Book Recommendations on Marriage

I am convinced that the best thing we can do
to defend marriage is to live our own
marriages in a truly Catholic way.

Dear Friend in Christ,

Everywhere you turn these days it seems like the Catholic understanding of marriage and the family is under attack.  We’re told “You Catholics have a narrow, outdated idea of what makes a family” or “your church oppresses women.”  I am convinced that the best thing we can do to defend marriage is to live our own marriages in a truly Catholic way. We must convert ourselves before we have a hope of converting our culture—this is the very heart of the New Evangelization!

The first step to conversion is prayer. And no prayer is more perfect than the one Our Lord Himself taught us, the “Our Father.” Click here to download a free copy of my book on the Lord’s Prayer.

But we also need to know what we are talking about. We have to really understand the teaching of the Church if we are going to share that teaching with our neighbors. The St. Paul Center’s publishing arm, Emmaus Road Publishing, is having a sale with some my favorite titles on marriage at great prices. These books will help you go deeper.
 

Scripture and the Mystery of Marriage and Family Life: Catholic for a Reason IV

“The nursery rhyme concludes that Humpty Dumpty couldn’t be put together again. Some people today think that marriage faces the same situation….Fortunately, many people are willing to keep up the good fight—and believe it is winnable, indeed, must be won. Among them are the contributors to Catholic for a Reason IV: Scripture and the Mystery of Marriage and Family Life.”

-Bishop R. Daniel Conlon Diocese of Joliet, Illinois

[“More”]
 

The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church

“This book is not what you expect. It is not what you’ve read before. It is an eye-opener for the importance of the question; for defining a clear alternative to androcentrism (male chauvinism), feminist fundamentalism, and a lukewarm compromise between them; and for a profoundly scriptural view of authority— one of the most disastrously misunderstood concepts in our culture.”

—Peter Kreeft, Author and Professor of Philosophy
at Boston College

[“More”]

 

These Beautiful Bones: An Everyday Theology of the Body

“Emily Stimpson cracks open St. John Paul II’s revolutionary teachings in a way that few others have done, revealing layers of depth and richness that many of us never knew were there.”

-Jennifer Fulwiler, Convert, Author, Speaker

[“More”]

 

In addition to these books, there are hundreds of other titles with huge discounts at Emmausroad.org. Please join me in committing to growing deeper in both our living out of family life and our understanding of it. Let’s show the world what Christian marriage looks like!

Yours in Christ,
Scott Hahn

USCCB Opposes Supreme Court Ruling

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 26, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com) - The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have publicly come out against the Supreme Court's decision today ruling that same-sex "marriage" is a constitutional right, calling the decision a "tragic error" that will "harm the common good and most vulnerable among us."
Written by USCCB president Abp. Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, the statement makes no concessions and condemns the decision from start to finish, arguing that the definition of marriage will always be rooted in Catholic truth and the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ no matter what five unelected justices tell us to think. Statement below:

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the "integral ecology" that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.

Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.

I encourage Catholics to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who hate us or would punish us for our faith and moral convictions.

Lastly, I call upon all people of good will to join us in proclaiming the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia, and I ask all in positions of power and authority to respect the God-given freedom to seek, live by, and bear witness to the truth.

http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/usccb-condemns-same-sex-marriage-ruling

Fortnight for Freedom

ST. LOUIS, MO, June 19, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- If the US Supreme Court decides to redefine marriage in the next couple weeks it will not stop the nation’s bishops from proclaiming the truth, says the archbishop serving as point man on the issue.

“Regardless of what happens at the end of this month, nothing the court says can change what marriage truly is and we will continue to promote and defend it,” said San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chairman for the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

The archbishop quoted Russian novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to illustrate the point for his fellow bishops at their Spring Assembly earlier this month in St. Louis.

“Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me,” said Archbishop Cordileone. “The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie.”

“We may have to suffer this lie about marriage in the law,” he continued, “but we must not participate in it or keep silent about it.”

