procreative biology and the evolutionary strength  designated by the traditional definition of marriage it will have the effect of expanding the set of types of relationships that can be designated as "marriage". The very real thing previously designated by that word will continue to exist, perhaps as a subset of the new meaning, but will those that still value and want to talk about such procreative relationships be allowed to coin a new term to designate them?

Where Have All The Children Gone?

What happens to a culture if there are no children? Consider Western Europe or Japan. I am sure the 'politically correct' will retort that there is no proof that their problems are due to those cultures largely turning their backs on (traditional) marriage and/or, marriage's natural result, children. The numbers don't lie, however. As a mathematician I can show that a culture, a community or a family without children will not survive beyond the current generation.

Sadly, in my seventy plus years, I have seen these numbers play out in micro cultures of many kinds. Churches with no children will soon be closing. Rural towns that have no children become ghost towns. Family farms with no children will be sold to strangers as this generation ends. Another way that our culture's need for children is thwarted is symbolized by the abortion industry in our country marketing abortions as a 'better' option than adoption.

I guess I sound quite pessimistic and some days the news of the day is very depressing. Fortunately every Sunday our church is noisy with children and every week I run into folks about town who are definitely not part of the problem. We live in a rural community yet within a few miles of our home I know two families that care for and adopt abandoned and handicap children in addition to children of their own. Here is a short video about just such a family, the Dennehys.



















This video was posted on the web site 'I Like Giving' which can be visited by clicking here.

.

Focusing The Marriage Conversation

I recently published a non-religious analysis of the marriage issue. In two wordy postings,  I examined the question, "Just what is the government's interest in marriage that justifies it's regulation by the state and should that regulation be expanded to include personal relationships other than the traditional definition of marriage?

 

The other day my fellow blogger and journalist, Roxann Solanen, began her post as follows.

 

"The other day on the way to school, one of my daughters came up with what we in journalism call a bombshell question.

"So, Mom, what do you think about gay marriage?"

We were about a block from the drop-off point when the question came forth; not nearly enough time for a thoughtful response to such a multi-layered topic. But her question prodded me to dig deeper to find a satisfactory answer. After all, I realized at that moment that this is no longer an issue I can just toss about and let fall where it might. Seems my children are invested in the answer now, too.

And, as it turns out, in more ways than one might realize at the outset. In order to answer my daughter's question to satisfaction, I realized I needed to go back, to begin from a simpler, less explosive starting point."

 

Her skills as a researcher and a writer yield a far shorter analysis of the issue as she shares her answer to her daughter's question. I recommend you read her essay.

 

Click here to read her entire posting.

 

My postings on the issue are (click to view):

 

Marriage Amendment Angst

Part 1 - PROPOSED CHANGES TO MARRIAGE REGULATION

Part 2 - PROPOSED CHANGES TO MARRIAGE REGULATION

Part 2 - PROPOSED CHANGES TO MARRIAGE REGULATION

PART 2 - THE STATE'S INTEREST IN REGULATING MARRIAGE

Here is an evaluation of three current proposals:

     - Continue the current government regulation of marriage as the union of a male and a female.

     - Discontinue the regulation of marriage altogether.

     - Expand the regulation to other categories of personal relationships. 

The analysis begins with two defining questions.

   - What serious interest does government (the State) have in the regulation of marriage?

   - What was it about the historic civil understanding of marriage as being 

between a man and a woman that gave rise to this interest?

Then the logical paths through the analysis are as follows.

   Is that historic reason for government regulation of marriage still valid?

- If no longer valid: the regulation of marriage serves no public interest and should be dropped.

- If still valid: the government has a continuing interest in the regulation of marriage.

   If government regulation of marriage is to continue, we next ask whether 

this historic justification for this regulation applies to other categories of 

personal relationships? 

- If so government regulation of those relationships should be undertaken.

- If it applies to no other personal relationships then such expansion 

 would serve no public purpose.

My presentation thus far proposes the logical framework for the investigation. Next let us identify that crucial interest that justifies government regulation of marriage. As is usually the case any regulatory process uses many tools, such as licenses, fees, standards, taxes, tax breaks, penalties, fines, educational requirements, subsidies and more, in bringing about desired results. The reality that is being regulated should not be confused with the tools used in bringing about the behavior desired by government. 

The existential reality that gave rise to the government’s interest in marriage was the biological fact that the sexual union of a man and woman can and often does lead to the conception of new human life, children. The centrality of this interest can be seen in the many judicial annulments granted in cases where such procreative behavior is physically impossible or has never taken place. This is also confirmed in the response of the state to unlicensed marital unions. Typically no action is taken unless children are conceived by the couple and then the state imposes its regulatory requirements on the biological parents.

