Benedict on the Crisis of Marriage, Family and Human Sexuality
Following is the full text of Pope Bendict's speech to a group of US bishops during their recent quinquennial ad limina visit which ends tomorrow.
Dear Brother Bishops,
I greet all of you with fraternal affection on the occasion of your visit ad limina Apostolorum. As you know, this year I wish to reflect with you on certain aspects of the evangelization of American culture in the light of the intellectual and ethical challenges of the present moment.
In our previous meetings I acknowledged our concern about threats to freedom of conscience, religion and worship which need to be addressed urgently, so that all men and women of faith, and the institutions they inspire, can act in accordance with their deepest moral convictions. In this talk I would like to discuss another serious issue which you raised with me during my Pastoral Visit to America, namely, the contemporary crisis of marriage and the family, and, more generally, of the Christian vision of human sexuality. It is in fact increasingly evident that a weakened appreciation of the indissolubility of the marriage covenant, and the widespread rejection of a responsible, mature sexual ethic grounded in the practice of chastity, have led to grave societal problems bearing an immense human and economic cost.
Yet, as Blessed John Paul II observed, the future of humanity passes by way of the family (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 85). Indeed, "the good that the Church and society as a whole expect from marriage and from the family founded on marriage is so great as to call for full pastoral commitment to this particular area. Marriage and the family are institutions that must be promoted and defended from every possible misrepresentation of their true nature, since whatever is injurious to them is injurious to society itself" (Sacramentum Caritatis, 29).
In this regard, particular mention must be made of the powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage. The Church’s conscientious effort to resist this pressure calls for a reasoned defense of marriage as a natural institution consisting of a specific communion of persons, essentially rooted in the complementarity of the sexes and oriented to procreation. Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage. Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike.
In our conversations, some of you have pointed with concern to the growing difficulties encountered in communicating the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family in its integrity, and to a decrease in the number of young people who approach the sacrament of matrimony. Certainly we must acknowledge deficiencies in the catechesis of recent decades, which failed at times to communicate the rich heritage of Catholic teaching on marriage as a natural institution elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament, the vocation of Christian spouses in society and in the Church, and the practice of marital chastity. This teaching, stated with increasing clarity by the post-conciliar magisterium and comprehensively presented in both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, needs to be restored to its proper place in preaching and catechetical instruction.
On the practical level, marriage preparation programs must be carefully reviewed to ensure that there is greater concentration on their catechetical component and their presentation of the social and ecclesial responsibilities entailed by Christian marriage. In this context we cannot overlook the serious pastoral problem presented by the widespread practice of cohabitation, often by couples who seem unaware that it is gravely sinful, not to mention damaging to the stability of society. I encourage your efforts to develop clear pastoral and liturgical norms for the worthy celebration of matrimony which embody an unambiguous witness to the objective demands of Christian morality, while showing sensitivity and concern for young couples.
Here too I would express my appreciation of the pastoral programs which you are promoting in your Dioceses and, in particular, the clear and authoritative presentation of the Church’s teaching found in your 2009 Letter Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan. I also appreciate all that your parishes, schools and charitable agencies do daily to support families and to reach out to those in difficult marital situations, especially the divorced and separated, single parents, teenage mothers and women considering abortion, as well as children suffering the tragic effects of family breakdown.
In this great pastoral effort there is an urgent need for the entire Christian community to recover an appreciation of the virtue of chastity. The integrating and liberating function of this virtue (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2338-2343) should be emphasized by a formation of the heart, which presents the Christian understanding of sexuality as a source of genuine freedom, happiness and the fulfilment of our fundamental and innate human vocation to love. It is not merely a question of presenting arguments, but of appealing to an integrated, consistent and uplifting vision of human sexuality. The richness of this vision is more sound and appealing than the permissive ideologies exalted in some quarters; these in fact constitute a powerful and destructive form of counter-catechesis for the young.
Young people need to encounter the Church’s teaching in its integrity, challenging and countercultural as that teaching may be; more importantly, they need to see it embodied by faithful married couples who bear convincing witness to its truth. They also need to be supported as they struggle to make wise choices at a difficult and confusing time in their lives. Chastity, as the Catechism reminds us, involves an ongoing "apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom" (2339). In a society which increasingly tends to misunderstand and even ridicule this essential dimension of Christian teaching, young people need to be reassured that "if we let Christ into our lives, we lose nothing, absolutely nothing, of what makes life free, beautiful and great" (Homily, Inaugural Mass of the Pontificate, 24 April 2005).