He suggested to his fellow bishops that the faithful can offer up small hardships in this regard for the Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere who are being killed and exiled for the faith.

“Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie.”

The archbishop knows something about taking heat for the Catholic faith, with the attacks on him over the last several months for working to strengthen the Church’s identity in San Francisco Catholic high schools. His fellow bishops applauded him fervently at the end of his presentation after USCCB President Louisville Archbishop Joseph Kurtz thanked him for his courageous leadership for the Church.

Marriage has been effectively redefined in 37 states and the District of Columbia as consequence of judicial action, Cordileone told the bishops, and a “yes” answer to either question before the high court – whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” and whether states have to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other states - will have the practical effect of redefining marriage nationwide.

Archbishop Cordileone warned of more persecution coming for those who believe in God’s plan for natural marriage should the Supreme Court decide to redefine marriage in the law.

“Those who continue to advocate for the true definition of marriage will be increasingly marginalized in law and society,” he said, “and depending on the rationale, could be erroneously viewed as proponents of discrimination and will themselves be targeted for discrimination.”

His department had already been providing material for the bishops and dioceses to educate on the issue, and also filed an amicus brief in the cases before the Supreme Court. More resources will be available on the implications of the court ruling once it is handed down.

“In this atmosphere we continue our efforts to protect the freedom of those who believe and act on the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” said Archbishop Cordileone.

Various recent legislative efforts were supported by the US bishops in defense of marriage, including reintroduction in both Houses of Congress of the State Marriage Defense Act and the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act, the latter which protects adoption and foster care providers against discrimination by the federal and state governments for placing children in homes with a mother and father.

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act will be introduced again soon in the House and the Senate, he said, especially important with it providing protection in the areas of federal employment, contracts, grants, and tax-exempt status.

“The act is particularly relevant,” Archbishop Cordileone stated, “given that when the Solicitor General of the United States was recently asked by a justice of the Supreme Court at oral argument in the marriage cases whether a religious school could lose its tax exempt status for opposing same-sex ‘marriage,’ the Solicitor General did not take the opportunity to deny it, and thereby quell fear about it, but instead said that, ‘It’s certainly going to be an issue.’”

More is expected as well in terms of federal classification of sexual orientation or gender identity. “These categories have come to acquire meanings in law that both reflect an incorrect understand of the human person and protect immoral behavior,” said Archbishop Cordileone, calling out the Obama administration for promoting them.

“Regarding the federal executive branch,” he said, “we have continued to witness efforts to advance what Pope Francis has referred to critically as ‘gender theory’ or ‘gender ideology.’”

The recent OSHA-released dictates compelling employers to allow self-identified transgendered individuals to use the bathroom according to their “gender identity” and not their biological sex, were a perfect example of the Holy Father’s insight on the subject.

“There is the mistake of the human mind – gender theory – creating so much confusion,” the archbishop said, quoting Pope Francis, “and it seeks to cancel out sexual difference.”

“The importance of responding to this challenge with truth and compassion remains paramount,” he said, and shared that the Holy Father has been offering excellent catechesis on marriage in his series on the family during his Wednesday general audiences.

“An essential part of our teaching is and has to be that the difference between man and woman in a positive difference,” said the archbishop. “It’s the difference that makes new life possible, rather than a negative one to be ignored or actively opposed.”

He, along with a few other bishops had signed the Defense of Marriage and the Right of Religious declaration in April along with more than 30 other faith leaders, showing that the Catholic Church is not alone in its witness to marriage.

Taken from:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-us-may-suffer-the-lie-of-gay-marriage-but-we-wont-take-part-in-i

God Bless
Nathan

Marriage

On April 28, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether same-sex “marriage” should be legal in every state. As articulated by Justice Kennedy, gay and lesbians have a powerful motivation for their claim, namely, human dignity: “Same-sex couples say, of course, we understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can’t procreate but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled.”