Thus the peace and tranquility of society leads government to require (through regulation) those engaging in procreative activity to be responsible for the care and nurturing of the resulting children until they are self sufficient adults. The development of mature and stable adults, of course, has other outcomes of interest to the state. For example, more taxpayers, more soldiers, and so on. Later bio-genetic research added criteria as to who should not be allowed to marry due to the probability of negative outcomes of this biological process. Thus one cannot marry a close relative such as a brother or sister. These elements of regulation would not have been of interest if procreation was not the reason for government regulation of marriage.

Is this reason for regulating marriage still valid? Most certainly it is. Nothing has changed the biological fact that the sexual union of a man and woman can and does result in conception of new life. Introduction of new methods of birth control have certainly reduced the conception rate in our society but have not changed the biological facts. The result sought by the regulation is the responsible behavior of the natural parents and protection of the rights of the children. Extensive divorce procedures in regard to children and the actions permitted by child protection laws to interfere in family life when government standards of child care, rights and Safety are jeopardized make sense only in light of this basic reason for the state’s regulation of marriage. Therefore the state has an ongoing interest in the regulation of marriage.

Are there other biological relationships that can lead to the conception of new human life, children? In the case of relationships between persons only the man/woman sexual union qualifies. Thus the government regulation of other categories of personal relationships does not seem to have any justification. 

Technology seems to offer additional means, not involving personal relationships, for children to be conceived. The contract with a surrogate mother or father is certainly not ‘personal’ and at the get-go precludes half of the responsible natural parent element of the marriage concept. The agreement between a medical institution and an individual to artificially conceive a child is likewise not a personal relationship. These alternatives relate to adoption regulations due to the lack of personal commitment to parenthood of one or both biological parents.

Government regulation of adoption and foster care processes has given rise to several legal (as opposed to biological) parenting categories. The bond between a child and parenting person (s) in these cases is initiated by a legal contract and not on a biological relationship. Since the parenting adults might be an individual, a couple, a relative and often an institution (e.g.; orphanage) the marriage designation is not appropriate here either.

Thus it appears that the expansion of marriage regulation to additional categories of personal relationships is not warranted. This paper has presented a totally civic analysis of the state’s interest in the regulation of marriage. One value of this approach, in our diverse civil culture, is that the values driving the state’s interest are not dependent upon ethnic, economic, religious or sexual points of view but upon biological reality. 

Part 1 - PROPOSED CHANGES TO MARRIAGE REGULATION

Part I  -  INTRODUCTION

Discussions about the subject of marriage and who can be married are quite common in our society at this time. Sometimes these conversations get quite heated and friendships are strained, accusations of bigotry arise quickly but the subject is seldom explored analytically. In one attempt to get such a discussion on a less emotional and more analytical basis I suggested we back up and consider why government regulates marriage in the first place.

It was interesting to discover that most people have never thought of government marriage laws as "regulation". However, a little recall of people's own life experiences or even just reading the news or legal notices would indicate they have experienced or heard a lot about this regulation.

   - Any married couple will recall that a government license is required to enter a marriage.

   - Any divorced person will recall that government permission is required to end a marriage.

   - Government fees are charged for either of the above regulatory actions.

   - Standards set by government as to acceptable behavior for married persons.

- Consider domestic abuse standards

- Consider child protection laws

- Consider child support requirements 

   - Education or training is required of those entering the regulated activity.

   -Government incentives are used to encourage desired outcomes from the regulated activity.

- Consider tax incentives, like per child deductions

- Consider inheritance rights of children

- That the license grants certain a-priory rights (without additional contract) in the 

areas of health care, property ownership, privacy, and power of attorney.

- Government police and legal powers are used to enforce standards and requirements. 

Such enforcement is seen almost daily in the domestic violence, child protection and fiscal requirements areas. (The use of enforcement in the matter of 'bedroom behavior' did occur in history but has been essentially removed from marriage regulation in the US. I remember such police action occurring as late as the 1990s, usually to harass those suspected of being homosexual.) 

 I don't know if the realization that government interest in marriage is essentially regulatory will lead us to easy resolutions of the issues but it might  make it less a less emotional subject to understand and talk about. 

Click here to go to the Minnesota State Law Library index of  "Marriage" related items.

Marriage Amendment Angst

I share the experience of serving in elected office at the municipal level with a relative of a younger generation. Neither he nor I are currently in office but both of us comment on politics on our blogs. I always appreciated his ability to represent both sides of an argument as well as justify why he held or came to the position that he did. His recent review of a vote in his municipal council, however, is a striking reversal of that reputation.