Let me conclude by recalling that all our efforts in this area are ultimately concerned with the good of children, who have a fundamental right to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships. Children are the greatest treasure and the future of every society: truly caring for them means recognizing our responsibility to teach, defend and live the moral virtues which are the key to human fulfillment. It is my hope that the Church in the United States, however chastened by the events of the past decade, will persevere in its historic mission of educating the young and thus contribute to the consolidation of that sound family life which is the surest guarantee of intergenerational solidarity and the health of society as a whole.
I now commend you and your brother Bishops, with the flock entrusted to your pastoral care, to the loving intercession of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. To all of you I willingly impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, strength and peace in the Lord.
41 Responses »
Leave a Response
Facebook
Twitter
Entries(RSS)
I'd like to see this excerpt in every Church Bulletin:
Oh Lord, if only Benedict would ever leave his enclave and stop preaching from ignorance and fear. His idea of justice is pain, denigration and bigotry to millions of loving gay persons. Notice how he offers nothing, nothing to fill the hearts and minds of decent, compassionate gay people. Above all else, suffer through life and dare not to imagine a fulfilling loving marriage to the one for whom you were meant to be with. The world is passing by Benedict. He will end up in the dustbin of history and so will his bigoted beliefs.
Rich,
You sound like a three year old. The world and all the people in it do NOT revolve around you and the fact that you are same-sex attracted. Get over yourself, keep your sexual impulses to yourself, and stop bullying everyone that disagrees with you.
I wonder where you teach? I am very concerned for your students that do not agree with your self centered world.
The real question is, why do Rich and his fellow anti-catholic bigots even care what the Church teaches?
Why do they refuse to actually think about the carefully laid out presentations of the Church that explain the basis for her positions on issues, that are put out in public for all to see?
Why to they talk about reason, and then refuse to engage in reasonable discussions, but always resort to slander, false judgement, insults, and threats?
During world youth day in Spain, the "protesters" included naked guys running around holding signs that said "Death to the Pope".
This is reasonable?
Why are they so afraid of a little soft-spoken old man?
The enemies of the Church have been saying this for 2000 years...
The Church is still here. I wonder where the others all are...
Apologia, how about you getting a mind of your own. You come across as extremely uninformed and desperate to hold onto arcane precepts and stale illogic.
I celebrate rigorous discourse and reasoned argument. Sorry, but the constraints by your church on your ability to understand the differences between civil and religious perogative in a Constitutional Republic is not helpful in this debate. Education and educated kids know the importance of this no matter which side of the debate they support. I'm sorry for you that you don't seem to match their capabilities.
Do you read ANY of the court findings in support of marriage equality? Do you try to understand the Constitutional logic behind the many court determinations that marriage is a fundamental right for gay couples? I suspect you fall back on the common, and lame, exhortation: "activist Judges!"
"Keep your sexual impulses to yourself"? Bizarre comment.
Rich, Rich, Rich,
Stop hating...stop bullying...stop name calling.
Apologia, Start learning, start reading and think for yourself.
On another note and to the bloggers on this site (and others, like NOM). Why do religionists refuse to ever discuss the legal implications for marriage equality? Why is there never a scrutiny from you of the court findings to date on Prop 8, DOMA and state restrictions ( Rhode Island and Maryland are the most recent to Recognize gay marriages from other states). Surely you know the courts are increasing addressing marriage equality and the direction is pretty clear. At some point you will have to come to terms with this. Wouldn't you feel more prepared if you at least read the reasoning by Constitutional decisions surrounding this issue? The findings can be found easily in a google search. Just asking.
Rich,
Why would you think that I am not an educated person, a person that reads or even thinks for myself?
Once again, you are resorting to an ad hominem attack.
I have addressed the issue of the law treating things equally. I have addressed activists judges (such as in the Prop 8 case). Chester has addressed the constitution with you. Unfortunately, your lifestyle choice is affecting your reasoning in this matter. I look at the facts, and the fact is that the people of this great country do NOT want marriage redefined and that even includes some people that are same-sex attracted. This has been proven 32 times in 32 states and will be proven again here in Maine.
Unlike you, I have not resorted to name calling based on your lifestyle choice or belief system. However, you continually do so to anyone that opposes your viewpoint. That is hateful and bigoted.
Apologia - since the Catholic position on the marriage question is all about concerns over the legal and social implications, being accused of ignorance about such things pretty much proves who is thinking for themselves, and who is simply thinking about themselves.
: )
Reason, nature, and the good of society.