Those with a high regard for marriage likely resonate with an intuitive sense of its worth. But intuitions need unpacking if they are to become the basis of law, particularly if undoing millennia of culture. Justice Kennedy soberly acknowledges this, noting that the traditional “definition has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh well, we know better.”

Given the seriousness of the question, a precise understanding of what we are redefining seems warranted. What are these specific attributes of marriage that render it noble and sacred, so much so that dignity is fulfilled and conferred by entering into the married state? What makes marriage valuable in such an exalted way?

The Court heard various claims drawn from the social sciences about the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents and other possible implications on the social fabric of society. About those, however, Justice Kennedy expressed some skepticism, articulating that “we should not consult at all the social science on this, because it’s too new,” and given the fragility of our knowledge, “it’s only fair for us to say, well, we’re not going to consult social science.”

Altering an institution rooted in many ages of human experience while acknowledging our ignorance of the effects is a serious thing. The change is so large, the risks so unknown, that the normal presumption against instability would need to be overcome by a reason of grave weight and clarity. Namely, that human dignity is fulfilled when persons have access to the noble and sacred attributes of marriage.

Now, if marriage fulfills human dignity while possessing nobility and sacredness, it makes sense that merely utilitarian calculations about the consequences of gay marriage clearly fall in importance. Not irrelevant, but not as vital as determining precisely those “other attributes,” to use Justice Kennedy’s terms, which bestow dignity and nobility.

This seems to push us in the direction articulated by Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George, namely, that one cannot make claims about the nobility and sacredness of marriage until one has defined what marriage is. How can we argue that marriage is noble until we know what marriage is? Further, if examining the nature of marriage, it is quite fair to ask whether there is a better definition available than the conjugal view—a union of one man and one woman in a permanent and exclusive commitment naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children. To put it starkly, the various revisionist views postulating marriage as some sort of romantic commitment enhanced by sexual intimacy not only fail to define marriage but woefully fail to account for those mysterious “other attributes” by which to defend nobility and sacredness.

Consider the argument offered to the Court by Donald Verrilli, the Solicitor General of the United States. Marriage, he claims, involves something more fundamental than tax benefits and hospital visitation, for marriage is “an enduring bond between two people.”

Yes, marriage is an enduring bond, but not all enduring bonds are marriages, nor are all enduring bonds fulfillments of human dignity (consider a crime family). Are Tom and Sue, who’ve lived together for 20 years, share finances, care for each other when ill, and love each other deeply married? They share an enduring bond, even one shaping their lives, commitments, and self-interpretation. But what if they are merely roommates, a brother and sister, a mother and son? Further, why should such an enduring bond be limited, as General Verrilli claims, to merely two people—why not three or four in an enduring bond?

When asked that very question by Justice Alito, Mary Bonauto, an attorney arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, responded, first, that “multiple people joining into a relationship … is not the same thing we’ve had in marriage, which is … the mutual support and consent of two people.” That response is nonsense, of course, for not only does it avoid the question of why there could not be a marriage of four, but it neglects to mention that what “we’ve had in marriage” is not the mutual support and consent of two persons but the mutual support and consent of two other sexed persons. If the nature of the institution as it has been understood for millennia is a guiding principle, then her claim self-refutes, but if the nature of the institution as practiced from time immemorial is not a guiding or binding principle—which her support of same-sex “marriage” quite obviously requires—then she’s provided no reason against a marriage of four. But she can’t have it both ways, appealing to the tradition to explain why only two while rejecting the tradition to explain why it needn’t be two other sexed persons.

