Chaste Spousal Love: Key to Western Civilization

Chaste love between a husband and wife is truly a beautiful thing to behold! It wants to call forth from us an aspiration to become our truest, highest, noblest selves. It has a hidden radiance within it, and when it shines into the hearts of others who are able to notice its beauty it can truly transform a culture for the better. This is not automatic. I am speaking of a spousal love that has its source in the pierced heart of Christ. It's at the very center of all that was and is best and most transcendent in Western civilization. Lord, may it not be too late for this now largely hidden, pure flame to be kindled again.

Real Man Gives Life for Wife & Baby in Split Second Decision

Men out there. This is what manhood is about. Giving of ourselves with nothing held back. Sacrificing for others. Even until death.

So many things in our culture today encourage us (men and women both) to be horribly self-absorbed. We are lulled into a kind of self-killing self-preoccupation. I hope this video is a reminder to stop being so absorbed in ourselves and start giving more of ourselves away to others in love. This is the heart and power and significance of real manhood. Most especially, Christian manhood, modeled upon the self-sacrifice of Christ.

I hope this is inspiring to others as it is to me. So men, let's stop living for ourselves and start living for others, especially the women in our lives. We aren't being real men--men after the heart of Christ--until we do.

Note from this video that this real man was already in the long habit of readily giving himself for his wife--putting her first. Here is a question for us all to ask ourselves: If I had a split second decision to make like this, no time to think it over, would I be already in the habit of choosing others over myself? Would I instantly give myself, without hesitation, so another could live?

Help us, Lord, to react like you did on the cross!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Marriage: Do the Two Really Become One?

The title for this post might conjure up many themes in regard to the unity that is supposed to obtain between a husband and a wife. But right now I want to mention only one (and admittedly not the most important): finances.

It seems to be a growing characteristic among married couples to maintain financial independence from each other after they get married. I see this as a serious problem.

When a man and a woman marry, at least in the Catholic understanding of marriage, the two become one. This does not just pertain to sexual union. Their lives are to be united together in an especially close and intimate way until death--a closeness of unity that is unique to marriage. Each spouse is called to grow, with the help of God's grace, more and more able to give selflessly to the other for the duration of their marriage. They are to form a single home. Without losing their personal dignity (indeed, in a way that enhances their dignity as one who relates deeply and profoundly with another), they belong to each other.

Personally, I do not understand why a couple who truly desire to be united to each other in the sacrament of marriage would plan to deliberately keep their finances apart from each other. Why would one spouse who earns a paycheck not want the other spouse to have access to that money? Why would one spouse think of income as his or her private funds as an individual, rather than theirs--collectively--theirs as a husband-wife union? Are there husbands out there who do not want to support their wives with the money that they earn? Or, if the wife is the primary breadwinner, likewise for them? If there are, I would suggest they either do not truly want to be married, or, they don't understand what marital union truly means.

What is one spouse saying to the other if each one intends to keep his or her money carefully segregated from the other? It's as if they are saying to each other from the start, "I'm committed to you, but not completely. I reserve the right to make it easier for me to break apart and leave. I don't intend, necessarily, to be committed to our union 'til death do us part. I am not committed to unconditional mutual support for each other when it comes to money."

I suspect that the growing practice of cohabitation before marriage contributes to this. Before marriage, a cohabiting couple naturally have independent financial lives. When they marry it is easy for them simply to continue this segregation because they have gotten used to living as though they were married, but without truly being so. Their union was not complete. And so after they marry they are already in a habit of living together but remaining separate financially. They unite, but not fully. They keep a part of themselves back from their union (just as they have already been doing).

But in some respects this is not surprising. Why should a couple who has been cohabiting, and thus become comfortable with living only as a partial union though under the same roof, not be comfortable continuing this same pattern of partial union when they marry? That the "two become one flesh" is now qualified by many footnotes has become accepted long before the marriage vows are made.

The ACORN scandal: Moral indifference has severe cultural consequences

The recent revelations about the apparently massively corrupt organization, ACORN, are rooted in attitudes that have long been promoted by certain key groups/segments of society which have a disproportionately large cultural influence in America.

The shocking undercover videos made by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles reveal that, at least in the ACORN Housing offices of Baltimore, Washington, DC, and Brooklyn, NY, the idea that a house of child prostitution might move in to their neighborhood in the near future does not upset their employees. In fact, they had no problem advising two individuals posing as a pimp and a prostitute how to arrange their income so they could appear legitimate and get a loan for a house (in which to conduct child prostitution), how to avoid being caught by authorities (because it's illegal), and even such things as how to hide cash in a "tin" and bury it under the grass in the backyard so that other shady characters would not find it in case they came looking for it. Gosh, I wonder if they have thought of this sort of thing before? So much for the integrity of ACORN.