The Catholic approach in a nutshell, in case you missed reading the post.
Rich,
As for Rhode Island, once again there is an activist forcing his view of marriage onto the citizens of his state. There was such a fierce opposition from the citizens of Rhode Island last year that the Legislature was forced to abandon a bill that would have legalized gay marriage. And now, we see an activist governor forcing an issue against the will of the citizens in his state.
Sound familiar? It should, because the ONLY way to redefine marriage is to have activist judges or legislators force it onto the citizens of their states. That is a fact.
When put to the will of the people, marriage is always protected as the union of one man and one woman to bring forth the next generation.
Somebody hasn't been reading the posts on CatholicMaine. Prop 8 has been covered several times. The NOM website is full of legal examination and commentary on these issues.
Rest assured, the battle over Prop 8 in CA (for example) has been well followed, where the most overturned judge in the country, (Walker) and the most overturned court in the country, (9th Circuit) ruled to reverse the majority vote in CA. It is on it's way to the supreme court, where I'm sure, the issue of the judge being himself an active homosexual will not go unnoticed, as well as some of his unprecedented "findings of fact" that even some pro-ssm legal scholars are wincing at in disgust.
But that is all obvious. What is not and must be pointed out, is that the gay activists are trying desperately to make the marriage question about religion, as though marriage being the union of one man and one woman is a religious belief, which of course it's not. It's a reality of nature.
You've heard that kind of thing before - "Don't impose your beliefs on civil law!" etc.
That is the tactic. They will not address the debate from the point of reason, or law, or they will be forced to admit that the Catholic position is based on both.
Hence the false declarative accusations continue, such as the one quoted above.
When interracial marriage was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, fully 65% of the population of this country still supported it. Popular opinion has no place in this Constitutional debate. The majority should never vote on the rights of a minority. This is why we have courts and, as you call them activist judges....principled, reasoned, learned men and women who will look beyond the threats and intimidation of religionists to apply their judicial training to determine equity in marriage.
My lifestyle choice? Apologia, you're bullying me...you're being sophmoric of course and I still question your intelligence. Is it truly possible that you do not know one gay individual, anywhere? Where in Maine do you live? It's just as easy for me to say, your religiosity has dulled yor senses, but I still don't think you are a reader...at least I've seen little evidence of this. Talk to me about Constitutional implications for marriage equality and I might think differently.
Chris, I'm new to this site, just found it a week or so ago. I strongly suspect that you and others really have
never read the findings of fact on Judge Walker's ruling on Prop 8. You state that the NOM site has explored this extensively. That is complete fabrication and, in fact, a joke. The extent of NOM's coverage has been to
fall back on the tired meme of "activist judges"...never have I seen the NOM site explore point by point
Walker's ruling. To do so will reveal that the proponents had no case and 4 poor witnesses. The truth is that
none of you will debate the findings; they are poison to your cause therefore, the less revealed about them,
the better.
As I wrote above, argue the Constitutional points with me and take up the dogma with someone else.
Chris, just reread your post from above...if ever there was a case of obfuscation, this is it. For sake of argument, let me state emphatically, I want this debate to be about the Constitutional right to marriage equality AND ( I'm loving this) let's leave religion entirely out of this, always, forever; let's even pretend it doesn't exist. There...as one gay activist, I promise never to discuss it again with you or Apologia. And, you know what? I really believe most gay activists would love this, too.
So, from here on, the debate is about the Constitutional implications for gay marriage, right? In fact, from now on let's refer to it by it's Constitutionally protected nomenclature: civil marriage.
I think we've made some progress. Wish this would happen on the NOM site.
If Rich were to actually present an argument based on Constitutional law, rather than make claims that the issue is Constitutionally settled, perhaps people here might give him some credit.
Maybe he could show where in the Constitution is says that the government has the authority to re-define marriage.
Or maybe, he could point out the part where it says that people can be subject to penalties and given second-class status for refusing to recognize same-sex marriage.
Or maybe, he could even find the part where the government courts claim absolute authority over what rights are, and who gets them.
Rich,
If marriage is what you seek, you can marry...no one is stopping you. However, you do not wish to get married, you wish to redefine the institution.
Marriage will be protected once again in Maine come November and will remain between one man and one woman.
No more needs to be said.
I encourage anyone that would like to learn the Truth about marriage to visit
http://www.beautyofmarriage.org
Apologia, what a terrible thing to encourage: you would have gay people marry straight people? How hurtful and hateful to both gays and straights and very unchristian of you. Maine citizens know that gay couples deserve the opportunity to profess their love and commit their lives to each other in a civil marriage. Remember that is what we are voting on in November, not your religious version of marriage (which, btw, has been redefined throughout history).