She follows that line of reasoning with worries about “family disruption” and coercion. For instance, if there is a divorce, would the “fourth wife” have “access to the child of the second wife?” It’s not clear why this would differ from current custodial issues in the event of divorce or adoption—does an adoptive father have access to the biological child of his ex-wife? Why is this different in kind rather than degree? One cannot explain this without reference to the nature of marriage, and note how quickly Bonauto answers with reference to the bearing and rearing of children, which is the natural fulfillment of a union of one man and one woman. That is, her argument only makes sense because she implicitly privileges conjugal marriage as articulated by Girgis, Anderson, and George. Again, she depends on the very facts she is attempting to reverse, sawing the limb from under her. (She also asks who would make decisions in times of medical emergency if there was more than one spouse, but as this happens to be one of the arguments for gay marriage it seems to favor rather than deny the medical decision rights of throuples and quadrouples.)

These are very smart people, by the way. Well-educated, accomplished, prestigious professionals selected to shape the meaning of marriage in our society—still, their arguments are terrible. Not because they aren’t intelligent or trained or prepared, but simply because their starting point is an act of will, a fantasy. Marriage has a nature, it is a normative reality, and marriage can withstand the enormous weight of fulfilling human dignity because it really does have a structure and form supporting its nobility and sacredness.

Such nature is not a matter of social convention, or choice, or the “right side of history,” or human law, or the fruits of social science. Marriage is the permanent and exclusive one flesh union of a man and woman naturally fulfilled by the bearing and raising of children.

We can know this from nature and reason, although, to be sure, it is not obvious to everyone. We know this also from revelation, and Christians know that the nuptial mystery is a union and communion of difference bearing analogical likeness to the union in difference of the Trinity. Marriage is a welcoming and reception of difference, man of woman and woman of man, which naturally has the creative capacity to issue forth in new life.

Receptivity, as Norris Clarke once explained, is basic and “absolutely primary status of our being.” As “created beings” we first receive our being from God, only then able to offer ourselves as gifts for others to receive. Our cultural elites, though, revolt against this basic and primary status. Their willy-nilly definition of marriage is based on nothing other than bald assertion. But more than marriage is at stake: they reject the receptivity of the man for the woman and woman for the man because they reject our being as receptive. Rather than care for our being as a gift, they view it merely as a raw given, a resource to do with as they wish. This is a revolt of the will, and a repugnance and loathing of the being of humans.

As I’ve tried to unpack in Acedia and Its Discontents: Metaphysical Boredom in an Empire of Desire, early monastics defined such repugnance as sloth (acedia), a hatred of being. As one commentator explains:

Acedia … is a profound withdrawal into self. Action is no longer perceived as a gift of oneself, as the response to a prior love that calls us, enables our action, and makes it possible. It is seen instead as an uninhibited seeking of personal satisfaction in the fear of “losing” something. The desire to save one’s “freedom” at any price reveals, in reality, a deeper enslavement to the “self.” There is no longer any room for an abandonment of the self to the other or for the joy of gift; what remains is sadness or bitterness within the one who distances himself from the community and who, being separated from others, finds himself likewise separated from God.

We have to understand: arguments about same-sex “marriage” are not just about sexual morality, social norms, estate taxes, religious freedom, and the care of children (although all those factors are obviously entangled in the debate). In the end, this is a fundamental struggle about whether the human being exists in order to give/receive or to use/consume. We are choosing whether to identify ourselves as created in the image of God or as what Soren Kierkegaard termed “inclosing reserve,” a prisoner to oneself in an endless self-regard avoiding any obligation to the demands of communion. Receptivity, or the inclosing reserve of acedia—that is what we’re arguing.

On April 28, 2015, in the venerable halls of our highest court, sloth was arguing vigorously.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/why-same-sex-marriage-arguments-are-so-terrible

God Bless

Nathan

Priestly Celibacy

I've often wondered why priests weren't allowed to get married.  I mean wouldn’t they have a much better idea of what we parents have to go through with our spouses and kids?  But after a little research I've found that I was quite mistaken. You see, the Catholic Church doesn't forbid anyone from marrying. The Church simply chooses those who have already made a vow of chastity.