At the same time this failure to communicate both sides of the argument captures perfectly the sad state of public discourse on the Marriage Amendment / Marriage Equality issue. Here is how he describes the debate and vote.

"Based on past votes and comments, I'm going to guess that (*) and (*) were the anti-gay, anti-equality votes against this resolution.  But I'm very glad that the progressive majority that remains on the council did the right thing and spoke up for human rights and decency and against this bigoted and discriminatory ballot measure."

I have  removed the names that the original posting specified. as I have no knowledge of those persons. I do know that I get classified with the same libel for even raising questions about the issue, about one side or the other or come to a different conclusion on some point different than some other citizen. To read the entire posting that stimulated by concern click here. 

I read daily, posting from marriage equality proponents as well as fellow DFLers who oppose the amendment so am quite quite familiar with the arguments against the amendment. The libelous generalization of all who would have a question or a different opinion seems absolute from this side, however. It reminds me of the strange stone wall thrown up by opponents of health care reform two years ago. My effort to have a rational discussion with my opponents in that issue were universally met with endless responses that were from a small set of talking points that communicated no helpful information at all.

Since I currently come down on the other side of this issue I am also familiar with many of the arguments that lead citizens to support the amendment. These arguments are diverse. My questions and conclusions have led me to a largely political or civil argument in support of the amendment. I suspect that such an argument is not typical on either side of this issue. I can report that unlike the anti amendment posting I receive every day that no categorical classifications of those on the other side are made. In fact all those I have talked or corresponded with on this side have friends and family, that that they love, who oppose the amendment. In fact most of us have family, friends and fellow minsters that are gay who we love and support in their lives, loves and vocations. Sorry to say, the polarity in our current political climate has infected this issue also.

I do know persons who speak hatefully about gays but usually they also do not know or love any gay persons. Such bigots are (a) unlikely to vote or (b) if voting should be a know and small component of the vote. This anti-gay bigotry does seem to have a significant role in the ongoing bulling crisis in our schools and communities, however. 

Click here is a link to my relative's Blog which is usually very rational and informative.

Homily for Eleventh Sunday Ordinary Time

Brothers and sisters, our gospel reading today (Mark 4:26-34) deals again with images of the Kingdom of God. Today’s characteristic of the kingdom use agricultural realities to make their point. The example of the tiny mustard seed that turns into a huge plant is an analogy of how even a small opening to God’s grace can lead us to a full life in God’s love.

Since we live in a farming area we might be able to get some help on Jesus’ other example. I have asked a local Farmer to help us out.

Steve, Lets say you finish seeding wheat in one of your fields late one afternoon. What do you do next?

[Steve: I would clean my equipment and get ready to do the next field .]

When would next look at the field we asked you about?

[Steve: I take a look at it every time I pass it]

What are you hoping to see when you visit your field?

[Steve: If there is enough moisture and warm enough temperature the seed in the ground will germinate and sprout. When I see the young plants emerge I know that thing are going well in my field.]

So, basically your are just watching and waiting. You sleep well, you spend time with your family, you go to church on Sunday or you take a week off and take you family on vacation. How long does this watching and waiting go on?

[Steve: Until the wheat is ready to harvest, a couple of months later.]

What changes in your life when it’s harvest time?

[Steve: I absolutely need to get my combine in the field and get the crop harvested.]

What would happen if you took vacation at this time or slept late or go to bed early?

[Steve: The harvest would be lost. I need to harvest each field at exactly the right time in order to maximize the amount of wheat produced by each field.]

Isn’t it interesting that Jesus chooses this earthy reality to characterize the Kingdom of God. The functioning of the natural world goes on whether we pay any attention or not. But if the farmer does pay attention and does some critical work, like plowing his field and choosing good seed and being ready for the harvest, he receives an enormous harvest. By accepting and working in harmony with the reality of nature farmers feed the world!

God’s kingdom is like this in that God’s love for his creation goes on whether we are paying attention or not. Yet if we do some critical work like acknowledging his existence, accepting his gifts and discovering His will for our lives we are promised a great spiritual harvest.

This parable is often called the parable of God’s providence. It speaks of our fundamental trust that God is in control and that our lives are neither random or meaning less.

This referencing of physical reality permeates Catholic teaching. In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, that we read from today (2 Cor 5:6-10), he identifies the reality that we exist as human persons made up of spirit and body.

