Marriage is between one man and one woman. Full stop. Period.

 

Syro-Malabar Catholic Wedding, India

[Wikipedia]

The First Reading in today's Mass was St Paul's magnificent teaching on marriage, Ephesians 5:21-33. Here is the translation from the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.

 

Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

St Paul quotes Genesis 2: 24, Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Jesus quotes these same words in Matthew 19:5 and in Mark 10:7-8.

This is against the background of the first account of creation in Genesis 1, Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply . . . (Genesis 1: 26-28).

Any denial of this is an affront to God the Creator, indeed to nature itself. Marriage is between one man and one woman, as the Church has always taught. Every culture since the beginning of time has seen marriage as being between man and woman, though some allow polygamy (a husband with more than one wife) and polyandry (a wife with more than one husband). It is only in our time that some have re-defined marriage as also being between two persons of the same sex, using the lie of 'equality' to get gullible people on their side. This is not marriage as it has always been understood. It is an absurdity.

St Paul sees marriage as reflecting the relationship between Jesus Christ the Bridegroom and the Church his Bride. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church. 'Marriage' between two persons of the same sex is a parody on this.

. Catholic Wedding, Kyoto, Japan

[Wikipedia]

Once again people are confused about what the Church teaches, or doesn't teach about marriage and about chastity. The Church has always taught that sexual relations may take place only within marriage. In any other situation the Church has always taught that this is objectively gravely sinful. This applies to everyone, whatever their sexual orientation may be. The virtue of chastity applies to both unmarried and married people.

Married people are called upon to practice chastity when they are apart, when one is sick, when practicing natural family planning, for example.

The Church does not turn away anyone who sins against chastity. The sacrament of confession is a gift given by God to us to ask for and received his forgiveness for any sin.

The Church does not teach through press conferences or documentaries, though these may be occasions for highlighting some teaching or other. 

However, when they cause confusion, as they have done in recent years, there is a problem. When a papal encyclical, a formal way of teaching, such as Amoris laetitia causes widespread confusion there is a much bigger problem, especially when cardinals, the Pope's closest advisers, who ask for clarification cannot even get an audience with the Pope. We have the situation now where bishops in some countries, eg, Germany condone what is considered by bishops in other countries, eg, Poland, as adultery.

Fr Gerald E. Murray is a canon lawyer and a parish priest in the Archdiocese of New York. He frequently appears on EWTN.  The Catholic Thing recently published an article by him, Pope Francis Oversteps the Papal Office, that expresses my thoughts.

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a statement on the latest confusion trying to answer the question Where is the Pope coming from? The statement refers to the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11): He refused to judge the woman who had been caught in adultery without saying that what she did was right. He just did not think that condemning people or judging them was the right thing to do in order to work for their conversion. [My emphasis]. 

The words I emphasised are not incorrect but they are not fully accurate either. These are the words of Jesus: Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again. Jesus did more than not saying to the woman that what she did was wrong. He told her clearly, without condemning her, that she had sinned. Jesus had profound respect for her and profound compassion. He was being truly pastoral.

+++

I have used the video above more than once on this blog. The song For Me and My Gal, which dates back to 1917 - the video is from a 1942 movie - speaks more clearly to me about marriage than some of what has been coming out from Church leaders in recent years. Marriage is between one man and one woman - in most cases young and open to welcoming children. A wedding is a community celebration involving community preparation and, in Western society at least in the past, usually took place in a church. For Catholics that means the Sacrament of Matrimony where Jesus himself is the foundation of the spousal relationship, a sacrament that the bride and groom confer on one another. (Many wrongly think it is the priest who does that. He is a witness who blesses the couple on behalf of the Church in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

Marriage Referendum in Republic of Ireland; pre-referendum novena

Peasant Wedding, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, c.1567

Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna [Web Gallery of Art]

On Friday 22 May voters in the Republic of Ireland will go to polling stations to decided whether or not to amend the Constitution by re-defining marriage: Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

This is a consequence of the passing of The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015.

Anyone in the Republic of Ireland is free to marry in accordance with law - anyone. Some choose not to marry, for different reasons. Some who would like to marry don't because perhaps no one has asked them to be a partner in life until death do us part.

This referendum is allegedly about 'equality' but is in reality an attempt to re-define marriage to make it something that has never existed in any society from the beginning of time.