 

You see, everyone is free to decide whether or not to take a vow of celibacy. The Catholic Church of the Roman Rite, this congregation is member of this rite, chooses whom to lay hands on for priestly ordination. This practice is a tradition that could change since this practice is not a divinely ordained practice. It is simply a small ‘t’ tradition that began from very early on in Christian history.

 

Personally, it would surprise me greatly if the Church did change its practice of only ordaining men who have previously made a vow of celibacy. It would surprise me because both Paul and Jesus encouraged the celibate life for those who were called to it. Jesus said:" For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’ (Matt 19:12)

 

Paul himself recommends celibacy for those who can live this kind of life since their priorities will be divided. Isn’t it better to have a priest that is able to pick up and go wherever, and whenever, he may be needed, including foxholes, without the worry of being absent from their wives and kids? Paul put it this way in his letter to the Corinthians: “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband.  I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.”

 

Here’s a somewhat lengthy excerpt from catholic.com on the goodness of celibacy in the priesthood.

 

Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.

 

In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.

 

Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life in itself, regardless of offspring.

 

Finally, celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

 

God Bless
Nathan

Religious Liberty

Current Threats to Religious Liberty

An Overview of Specific Examples

Pope Benedict XVI spoke in 2012 about his worry that religious liberty in the United States is being weakened. He called religious liberty the “most cherished of American freedoms.” However, unfortunately, our most cherished freedom is under threat. Consider the following:

• HHS mandate for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. The mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services forces religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their own moral teaching. Further, the federal government tries to define which religious institutions are “religious enough” to merit protection of their religious liberty.
• Catholic foster care and adoption services. Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and the State of Illinois have driven local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption or foster care services—by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts, or both—because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit.
• State immigration laws. Several states have recently passed laws that forbid what they deem as “harboring” of undocumented immigrants—and what the Church deems Christian charity and pastoral care to these immigrants.
• Discrimination against small church congregations. New York City adopted a policy that barred the Bronx Household of Faith and other churches from renting public schools on weekends for worship services, even though non-religious groups could rent the same schools for many other uses. Litigation in this case continues.
• Discrimination against Catholic humanitarian services. After years of excellent performance by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) in administering contract services for victims of human trafficking, the federal government changed its contract specifications to require MRS to provide or refer for contraceptive and abortion services in violation of Catholic teaching.
• Christian students on campus. In its over-100-year history, the University of California Hastings College of Law has denied student organization status to only one group, the Christian Legal Society, because it required its leaders to be Christian and to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.
• Forcing religious groups to host same-sex “marriage”or civil union ceremonies. A New Jersey judge recently found that a Methodist ministry violated state law when the ministry declined to allow two women to hold a “civil union” ceremony on its private property. Further, a civil rights complaint has been filed against the Catholic Church in Hawaii by a person requesting to use a chapel to hold a same-sex “marriage” ceremony.

Is our most cherished freedom truly under threat? Yes, Pope Benedict XVI recognized in 2012 that various attempts to limit the freedom of religion in the U.S. are particularly concerning. The threat to religious freedom is larger than any single case or issue and has its roots in secularism in our culture. The Holy Father has asked for the laity to have courage to counter secularism that would“delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.”

Copy/pasted from:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/current-threats-to-religious-liberty.cfm

For more info, please go to: www.fortnight4freedom.org

 

God Bless
Nathan

Marriage

Marriage one man and one woman for nurturing children: Pope Francis’ first encyclical by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

ROME, July 5, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In his first encyclical letter, released this morning, Pope Francis has reiterated that marriage is a union of one man and one woman for the procreation and nurturing of children.

This lifelong pledge is possible only in the light of a greater plan for marriage, he said: “Promising love for ever is possible when we perceive a plan bigger than our own ideas and undertakings, a plan which sustains us and enables us to surrender our future entirely to the one we love.”

Titled Lumen Fidei (The Light of Faith), the encyclical is known to have been authored mainly by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who was still working on it at the time of his abdication and it strongly reflects the theological style of Francis’ predecessor. In his introduction, Pope Francis wrote that he merely “added a few contributions of my own.”