It is the body through which we interact with the world. It is through the senses of the body that we observe and learn. It is with the body that we do what we do, as Paul points out, both good and evil. It is our bodies that reveal much about God’s intention in creating us.

The reality of our bodies reveals that being male or female is part of being human. This physical reality was acknowledged as coming from God at the very beginning of the Bible.
　

Genesis 1:27-28 says,

"God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them by saying, "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."

The physical reality that the union of a man and a woman creates new life is both the biological basis of marriage and God’s design of who we are as embodied persons.

A second reality of our imaging God as male and female is reflected later the book of Genesis when it is pointed out that the complimentary natures of man and woman addresses, what might be called, our initial loneliness. This aspect of human reality can be seen in the words of Adam at the time of his first encounter with Eve.

"This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘‘woman,...’’

The revelations of the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus often use marriage, this longing for union of man and woman, as an image of Gods love for us, his people.

In fact the final book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, describes heaven as the Marriage Feast of the Lamb when Jesus, the lamb, is the groom and the Church is the bride. We, in our parish community, also speak of being the sons and daughters of God, members of "God’s Family".

Today we also celebrate "Father’s Day". Recall that just a month ago we celebrated "Mother’s Day’. These two people in their fertile physical union brought about your and my existence and, for most of us, in their loving commitment to each other and their children provided each of us with that shelter from loneliness we call "family".

Yet among our friends and relatives we all know some who never marry. Perhaps their line of work is so absorbing ( think of explorers or artists) that marriage does not fit with their commitment to their art or vocation.

It is interesting that Jesus even takes note of this reality when he points out, in Matthew’s Gospel, Chapter 19:12, that among the men and woman choosing to not marry are those that chose celibacy "for the sake of the Kingdom".

We Catholics know many men and woman who have accepted this calling, to celibacy for the kingdom.

Again Jesus uses marriage and family as an image of the church in how their efforts for " the sake of the Kingdom" affect how they are accepted by us, God’s family. Being dedicated to God’s purposes, they care for God’s people in many ways. As a result we assign to them family titles like Brother John, Sister Susan, Mother Teresa, Father Stan

This week end we take note of the retirement of a special servant of God that we have fondly called ‘Father’.

As a young man Father Stan heard the calling to a celibate life "for the sake of the Kingdom" and after many years of study he was ordained a priest in 1968 amid the changes and confusion following the Second Vatican Council. Over the years he has ministered to many Catholic Communities in Minnesota, North Dakota and Venezuela.

Most of us older folks have known many priests, some as friends, some as spiritual directors, some as confessors and some as pastors. We realize that each is unique in personality and perspective. Some are more likable than others.

Having observed Father Stan for the past few years I would classify him as very pastoral in his ministerial style. I think he is a little leery about festivities in his honor like tonight’s retirement party. So, rather than telling a story that is directly about him I will tell you this story:

I recently read the testimony of a Catholic woman named Calah.

(http://www.patheos.com/Catholic/Long_Road_Calah_Alexander_06_08_2012.html )

The beginning of her story she says this,

"My first child was conceived out of wedlock. I was, at the time, not only unmarried but also a crystal meth addict. I was not Catholic but some strange combination of agnostic/lapsed Protestant; My boyfriend and the father of my child was a Catholic. Obviously neither he nor I were living virtuous lives at the time, but the reality of a child on the way forced us to try and straighten ourselves out."

Eventually they found a priest who ministered to them over several years as they got their lives together. The priest came under some criticism because he honored the reality of the little family over strict and immediate application of church regulations.

At the end of her story she gives this summary,

"Looking back, I see two people trying to wrench themselves out of sin without much hope of success, but with the unshakable confidence of a gentle and loving priest to guide our steps. I know that even on that long road, in which we were still shadowed by sin, God’s grace was there. I know that he never condemned us, withdrew his company from us, turned his back on us, or abandoned us to our sin. He walked with us, patient and merciful, just as he walks with us now."

Read her entire story here:
[ Calah Alexander, June 7, 2012, "The Long Road of Grace and Mercy", http://www.patheos.com/ ]
I think that there are many who would say something similar about Father Stan.

Being father’s day weekend it is our great pleasure to honor one who has dedicated his manhood to being a spiritual father for many.  We thank you for these recent years as OUR SPIRITUAL FATHER. - Happy Father’s Day, Father Stan.

Who Wants Control of Personal Relationships?

A recent letter to the editor in our regional daily newspaper made it quite clear that anyone holding an opinion on the subject of Marriage different than that of the author was clearly a bigoted and hate-filled individual and should not be allowed any input into the public discussion now underway in Minnesota about the upcoming vote on a constitutional amendment stating that Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Since even raising a question about the issue will fail the letter writer’s criteria I will grit my teeth and raise a few points despite his disapproval.