Though I will be in Ireland on 22 May having arrived there the day before, carrying my Irish passport, the only one I have, I will not be eligible to vote on this attempt to radically change society in my country, despite being a natural-born citizen. Because I live outside Ireland I am not considered equal to citizens who live there. This is not an election for a new parliament. I can understand why I cannot vote in that. This is an attempt to re-define the society to which I belong, to change the Constitution of my country.

So much for 'equality'.

In today's Irish Independent Ger Brennan, who plays for the Dublin Gaelic Football team, explains Why I'm voting No. Some of his points:

• For a start, this isn't a referendum on whether we like gay people or whether they should be equal citizens according to the Constitution. They already are equal citizens. Article 40.1, which deals with equality, declares that all citizens shall be held equal before the law. We are not being asked to amend Article 40. We are instead being asked to amend Article 41, which deals with the family and with marriage.
• All legislation is derived from the Constitution and its principles. So it seems pretty clear that if we redefine marriage and the family by making marriage genderless we will be denying that there is any special value in a child having both a mother and a father. We will be denying that children have any kind of a legal right to a mother and father where possible, like when it comes to laws relating to adoption and surrogacy.
• I very nearly decided not to write this piece. I know I'll be targeted for it and labeled for it. It would have been easier to keep my mouth shut and not rock the boat. But I'm sick of the accusations being flung around that if you vote 'No' you are homophobic. I know I'm not homophobic; my gay friends and family can attest to that. I am voting 'No' because I don't want our Constitution to deny that it is a good thing for a child to have a mother and a father.
• The Universal Declaration on Human Rights proclaims that everybody is equal in dignity and it holds that marriage is a male-female union. I don't think the Declaration of Human Rights is homophobic. I'm voting 'No'.

Many of those who are pushing for 'Yes', ie for change, try to make this a 'Catholic' issue in the sense that they make out the old-fashioned, 'conservative' Catholic Church to be holding back progress. Nowhere in his article does Ger Brennan indicate his faith or religion, if any. Nowhere does he refer to the Catholic Church. No society in history has ever seen marriage as other than a union between man and woman, in some societies with polygamous or polyandrous variations on this but always male and female, with the probability of their producing children. The wider society has always been seen as having some responsibility in enabling parents to raise their children, have them educated and so on. That is the only reason the State should have any interest in the union of husband and wife and their children, the family.

Bruce Arnold is an English journalist who has lived and worked in Ireland since 1957. He has argued strongly on his blog against the proposed change. In anything I have read there I don't find any reference to faith or religion or to the sacrament of marriage. Catholics give a special meaning to the sacrament but what we believe is in full harmony with what every society in history until now has believed: that marriage involves man and woman and, as nature teaches us, it is only a man and a woman together who can bring another human being into existence.. And any of the artificial/unnatural means used today to produce a child still need a man and a woman. 

The Holy Family, Sisto Badalocchio, c.1610

Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, CT, USA [Web Gallery of Art]

Today, Wednesday 13 May, a novena has begun for the people of the Republic of Ireland as they prepare for this important vote. One does not need to be a Christian to understand that family has always meant husband and wife and, in most cases, children. But Christians have a great responsibility to work for justice. Justice includes working to ensure that children should never be commodities, as so many are in today's world.

Novena Prayer

Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
Holy Family of Nazareth,
we bless and venerate you.

We commend to your care and protection
the cause of marriage and family life.
May the peace which reigned in your home
take possession of all hearts and abide in all families.

Confirm all men and women in the truth
so we may recognise what is good and right
and reject all that hinders life
and the true flourishing of humanity.

Guide the hearts of all citizens
that we may witness to the truth
in forming the laws governing our society.
Bless those who work for the protection
of marriage, family and life.

O Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
Holy Family of Nazareth,
We entrust our hearts and our lives to you.

Amen

'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.' Sunday Reflections, 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A

'I die His Majesty's good servant - but God's first.' St Thomas More

A Man for all Seasons

Readings (New American Bible: Philippines, USA)

Readings (Jerusalem Bible: Australia, England & Wales, India [optional], Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Scotland, South Africa)

Gospel Matthew 22:15-21 (New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition: Canada) 

Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap Jesus in what he said. So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, ‘Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?’ But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, ‘Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.’ And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, ‘Whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The emperor’s.’ Then he said to them, ‘Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’

A denarius from 44 BC showing the head of Julius Caesar and the goddess Venus [Wikipedia]

In the time of Jesus a denarius was a day's wage for an ordinary working man.