As I say, such attitudes have roots in ideas that have long been supported by a certain segment of very influential cultural elites. What ideas? Well, one of the most destructive of them goes like this:

There is no ultimate purpose for human life, and all ideas about morality, of right and wrong in human actions, are simply matters of discerning one's own already-given, interior feelings and dispositions. Right and wrong are simply what each person feels to be right and wrong for himself (herself). In other words, there are no universal standards of human morality, only personal, individual standards. And the only judgments any person can legitimately make about the morality of human acts are to judge his own actions. When it comes to the actions of other people, we cannot proclaim them right or wrong (good or evil), we can only help them discover whether their actions live up to their own unique personal moral code.

This is moral relativism, which leads inevitably to moral indifference toward everyone but oneself. In my experience, a sector of society with great cultural influence which holds such views is the educational establishment. I don't mean everyone involved with teaching, but I do mean especially those who are in highly respected positions of influence and leadership within the field of education--especially public education. I speak especially of those who educate the educators--writing curricula for teacher education--as well as those who set policy for public teacher's unions and those who have a big influence over textbooks. Most worrisome are those who are considered expert in teaching "sex education" (or "health"), social studies/history, and English.

I am personally convinced that for some decades, many (though not all) public schools have subtly (sometimes not-so-subtly) encouraged moral indifference in regard to a few key areas of human life. Think of the issue of homosexuality and the nature of marriage. How many students, by the time they graduate high school (and then college), have been influenced by what happens in the classroom to look upon an actively gay lifestyle, including same-sex-marriage, with indifference? The same goes for abortion and sexual activity by unmarried teens. If a student reacts negatively to such things it is suggested to him or her (and reinforced many times and many ways) that while it is fine for him personally to decide not to engage in such activity, he has no right--indeed it is grievously wrong--for him to try to convince (or even suggest to) anyone else that they too should not be doing those things.

When it comes to sexual behavior, kids are taught that it is bad to judge the morality of the (sexual) acts of other kids. They may only judge their own acts--whether they are being true to themselves or not (represented by the mindless notion of telling kids they should figure out if they are "ready" for sex). And what happens when adults begin to think this way, not only about other adults, but about children?

What does this have to do with the ACORN scandal? A lot. A great deal!

The ACORN workers in the videos nonchalantly advising a supposed pimp and prostitute about how to get money for a house the workers were told would be used for child prostitution are simply the inevitable consequence of this morally indifferent attitude. This is exactly what our most elite and influential professionals in the field of public education encourage. It is how our young people are taught to view the world. And those areas of our society, I suspect, where this morally bankrupt and putrid approach to life is most heavily pushed are in our poorest neighborhoods and schools. [Note: I would apply this primarily to secular public schools, less to private religious schools, though they are not immune.]

It follows. . . If one cannot say that it is wrong (note: not simply undesirable, but wrong) for two 14-year-olds to have sex with each other as long as they both consent (as many teacher educators would tell teachers), it is not much of a stretch from there to saying that it is OK for a 14-year-old and an adult to have sex, so long as the child "consents." If there were any ACORN workers in the above videos who had any reservations about child prostitution this attitude I describe would equip them to facilitate such activities without a bothered conscience. For they would see any personal reservations as merely personal--particular to themselves only--believing that they have no right to render any moral judgment upon others. "So long as the pimp and prostitute think it's fine and dandy, who am I to say otherwise???"

There are too many adults in our society who seem to hold similar notions (including many in journalism, entertainment, and the arts). Those among us who have a sane moral compass, knowing that there is indeed such a thing as a universal moral code and that a civil human society cannot survive long without recognizing this, have an obligation to act against the forces of moral indifference in our culture. The future of our nation depends on us.

Miami bishop affirms Church teaching on conjugal love

Since I posted previously about the scandalous counsel of Fr. Cutie, and in the course of my comment I wondered whether the Archdiocese of Miami condones such counsel, I should let you know of the following.

I had emailed the Archdiocese of Miami asking them for clarification as to whether or not they consider it acceptable for their priests to counsel a couple that sex before marriage is fine, even a good thing. I'm glad to report that Auxiliary Bishop Eduardo R.Jimenez, Director of the Family Life Department of the Archdiocese of Miami (which oversees marriage preparation in the diocese) emailed me on May 18. His response included the following:

As Director of the Family Life Department of the Archdiocese of Miami, I want to assure you and everyone that we do not encourage or support anything contrary to the Catholic Church Moral Teachings. We do not support cohabitation, nor having sex before marriage. . . . I can assure [you] that we do not counsel or support this kind of statements in any of our programs.