Section 52, on Faith and the Family, calls the family the “first setting in which faith enlightens the human city.”

“I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage," he said. "This union is born of their love, as a sign and presence of God’s own love, and of the acknowledgment and acceptance of the goodness of sexual differentiation, whereby spouses can become one flesh (cf. Gen 2:24) and are enabled to give birth to a new life, a manifestation of the Creator’s goodness, wisdom and loving plan.

“Grounded in this love, a man and a woman can promise each other mutual love in a gesture which engages their entire lives and mirrors many features of faith. Faith also helps us to grasp in all its depth and richness the begetting of children, as a sign of the love of the Creator who entrusts us with the mystery of a new person.”

Anthony Ozimic, communications manager for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children told LifeSiteNews.com today, “The Pope is linking being pro-life with having a correct understanding of the true nature of marriage. His words will be of great assistance to pro-life organisations who are fighting homosexual ‘marriage’. We know that the homosexual attack on marriage is an attack on the family, which is the best protector of children, both born and unborn.”

Ozimic said that although the section of the encyclical on the subject was short, only a few paragraphs, it is a “significant” aid in the struggle against the global efforts by the homosexualist lobby to dismantle legal definitions of marriage.

“The message from Pope Francis in his first encyclical is that the life-bearing potential of heterosexuality is the prerequisite of marriage,” Ozimic said.

The letter has made clear that “the type of love required for marriage” is not that promoted by the modern media or the sexual revolution, “of sexual desire and personal satisfaction, but a complementarity between the sexes leading to total mutual self-giving and thus openness to the responsibility of parenthood”.

Paragraph 53 says, “In the family, faith accompanies every age of life, beginning with childhood: children learn to trust in the love of their parents.

“This is why it is so important that within their families parents encourage shared expressions of faith which can help children gradually to mature in their own faith.”

Copy/pasted from:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/marriage-one-man-and-one-woman-for-nurturing-children-pope-francis-first-en.html

God Bless
Nathan

The Happy Priest - Defend Marriage, Save America

CORPUS CHRISTI, TX (Catholic Online) - Aside from the abortion issue, the issue of homosexual marriages is now in the forefront of the culture wars. Let us take a clear look at the issue according to the mind of the Catholic Church.

The Conference of American Bishops has already given a clear and comprehensive teaching (http://www.usccb.org/laity/manandwoman.shtml).

Here is a brief summary.
- Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children.

- Marriage is both a natural institution and a sacred union because it is rooted in the divine plan for creation. In addition, the Church teaches that the valid marriage of baptized Christians is a sacrament-a saving reality. Jesus Christ made marriage a symbol of his love for his Church (see Eph 5:25-33). This means that a sacramental marriage lets the world see, in human terms, something of the faithful, creative, abundant, and self-emptying love of Christ. A true marriage in the Lord with his grace will bring the spouses to holiness. Their love, manifested in fidelity, passion, fertility, generosity, sacrifice, forgiveness, and healing, makes known God's love in their family, communities, and society.

- The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife.

- For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and a same-sex union cannot achieve the natural purpose of sexual union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

- Marriage is the fundamental pattern for male-female relationships. It contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other.

- The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good.

- Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral.

- When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost.

- To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

- The state has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage. Therefore, it can justly give married couples rights and benefits it does not extend to others. Ultimately, the stability and flourishing of society is dependent on the stability and flourishing of healthy family life.

Throughout her long history, the Catholic Church has always pointed out that civil law must conform to the moral law. Public opinion does not make something right or wrong; the objective moral law does. Thus, not only Catholic politicians, but also all men and women in public life have an objective moral criterion to follow.