I spent three months in the latter part of 1982 working in a hospital in Minneapolis as a chaplain. I was one of seven doing a 'quarter' of Clinical Pastoral Education. One day I had to go to a bank and got chatting with an employee at the information desk. When he heard I was based in the Philippines he told me that in the previous elections in the USA he had considered, among other things, what impact his vote would have on the lives of Filipinos and others outside the USA.

I was very struck by his attitude. We never got into partisan politics nor did we discuss religion. The man was almost certainly a Christian, probably a Lutheran if he was from Minneapolis or a Catholic if from St Paul, the other 'Twin City'. I saw in him a person reflecting the teaching of Vatican II.

One of the major documents of that Council, Gaudium et Spes, addresses the political life of society. No 75 says: All citizens, therefore, should be mindful of the right and also the duty to use their free vote to further the common good. The Church praises and esteems the work of those who for the good of men devote themselves to the service of the state and take on the burdens of this office . . . 

All Christians must be aware of their own specific vocation within the political community. It is for them to give an example by their sense of responsibility and their service of the common good. In this way they are to demonstrate concretely how authority can be compatible with freedom, personal initiative with the solidarity of the whole social organism, and the advantages of unity with fruitful diversity. They must recognize the legitimacy of different opinions with regard to temporal solutions, and respect citizens, who, even as a group, defend their points of view by honest methods. Political parties, for their part, must promote those things which in their judgement are required for the common good; it is never allowable to give their interests priority over the common good.

Robert Schuman (1886 - 1963) [Wikipedia]

A politician of the last century who may be beatified one day is the Servant of God Robert Schuman, one of the founders of what is now the European Union. His politics of reconciliation in post-World War II Europe flowed from his deep Catholic Christian faith. Yet he was never an 'agent' of the Catholic Church. He was an embodiment of the vision of Gaudium et Spes, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in December 1965.

Incidentally, Robert Schuman, when Foreign Minister of France - he had been Prime Minister in 1947-48 despite having been born a German citizen in Luxembourg - said at a congress in 1950 to mark the 1,400th anniversary of the birth of Ireland's greatest missionary saint: St Columban, this illustrious Irishman who left his own country for voluntary exile, willed and achieved a spiritual union between the principal European countries of his time. He is the patron saint of all those who now seek to build a United Europe.

Robert Schuman's deepest identity was as a Christian. It was as such that he became a patriotic Frenchman and a visionary European. St Thomas More was one of the greatest Englishmen in the history of his country. However, he was His Majesty's good servant - but God's first. In 2000 St John Paul II proclaimed him patron saint of politicians and statesmen.

Jesus doesn't give us any detailed way of being involved in the political life of whatever country we belong to. But he gives us the values to live by. We cannot leave those values at the entrance to the polling booth or at the entrance to the legislative chamber if we happen to be elected to public office. Nor can we leave them at the door of the church after Mass on Sunday.

As voters and politicians Catholic Christians may have very different views on most matters of policy. But there are certain issues on which we must all take a Gospel stand. We may never advocate abortion or support the very new idea of 'marriage' between two persons of the same sex. 

Last year a member of the Irish parliament who voted in favour of legalising abortion in certain circumstances was aggrieved when his parish priest told him that he could no longer be an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. It is far more important to try to live as Gaudium et Spes teaches - All Christians must be aware of their own specific vocation within the political community - than to be an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion or a lector, important though these roles may sometimes be. But they are simply roles. No one has a 'vocation' to be either of these or to take on similar roles. But the Council tells us that each of us has a specific vocation within the political community.

Robert Schuman lived that vocation to the full. St Thomas More was martyred because he lived that vocation to the full.

St Thomas More, Hans Holbein the Younger, 1527

Frick Collection, New York [Web Gallery of Art]

The words of today's alternative Communion Antiphon were sung as the Alleluia verse at the canonisation of St Pedro Calungsod and others, 21 October 2012.

Antiphona ad communionem  Communion Antiphon Mt10:45

Ritus hominis venit,

ut daret animan suam redemptionem pro multis.

The Son of Man has come

to give his life as a ransom for many.

World Mission Day

This Sunday is World Mission Day. You may wish to read the Message of Pope Francis for World Mission Day 2014. The opening sentence is a stark reminder to us: Today vast numbers of people still do not know Jesus Christ.

RTÉ, Ireland's national radio and television service, interviews three older Irish missionaries, including Columban Fr Bobby Gilmore, in the context of World Mission Day in Nationwide, broadcast 17 October. It will be available for viewing here for 21 days. Fr Gilmore spent many years in the Philippines and later worked in Jamaica. He also worked for some years with Irish migrants in England and is now involved with immigrants to Ireland through the Migrants Rights Centre Ireland of which he is a founder.