 Every day my email inbox features numerous emails from fellow members of my political party (DFL) making arguments against the amendment including:

       -          Is a conservative plot

-          Its a Republican idea

-          Its an attempt to prevent homosexual individuals from having a loving relationship

-          It’s a religious issue that has no place in politics

-          Its not fair that homosexual individuals be denied the benefits of marriage

The middle point in the above list seems the strangest. It claims that the historic definition of marriage, restated in the amendment, will prevent all other persons from entering or having loving relationships. Since, in history, the current definition of marriage was universally held yet other loving relationships existed, even thrived, why would it suppress them now?

 I am old enough to remember that it was not too long ago (as late as the 1990s) that portions of the various States marriage regulation laws were used to harass homosexual couples. At that time this gave rise to the “get the government out of my bedroom” complaint. What is strange here is a campaign of opposite intent, to get the government deeper into the private relationship control bussiness . The thrust of the marriage equality movement seems to be that government should extend its regulatory muscle to other relationships, particularly to same sex relationships by allowing the courts or the legislature to define marriage as any personal relationship.

Among my friends are same sex couples who have freely chosen to make long term commitments to each other, purchased homes together, given each other healthcare and/or financial power of attorney without seeking government license to do so (such license is requirement of heterosexual couples under current State marriage regulation). Likewise those that have decided to end their relationship have been able to do so without government approval (getting government approval of a divorce is required of heterosexual couples, however). The benefits referred to in the fifth item on the list must be so attractive that government control of your personal relationship is a price you are willing to pay.

Sermon - Seventh Sunday Ordinary Time

The last couple of weeks has been interesting due to our bishops objecting to regulations issued by HHS defining what organizations will and will not be classified as religious. Our media, however, spent the next two weeks talking about contraception rather than about conscience protection.

Jennifer Granholm, a commentator on "Current TV", said that she became a Catholic forty years ago and loves the Mass and the teachings of the church. She pointed out that this past Sunday was the first time in those forty years that she heard the term "contraceptive" mentioned from the altar. I am sure the mention was in her bishop’’‘‘s letter to the people of his diocese concerning the Freedom of Religion and Conscience Protection issue.

I read the six letters on this issue sent out by the Catholic Bishops of Minnesota. Four of the letters did mention the word "Contraception" once, one mentioned the word "contraceptives" once. and one used both words once. In all cases the words were used descriptively identifying a section of the HHS rules mandating what insurance coverage must be provided. I am sure that Jennifer’’s bishop used it in this way also.

I suggest that using the word ‘contraceptive’ or ‘contraception’ one time in a descriptive sentence hardly constitutes a sermon on the topic. So why have Jennifer and probably most of us never heard a sermon on ‘contraception’?

Today’’s scripture reading from Paul’’s letter to the Corinthians gives a clue. The Corinthians had gotten themselves into a community dispute. While the nature of the dispute is not clear it seems that some wanted to speak for some thing or somebody (the ‘yes’ side) while others were ready to speak against or even condemn something or somebody (the ‘no’ side). Paul points us back to the way Jesus talked, always with a ‘yes’.

"For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was proclaimed to you . . . was not "yes’’ and ‘no’ but (always) ‘yes'.’’

In our gospel reading from Mark we find Jesus saying to the paralytic, "Child your sins are forgiven you." Almost immediately the scribes present started saying to each other, "Why does this man speak that way?"

Why were they puzzled by his way of speaking? They were familiar with the approach of the Pharisees who would have lectured the paralytic about how his sins caused his health problem and then thrown him out of the house. Obviously a ‘‘no’’ reaction. But Jesus always says ‘‘yes’’. "Child your sins are forgiven." "Rise, pick up your mat and walk." The man picks up his mat and goes home. All are amazed. "We have never seen anything like this."

Again and again in our Sunday readings we see this ‘‘yes’’ approach in use by Jesus. Think of the woman taken in adultery or the woman at the well or last week with the leper. His response was always a loving "yes" and not condemnation. His Church strives to teach in the same way. Don’’t take me wrong. The fact that the church preaches that our destiny is Heaven in no way indicates that Hell is a good place to go. Our emphasis on love as good never implies that its opposite, lust, is anything but an evil.