When a civil law is not in conformity with the moral law, it is an unjust law. Legalized slavery, for example, was an unjust law. Legalized forms of segregation were unjust laws. Legalized abortion is an unjust law. Legalized euthanasia is an unjust law. Legalized same-sex marriage is an unjust law. Slavery, segregation, abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriages are in essence contrary to the objective moral law, and therefore, no human law can claim them to be legitimate.

Visit Fr. James Farfaglia on the web at www.fatherjames.org and listen to the audio podcast of this Sunday homily.

Why Homosexual Unions are not Marriages

 

 

 

Why should society sanction marriage at all?  Isn’t it the couple’s business and nobody else’s?

In fact, it is in society’s interest to recognize marriage, and that is why societies all over the world, throughout history, have done so.  The reason why is obvious:  In order to survive and prosper, societies need new members.

They constantly lose members – whether through illness, accident,  crime or simply old age.  One way or another, at some point, every single member of a society will die, and if these deaths are not offset by births, then the society will die.

Marriage, by its very nature, is the institution that brings new human beings into the world and raises them to be productive members of society.  If a society wants to survive and prosper, then, it is in its interest to recognize and help marriage in a special way.

Where marriage and families are threatened, society is threatened, and where marriage and families are strong, society is strong.

Society should not treat homosexual unions as marriages because they are not marriages.  Such unions are incapable, by their very nature, of producing children.  The parties do not complement each other the way that a man and a woman do.  A homosexual union is a fundamentally different thing than a marriage.  It isn’t a question of whether society should allow homosexual marriage.  It can’t.  No one can.

[…]

Since before recorded history, men and women have united to care for each other and to bring up children.  That happens in every culture, no matter where in the world.  In fact, a culture would die without those unions of men and women.  Marriage is thus a human universal, an institution that is built into human nature and that manifests itself in all societies.

But procreation is not the only issue.  Men and women are different in ways that go beyond reproduction.  Both physically and psychologically, they complement and complete each other in a manner that two people of the same sex do not.  These differences play an important role in raising children.  By setting examples of true fatherhood and motherhood, a husband and wife provide the kind of environment that helps children grow and develop properly.

You see, society is not denying marriage to homosexuals.  Instead, homosexual activists are asking society to redefine marriage so that the term applies to things that are not, in fact, marriages.

Even apart from procreation and raising children – as in the case of marriages which do not result in children due to infertility – the physical and psychological differences between men and women enable them to unite and thrive in a way two people of the same sex cannot.

[…]

When a country bases its policies on false premises, society suffers.  It does not matter what the policy is.  If its army misjudges the enemy’s position, it may suffer a crushing defeat.  If its economic policy is out of touch with reality, hard times will result.  And if a state becomes delusional about the nature of men and women, disaster is bound to follow.

This would be a further blow to marriage – beyond those it has already suffered from easy divorce, out-of-wedlock births, abortion, and contraception.

Any children being brought up by homosexual “parents” would also be harmed.  Whether the children were acquired by adoption, surrogacy, or

through a previous, heterosexual union, they would be raised with a false view of human sexuality and a defective set of moral values, as well as being denied the example of proper fatherhood and motherhood.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would lead to even further distortions of marriage.  If two people of the same sex can be married then there is no logical reason why other unions are not possible as well.  Polygamous unions with multiple spouses, of any combination of sexes, could follow.  Adult-child unions would be up for discussion.

There is the related question of nonsexual unions:  elderly friends, college roommates, etc.  If two people of the same sex can marry to obtain the legal benefits of marriage, then on what grounds would these people be denied them?

Applying the term “marriage” to unions other than those of a man and a woman ends up robbing marriage of meaning.  The logical end point of marriage redefinition would have to be recognizing unions of infinitely variable combinations of persons as marriages – otherwise you would be discriminating against some combinations.  When that happens, marriage – having become whatever you want it to be – has lost all meaning.

 

Taken from the booklet: 
Catholic Answers, Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages, 27 pp., 2012

[Which can be bought for a dollar at www.catholic.com/voteyourfaith]