[Note: Giving the link to Nationwide does not imply agreement with all the views expressed on the programme.]

Fr PJ McGlinchey

Though not specifically in the context of World Mission Day, Columban Fr PJ McGlinchey, who has spent most of his life as missionary priest in Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, has the been named as one of the recipients of a Presidential Distinguished Service Award for 2014 in Ireland.

Ireland heading into the darkest ages?

There's an old Irish ballad, The Wearin' of the Green, with its roots in the uprising in parts of Ireland against British rule in 1798 that has these words in the version written in the 1800s by Irish writer Dion Boucicault:

I met with Napper Tandy 
And he took me by the hand 
And he said 'How's poor old Ireland? 
And how does she stand?' 
She's the most distressful country That ever you have seen . . .

Some recent events in the country of my birth suggest that it may well be choosing to be the most distressful country that you have ever seen.


The government of the Republic of Ireland is introducing legislation to legalise abortion in certain circumstances. The Irish Times reported on 16 April, A Bill to legalise abortion in certain circumstances, including the risk of suicide, is included in the programme of legislation the Government intends to publish between now and the summer break. 

The report goes on to say: The Bill, which is still being drafted, will make abortion legally permissible in certain circumstances and give statutory backing to the Supreme Court decision in the X case in 1991. The legislation will permit abortion when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. That risk will include the threat of suicide or self-destruction.

As the video above shows, there is no evidence whatever that an abortion is a 'cure' for a person with suicidal thoughts.

The Finding of Moses, Gioachino Assereto, c.1640 [Web Gallery of Art]

Sinn Féin claims on its website to be working for the establishment of a democratic socialist republic. Yet in March it blocked a cross-party proposal in the Northern Ireland Assembly to prevent Marie Stopes International from providing abortions in its clinic in Belfast. Marie Stopes International offers 'safe abortions'. Laws on abortion are much stricter in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Marie Stopes International claims to be working within the law, and they probably are, but their initiative is a private one. So much for Sinn Féin's policy of the establishment of a democratic socialist republic. 

Meanwhile, the government of the Republic of Ireland is introducing legislation to legalise abortion in certain circumstances. The Irish Times reported on 16 April, A Bill to legalise abortion in certain circumstances, including the risk of suicide, is included in the programme of legislation the Government intends to publish between now and the summer break. 

The report goes on to say: The Bill, which is still being drafted, will make abortion legally permissible in certain circumstances and give statutory backing to the Supreme Court decision in the X case in 1991. The legislation will permit abortion when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. That risk will include the threat of suicide or self-destruction.

In the Republic of Ireland last weekend the ongoing Constitutional Convention voted to recommend that the constitution be amended to allow for same-sex marriage, with 19 per cent against and the remainder having no opinion. 79 per cent were in favour. The Irish Times report adds: Commenting on the outcome today, a spokesman for the Catholic Communications Office said: 'While the result of the constitutional convention is disappointing, only the people of Ireland can amend the constitution. The Catholic church will continue to promote and seek protection for the uniqueness of marriage between a woman and a man, the nature of which best serves children and our society.'

The comment of the Church's spokesman is not quite accurate, It is only the people of the Republic of Ireland who can amend the Constitution, since those in Northern Ireland, even if they have Irish passports, don't have a vote in the Republic.

I don't look on Hollywood as a major source of wisdom or morality. But I think that its adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's The Emperor's New Clothes should be listened to by anyone who buys into the utterly bizarre notion - and that's what it is - of 'marriage' between two people of the same sex. How has the Western world gone from the extreme of criminalising sexual activity between two adults of the same sex to the extreme of worshipping at the feet of the noisy 'gay lobby'?

Gaudium et Spes, The Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965 at the end of the Second Vatican Council has this to say about marriage in No 48:

By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown. Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love "are no longer two, but one flesh" (Matt. 19:ff), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions. Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them.

I would suggest that the song and dance of Gene Kelly and Judy Garland is much closer to what the Vatican Council said about marriage than the recommendation of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in the Grand Hotel, Malahide, County Dublin, last weekend. 

I had my ordination reception in that same hotel on 21 December 1967. If anyone there on that occasion had suggested that one day a group of adults gathered in that same place would tell the Irish government that they should introduce 'marriage' for two men or two women that person would rightly have been deemed to be crazy. 

To answer Napper Tandy's question about today's poor old Ireland, she is indeed the most distressful country that ever you have seen.