Thank you, Archbishop Jimenez, for your response, and for your assurance that the Archdiocese of Miami stands fast with the teaching of the Catholic Church about the proper role of the gift of conjugal love as within marriage.

Encouraging mortal sin: not a good preparation for marriage

Ever since my conversion to Catholicism I have been interested in issues surrounding the challenge of how the Church in America might be more effective in catechesis and evangelization, matters so important in helping people become closer to Jesus, that they might continue to move forward on the path to sanctity as their life unfolds.

In my opinion one of the most perpetually important things for an effective and ongoing transformation of a Christian society is the preparation of young people for the sacrament of marriage. A great deal of good--or harm--can be done by agents of the Church during the window of time before a couple is married. It is a special opportunity for healing, informing, correcting, and preparing a man and woman, thus enabling them to become better able to draw close to each other and to Christ through the many graces available in Christian matrimony. While there have been good things taking place in the area of marriage preparation, it seems to me that typical courses of marriage preparation in many American parishes still are mediocre at best, sometimes downright awful. Even so I do think progress is being made, though this progress is slow.

On the topic of poor marriage prep and in connection to the previous post, I want to bring to your attention the following. The same May 9 Miami Herald article as referenced in the previous post, included this:

In the process of counseling couples about to get married, [Fr. Cutie] has matter-of-factly said: "Look at the person sitting next to you. If you are not having the best sex of your life, they may not be the right person for you."

Now, this is outrageously horrid advice for a priest to give a young couple preparing for marriage. This is extremely grave matter. If this quote is accurate it would indicate that this priest casually brushed off mortal sin, and with a smile. And not only that, but he actually gave unmarried couples positive encouragement to continue in grave sin, thereby helping set them up for untold continuing and future damage to their souls. Rather than helping them grow in virtue and gain a deeper appreciation for the beauty and mystery of marriage in Christ, he helped them instead to become more accepting of mortal sin, affirming them in approaching it with casual indifference, and thereby contributed to their becoming more spiritually lethal agents of one another’s present and future suffering and degradation as persons. Such a priest, in the name of God, would in fact be leading others into deeper and deeper spiritual destruction. And this, probably at least in part from a desire to appear hip, cool, and nonjudgmental.

If the above quote is true and if Fr. Cutie's bishop (Archbishop John Favalora) knew of it, this alone should have been cause for him to be immediately removed from pastoral duties. Any Catholic priest who is so unfaithful to his vocation that he would counsel engaged couples that fornication is no big deal and thereby, because of his influence as a priest, strengthen them in an attitude that regards mortal sin as OK (hey, they should be doing it and having fun--as preparation for marriage!!!)--has become (whether he realizes this or not) an ally of the devil. And I do not easily say things like this. It is quite literally the truth. A Catholic priest should be the last person in the world who would ever give anyone a green light to act as though objectively grave sin were normal and unproblematic.

What does the Archdiocese of Miami think of this? Do other priests in the diocese do this sort of thing, or is this a tragic aberration from a diocesan norm of priestly fidelity to the teaching of Christ about marriage?

This is so serious an issue that on May 12 I emailed auxiliary bishop John Noonan, Director of Priestly Life and Ministry for the Archdiocese of Miami, asking him if he could confirm whether this quote was accurate. To date I have received no response.

Also, and again because of the gravity of this situation, I thought I should try to find out more about the source of this quote from the reporter who wrote the Miami Herald article in which it appeared--it is unattributed in the article. So, I emailed Lydia Martin at the Herald, asking her if she would name her source, or, at least reaffirm (or recant) whether she could vouch confidently for the authenticity of the quote attributed to Fr. Cutie. She responded to me by email on May 15. She wrote, "It would not be appropriate for me to name my source. But the source is a reliable one, or I wouldn't have used the information."

I thought I should include this email exchange (one attempted and one successful) in this post since Ms. Martin who reported the quote about which I am writing did not name her source. Charity demands that I should have made an effort to ask about the source of this quote before being willing to write critically about the one to whom it is attributed. Although not fully satisfactory, the response of the reporter to stand behind it and the silence of the Archdiocese seems to me adequate to assume it is probably accurate.

Please, let us pray there be no other instances like this of priests preparing couples for the holy sacrament of matrimony by the ridiculous and harmful foolishness of encouraging them to commit mortal sin.