There is little truth when it comes to the Church; just look at its history and treatment of children.
I agree, no more needs to be said
Rich must be an English teacher. He seems to believe that fancy prose can make up for a lack of substance. To use a physics metaphor, his arguments are "all RPM, no torque."
And yet he enters this thread by attacking the leader of a major world religion, calling his beliefs "bigoted" and closes the thread by attacking the Church Herself.
Rich wants to leave religion out of the debate, then he should do so and not take pot shots at the religious beliefs of others and then cry "foul" when backed into a corner.
Here is a perfect example of a statement that is all fluff, with no real substance. He attacks Apologia repeatedly for being "extremely uninformed and desperate to hold onto arcane precepts and stale illogic," and then produces a sentence such as this. In the passive voice, of course.
I challenge Rich to find the court ruling that "found" interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. I would also challenge Rich to cite the study which showed "fully 65% of the population of this country still supported [interracial marriage]."
The manner in which Rich attacks those he disagrees with would indicate otherwise. To whit: "Education and educated kids know the importance of this no matter which side of the debate they support. I'm sorry for you that you don't seem to match their capabilities" and "Start learning, start reading and think for yourself." These cheap shots add nothing to the debate. They are not a celebration of reasoned argument and they reflect poorly on the debater.
Hey, Rich, lets leave religion out of this. Always and forever.
Read Rich's comments closely, CM readers. They are indicative of the type of "reasoned argument" we can expect moving forward, replete with unsubstantiated claims, ad hominem attacks and outright falsehoods.
Edward, check out http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom and you 'll find an in-depth explanation of the history of racial miscegenation laws throughout the country and the Supreme Court decision (Loving vs Virginia) that struck down these insidious laws. You'll also find that my percent of intolerance was off. I believe you'll see that actually 67% of U.S. citizens were opposed to interracial marriage in the 60's and it was 90% in the 40's.
You will also find something else truly frightening. The chief argument throughout history for miscegenation
Laws was that God ordained a separation of the races AND that this conformed to "Natural Law". Sound familiar? Wasn't this a "redefinition" of marriage? And this, now, is why we must leave religion out of this debate. If God and man were so wrong then, why can't they be just as wrong now?
So, Edward, yes, let's leave religion out of it (my and your opinions notwithstanding) ...but look at the negative impact it had on interracial marriage throughout history. And these are principles that educated people, including of course our students, understand and see as critical to a free and fair society guided by Constitutional principles.
A cogent fact: the NAACP on Friday, announced their full support for civil marriage. Interesting.
Hopefully, other CM readers did not miss my point, as did Rich.
This time, I will spell it out: While questioning the intelligence of others, he makes the claim that "interracial marriage was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court" and that "fully 65% of the population of this country still supported it [interracial marriage]."
This may be the exact opposite of what Rich meant to say - but it is what he did say, once again while questioning the intelligence of others.
I cite this as only one example where his arguments lack substance.
Interesting how he has yet to drop religion from the debate.
Edward reread my post above it says "When" the Supreme Court....65% still believed. As is to be expected, of course, it would be a significant minority that, today, would support miscegenation laws.
Edward, you misread my post and yet you subscribe to the notion that I lack substance in my arguments. Well, let's get back to the point. Did you google the citation I gave you? Is this the first time you have heard of Lovingvs Virginia? Please read it and then tell me there is no substance to the argument that, in this country, there was a time that the majority of people got it wrong on marriage (for reasons we won't discuss anymore)and the Court corrected the people's misunderstanding of the Constitutional provisions and protections surrounding due process and equal protection.
On another note: I truly wish to thank the moderators of the Catholic Maine site for continuing to post my questions and responses without filtering or eliminating them. I find that too many other sites opposed to marriage equality will almost immediately cut off contact once the topic turns to Constitutional issues related to it. No one seems to want to debate its profound connection and ignore it in favor of "another" perspective. To be sure the Constitution guarantees that one may solely argue in favor of one's choice of beliefs, but there is so much more enshrined within to protect everyone's rights.
So Edward, you are looking for substance. What is your take on the substance of Loving vs Virginia?
I have re-read Rich's post. Again.
He states, "When interracial marriage was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, fully 65% of the population of this country still supported it."
Interracial marriage was never found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Laws barring interracial marriage were. I'd be surprised to find out that, back then, 65% of the country supported interracial marriage as Rich claims above, but so be it. Glad SCOTUS finally caught up with the people.