One of the amazing persons we came to know in our lifetime was Pope John Paul II. He was acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. He was instrumental in ending communism in his native Poland and eventually all of Europe.[1] He did these things by strongly saying yes to what is right rather than saying no to what is wrong. Yes to Freedom, yes to solidarity and yes to worker’s rights. He knew and we should know that a ‘yes’ message is more powerful than a ‘no’ message. The coming of God in the incarnation has transformed the world and our lives precisely because of its positive message to humanity that the 'no' of our sins can be overcome by the 'yes’ of God’s love.

This week on Television I also heard it said that the Church believes that sex is evil and views those of us that are married as second class members of the Church. I know there are even some Catholics that believe such things.

Another aspect of the beloved Pope’s teaching is precisely in the area of human sexuality. Almost every Wednesday from September 1979 to November of 1984 the Pope gave talks to groups of Vatican visitors on the bodily dimension of human personhood, sexuality and marriage in light of biblical revelation.[2]

He explicitly reaffirms the ‘‘yes’’ that Sex is good, that sexuality is an integral part of being human and that men and woman through the marital embrace join with God in the work of creation. He does acknowledge that some thinkers have claimed that the body is evil and the mind or soul is good but insists that the Church teaches that body and soul are both integral to being a human person and that God made us that way.

One obvious reason that John Paul II, even before he was Pope, appealed to the young was his positive teaching about sexuality. Not only in his book entitled "Theology of the Body" but also his philosophical works on human anthropology, his poetry or his plays also show the Church’’s teaching in it full ‘‘yes’’ mode.

If you have been at a Catholic wedding lately you very likely heard a ‘yes’ sermon on marriage. The sermon of the priest or deacon inevitably holds up the positive aspects of sexuality, marriage and family and the grace that God offers us in undertaking this vocation. In the liturgy of marriage, a liturgy in which the Woman and the Man are the Sacramental Ministers, the following positive message is always present:

The priest or the deacon asks three questions. Each of these questions is seeking a ‘yes’ before the sacramental liturgy can proceed.

The first ‘yes’ to freedom:

HAVE YOU COME HERE FREELY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION TO GIVE YOURSELVES TO EACH OTHER IN MARRIAGE?

(Note that the freedom preached by the church is for all of us, not just those who choose marriage. Thus the single person, the single parent, the widow, the widower, the sinner and the saint are all beloved by God and therefore must be free in order to respond to God's love.)

The second ‘yes’ is to fidelity:

WILL YOU LOVE AND HONOR EACH OTHER AS MAN AND WIFE FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES?

The third ‘yes’ is to Fertility:

WILL YOU ACCEPT CHILDREN LOVINGLY FROM GOD AND BRING THEM UP ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH?

If you attend a Catholic Pre Cana or a Catholic Engaged Encounter you will find these three positive ideals of marriage presented by Catholic lay women and men and Catholic clergy, some of whom are themselves married. At these sessions the subject of family planning will be discussed. The church does teach that there are times when the spacing or even avoidance of conception is a moral choice for a husband and wife. The analysis of which method, device, drug or technology is chosen, however, is where moral distinctions are made by theologians, ethicists, and healthcare professionals to help us form our consciences in this matter.

Also this week I heard it claimed that the Church is intractably opposed to the rights of women. Here is Pope John XXIII writing in "Pacem In Terris" in 1963.

"... the part that women are now playing in political life is everywhere evident. This is a development that is perhaps of swifter growth among Christian nations, but it is also happening extensively, if more slowly, among nations that are heirs to different traditions and imbued with a different culture. Women are gaining an increasing awareness of their natural dignity. Far from being content with a purely passive role or allowing themselves to be regarded as a kind of instrument, they are demanding both in domestic and in public life the rights and duties which belong to them as human persons." [3]

That sound like a ‘‘yes’’ to me. A ‘‘yes’’ in support of women in our culture and public life, that women should be treated as fully human and not objectified as mere instruments.

Another pundit claimed that the church only names saints that are either celibate men or a virginal women. In 2002 Ferdinand Holbock wrote a book that describes the lives of 200 married persons that have either been named saints or are being considered for sainthood.

Lets come back to the word "contraception" and listen to what some have been saying. I have heard it said, this week, that our culture is solidly "contraceptive" in philosophy and that we Catholics have bought into this view and rejected the Church’s pro-Creative teaching. Since this claim is not discussing a family planning method, device, drug or technology but rather a philosophy we need to consider just what a "contraceptive" philosophy means.

The word "contraception" is a contraction of two words. "CONTRA" a French word meaning ‘against’ and the English word ‘conception’ meaning the creation of a new human life by the physical union of a man and a woman.

Scientifically this is the moment when human life begins. Culturally this is how cultures grow, thrive and survive. A culture without children will die! Look around our world today. Europe’s culture is disappearing due to too few children. Japan's economy is in dire straights due to too few children to keep it going.

Are they right? Have we Catholics become a community that is AGAINST CONCEPTION?


If you were at Mass last Sunday you saw our pro-creative and pro children community on parade. Our kids reading the scripture, leading us in prayer and singing for the love of God. But on any Sunday we see multi generational families every where in this church, we see a grandfather and grandmothers arriving with granddaughters and grandsons in their arms. Any mother who brings her new born to church is swamped by loving parishioners. Parents and grand parents beaming whenever a child or grandchild advances to the office of server, lector or choir member. In addition many of our parishioners, married and single, are dedicated to a vocation of service to our children in our schools.

All of God’s children are loved by this Parish Community regardless of their life choices or current situation. Single, married, single parents, persons of all sexual orientation, divorced, seniors. We are stiving to respond to Jesus's call to love all including the lonely, the poor, the immigrant, the sick, the handicapped, yes every one.

Isaiah, quotes our God in the first reading today: "I am doing something new! ... do you not perceive it? (You) are the people I formed for myself, (and I) wipe.. out your sins." (Isaiah 43:19, 21, 25)

All of us have sinned yet God speaks of you and I as his beloved and stands ready with his ‘yes’ upon our return in search of forgiveness.

"I am doing something new! ... do you not perceive it? (You) are the people I formed for myself, (and I) wipe.. out your sins." (Isaiah 43:19, 21, 25)

-----------------------------------

References:

        1. Wikipedia, "John Paul II", February 18, 2012. 
          2. John Paul II, The Theology of the Body, 1997 Daughter of St Paul. 
          3. John XXIII, "Pachem In Terris", 1963

© Copyright 2012 Joseph E. Hilber. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission of the author.

New Executive Director for TOB Institute



For many years the Owens and the Hilber families got together following Christmas Midnight Mass to sing carols, eat cookies and continue the celebration of the incarnation. Here is an announcement of the appointment of the Damon Owens as Executive Director of the TOB Institute. Since I have been a student of this institute I applaud this appointment. Damon's Father, Deacon Frank, was my prayer partner for several years and his mentoring led to my own vocation to the Diaconate. May God be with Damon in his new position.   The following announcement appeared in NCR today.



Damon Owens - Executive Director
 TOB Institute

"Damon Owens is the founder of the New Jersey Natural Family Planning Association and Joy-Filled Marriage NJ. He has appeared on numerous radio and television programs and is a frequent speaker on marriage, sexuality, NFP and Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body. He spoke recently with Register senior writer Tim Drake about his new position as the executive director of the Theology of the Body Institute."

Read the entire interview here.

Read Gibran to Celebrate the Catholic View of Marriage

One of my favorite bloggers, Jennifer Fulwiler, has been critical of the reading from the poem, “The Prophet” by the Christian Poet, Kahlil Gibran, at weddings. The title of her August 15 column in National Catholic Register is entitled “Please Don't Read This Poem at Your Wedding.” I disagree.

The summary of her view of the poem is:

“Though it was published in 1923, it's an eloquent articulation of our modern culture's new understanding of marriage. In this view, the individual is more important than the family unit. Marriage is seen as a path to self-fulfillment for each spouse, where protecting yourself trumps self sacrificial love, and personal autonomy trumps all.”

My view of the poem is almost opposite of hers. My wife and I (married 50 years+) raised our children during the 60s, 70s and 80s and as a father was always proactive in finding ways to counter the distorted and dysfunctional understanding of love, marriage and family growing in our culture. I recognized in “The Prophet” a counter cultural celebration of the Catholic view of marriage and family. When I read and studied John Paul II “Theology of The Body” I thought often of this poem.

When it came time for the Fathers' contribution to the reception speeches, I read from this poem at all my childrens' wedding receptions.

From the verses on Marriage:

“You shall be together when the white wings of death scatter your days.
Ay, you shall be together even in the silent memory of God.
But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
and let the winds of the heavens dance between you.”

My commentary: The idea that God is not not a part of marriage has always been around but in the 60s and 70s this godless idea of marriage captured a large portion of our culture. It is one factor in moving our culture's view of marriage to the sorry and confused state we find it today. Gibran sees it differently.

“And stand together yet not too near together:
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow”

 My commentary: Why do the temple pillars stand apart? Obviously so that God may enter. The same with marriage; leave space in your marriage so that God may enter.