The point (for a third time): One should not make disparaging remarks about the intelligence of others, and then turn around and display a profound inability to communicate one's thoughts.
As for state bans on interracial marriage, they should never have occurred. SCOTUS was correct in declaring such laws unconstitutional. The law should never be used to manipulate marriage in order to satisfy some ulterior motive, whether it be to promote racism or to satisfy adult demands for public affirmation and state sponsored benefits. Marriage has a much higher calling. Maine law claims as much:
Not quite.
The Catholic Church never opposed interacial marriage, quite the opposite.
These ideas, while practised by racist protestants in the name of religion, were very strongly promoted in the name of "racial purity" by anti-religious people like Margaret Sanger (Founder of Planned Parenthood) and her friends the Nazis. They did not base their ideas on religion, but on the belief that whites were the higher evolutionary form of human beings.
Here is a little something for people interested in the "Loving" analogy that gay activists love to bring up.
Courtesy of NOM:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324
Timely: a must read for all Catholics. Go online to the New York Times (today's paper) and read Maureen Dowd's Op-Ed column. Poo poo the NYT all you wish but, please, read this column. It's too important to dismiss without first reading it.
Read the piece. Dowd hates the Church - nothing new.
Rich's tactic on religion baiting is worth pointing out to CM readers. He injects religion into the debate and when others respond in defense of the Church, claims the following:
I disagree with Rich's last statement. I believe that without the ability to attack the religion straw man, many "gay activists" (Rich's label) would find themselves at a loss for words. Rich cannot help but inject religion into the debate. Dan Savage is another perfect example:
I challenge Rich to never discuss religion again, either directly or through surrogates ('hey, check out this article..."). If he is a man of his word, this will be the end of the Church baiting.
Read it too....Not quite sure what was must read about it...same old stuff the Church has heard for years, and has refuted over and over.
But hey, he has a point. We really should look to the radical leftists out there for advice when it comes to tolerating and welcoming everything with open arms.
They are so good at it. Just look at all the nice, welcoming words of love and tolerance they have for those that disagree with them.
From Rich, to Dan Savage, to Maureen Dowd, there are plenty of good examples to follow!
Or Dowd hates what has become of her Church. She certainly speaks for many people. So, there will be no discussion of Constitutional provisions for equal protections and due process. So be it, I had hoped this site might get there. The larger discussion throughout the state wil certainly take it up.
Rich has failed to meet my challenge.
As a gay activist (his label), this is not the last we have heard from Rich, who is as much a type as he is an individual. There will be many more like him in the "larger discussion throughout the state," those who will drag their own views on religion and people of faith into the debate, and then cry "foul" when people of faith defend themselves.
Don't let them get away with it. Call them out for who they are: anti-religious bigots and intolerant bullies who act like spoiled children when challenged on there views.
The Catholic Church does not belong to any one human person. As members, we are part of the Body of Christ. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. If the Church belongs to anyone, it is Jesus.
If Dowd no longer believes the Truth that the Church passes on, she can leave the faith that has been passed down to us since Christ walked the Earth. That is her choice.
However, she has no authority to change the Truth that is passed on to all of us through the Church.
Amen!
Edward, and you have failed to meet mine. See you in the public arena.
Where once again marriage will be protected as one man and one woman!
More on the Dowd hit-job::
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2012/05/this-week-the-catholic-church-celebrates-the-solemnity-of-the-ascension-of-the-lord-maureen-dowd-meanwhile-is-castigating.html
Check out this website on the whole "same-sex" marriage issue.
http://www.maineequalrightscenter.com/marriage/
Hogwash, there is nothing equal about this very conservative group's ploy. Separate but equal was not acceptable then and is not acceptable now. Just ask the NAACP about that and see what you get for a response.
The ideas found on this site are not so much conservative as libertarian.
They seem to be pointing out that same-sex relationships are different, and yet still have all of the legal tools and options available to married couples - so therefore there is no real gain in calling such relationships "Marriage" under the law.
More evidence in my view that the push for same-sex marriage is driven by the desire to use the law as a club to force acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on society - or else!
That is certainly the way the activists talk.
My question is this...
Why haven't groups like "Equality Maine" gone to the courts to redefine marriage here in Maine?
Could it be that there are no activist judges on the bench here in Maine that will support them?
I think yes. Redefining marriage is not wanted by the people of this country and Maine is no exception to that fact. Marriage will remain one man and one woman come November.