“Love one another, but make not a bond of love:”

My commentary: I encounter many young people whose concept of love (and marriage) is that one is possessed by the other, that you disappeared in the relationship. It feeds the related idea that men and women are equal in all things and that sexual differentiation is not important. Also secular humor pictures marriage as 'giving up freedom' (bondage) whereas the Christian view is that love sets us free and that freedom is a necessary element of self giving love.

From the section on Children:

“They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you they belong not to you.”

My commentary: Our modern secular culture preaches a sort of dualism that would describe the body as property that belongs to the person and by extension the view that babies (feti) are one's personal property and can be disposed of for any personal reason. Gibran sees it differently.

Jennifer made this same point about pro abortion philosophy in her August 12 posting on NCRegister.com. Gibran, Jennifer and I certainly are on the Catholic side here.

The beauty of Gibran's poetry continues:

"You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as he loves the arrow that flies,
so he loves also the bow that is stable."

My commentary: What a beautiful image of the Catholic teaching about the co-creative nature of sexuality and the importance of stable husband and wife families in raising children.

This poem is not a church document, it is not theological essay and it is not an argument about culture. It is a poetic celebration of the Incarnation, the life giving message of the Son and his promise to be with us via another mother. This poetic promise obviously points to the Church and our belief that the Church is the body of Christ in the world.

As the 'Prophet' departs for heaven we find the moderator alone;

“And when all the people were dispersed
she stood alone upon the sea-wall,
remembering in her heart his saying,
'A little while, a moment of rest upon the wind,
and another woman shall bear me.”

The celebration thus end with the Pentecost promise!

To read Jennifer's whole posting click here. Her essays at NCR as well as her personal blog, “Coversion Diary” are among my daily reads.

Love Requires Freedom

Yesterday I had the privilege of officiating at my Grand nephew’s wedding. David and Eiledh have been friends since high school. Their college careers took them to different locations but now, to the joy of their families, they have chosen to enter together the life-long vocation of marriage. The ceremony featured bagpipe accompanied processions in tribute to the bride’s Scottish heritage.

The scripture readings they chose for their wedding provided excellent lessons on the subject of just what kind of love God calls us to in the marriage covenant. The first truth is that such love must be freely chosen. On Friday a favorite author, Roxane Salonen, wrote the following paragraph on this very subject on her blog.

“If only (we)understood we are not here to learn to be happy. We are here to learn to draw near to our Creator so that when we are called into the next life, we will be inclined to choose, on our own accord, Love. Forced love is not love; it defies the very definition of true love, which is freely given and chosen. And so it is that God, who desires our happiness but knows that our choosing Love is even more important than our attaining happiness, allows suffering. He does not cause it, but in His wisdom, He steps aside to let the world He created happen as it might. In this way, we are freed to choose Him, in spite of suffering, in spite of our continued failure to find perfect happiness in this life.”

Roxane and her husband have been married for some time and have a energetic family of young children but but her posting is about the loss of their son Gabriel. It is tough to contemplate suffering and death on a wedding day but the love to which David and Eiledh aspire has the power to overcome all of life’s troubles."

To read Roxane's complete essay click here.

Why is Marriage regulated by The Goverment?

One of the most lucid legal minds concerning the subject of abortion has weighed in on the definition of marriage. Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University authored an essay on the issued published on August 3 in The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal. Here are a few quotes from his essay.

"(T)he idea, deeply embodied in our law and its shaping philosophical tradition, of marriage as a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life. This unity is why marriage, in our legal tradition, is consummated only by acts that are generative in kind. Such acts unite husband and wife at the most fundamental level and thus legally consummate marriage whether or not they are generative in effect, and even when conception is not sought.

Of course, marital intercourse often does produce babies, and marriage is the form of relationship that is uniquely apt for childrearing (which is why, unlike baptisms and bar mitzvahs, it is a matter of vital public concern). But as a comprehensive sharing of life—an emotional and biological union—marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to procreation. This explains why our law has historically permitted annulment of marriage for non-consummation, but not for infertility; and why acts of sodomy, even between legally wed spouses, have never been recognized as consummating marriages.

Only this understanding makes sense of all the norms—annulability for non-consummation, the pledge of permanence, monogamy, sexual exclusivity—that shape marriage as we know it and that our law reflects. And only this view can explain why the state should regulate marriage (as opposed to ordinary friendships) at all—to make it more likely that, wherever possible, children are reared in the context of the bond between the parents whose sexual union gave them life.

If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy."

Read all of Professor George's article in the Wall Street Journal.

World Marriage Sunday

Please click on the title above to read a fellow Deacon's Sermon for World Marriage Sunday.