On Josephite Marriages, Again

I have written about this before and have recently re-posted my original article on Josephite Marriages. Almost monthly, I am meeting couples who have chosen this way of holiness, as I noted in the first article I wrote two years ago.

Some saintly couples already noted on this blog chose Josephite Marriages, and I mentioned a fictional couple in my novella, who chose such a lifestyle.

As times become more perilous, couples may consider this path of holiness. Most of the couples I know who have chosen this path are just beyond child-bearing age. In other words, they made the decision to be completely chaste. As they had given God children, as expected from good Catholics, and as one of the huge reasons for marital relations no longer was possible, these couples prayed and spoke with spiritual directors about their decision.

The couples prayed first, of course, and came to the decision together, first.

As is most obvious, a Josephite Marriage is named after St. Joseph, who did not have marital relations with the Blessed Virgin Mary. This marriage was completely celibate, and some Josephite marriages are so.

There is a confusion among some modern people on the validity of a Josephite, or non-consummated marriages, unlike the ones described above. If a couple is married in the Church and has been living together for a length of time, the marriage is assumed consummated. A Josephite Marriage is called ratum tantum in Canon Law. Note, that when a couple are married in the Nuptial Mass, or with the Nuptial Blessing, they are "married".  In the Church today, a non-consummated marriage must still be the subject of an annulment if a party decides to leave the marriage, divorce, and re-marry.

One may reference this post and others under the tag, "marriage" on this blog for more information.

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2012/01/unusual-controversial-catholic-subject.html

A Serious Question for Women

One of my dear friends, a widow from the States, is pursuing the road to perfection. When we see each other once a year, we discuss everything we can in the few days we have to spare in our travels.

This woman, who I shall call Elizabeth, asked me a very excellent and perturbing question recently when we met up.

She said, and this is a paraphrase, "A woman cannot pursue this road to purification and perfection with a man, can she?"

I was taken aback, but she has a point. I do know of two women who have husbands who allow them to pursue perfection in their marriages. The husbands acknowledge that Christ comes first and is the True Bridegroom, and they are there to help themselves and their wives become saints.

My friend was dubious. I do not blame her. Elizabeth is very beautiful and was married twice. Both of her husbands died; one of a heart attack and one of cancer. I knew her second husband, a great Christian man, but not a Catholic. She said, "In my experience, all most men want is sex. I finally realized this, and will not marry again."

Brave and focused woman.

But, the question is real. And, disturbing. To find a male person who would not be jealous of Christ, who does not see that the real purpose of marriage is procreation, and the leading of each other to heaven, is almost impossible.

Many of my young female friends want to marry, but they cannot find holy men. They will settle for nothing less.

Good. A marriage must be based on Christ and the goal of all Catholics-life everlasting.

When Christ is first in a marriage, this means that both partners have a relationship with Christ and with the Church.

I refer you to other posts somewhat connected. And here is one,
http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.ie/2012/01/unusual-controversial-catholic-subject.html

Comments welcomed.

On the honor and dignity of married love-from Humanae Vitae

I hope you all realize that the contraception mentality led to the passing of the redefinition of marriage. Once child-bearing is separated from marriage, the covenant changes to a mere search for pleasure.

From Humanae Vitae

Love and the moral order in marriage.....prophetic words from Pope Paul VI

Faithfulness to God's Design

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)

More on marriage, children and a great blog discussion

A great discussion on marriage is on Fr. Tim Finigan's Blog in two parts at this time.
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/marriages-created-and-sacramental.html
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/convalidation-and-sanation-and-civil-law.html

Here is one of the priest commentators notes in part. Thank God for clarity from SOME priests. And, I am glad to see I was spot on with the Church's position in all of this.

From a commentator:

A further consideration with convalidations and sanations is the question of consent. In a convalidation, it is deemed by the Church to be the beginning of the marriage. If - as is no doubt the case with many marriages these days - couples have a few children and then adopt artificial contraception, and intend to have no further children, then it invalidates the convalidation, as there is no intention to procreate present at the point at which the marriage bond comes into being. This is a real problem with convalidations when children are in their teens, for example. With sanations, this problem is overcome, but one has to presume that the consent to marriage is still there at the point at which the sanation takes place. With both convalidations and sanations, it is often the case that, where they are requested, the couple may be going through a rough patch, and either or both parties are seeking something that will cement the breaking relationship together. Indeed, this - I believe - happens a great deal with cohabiting couples, who seek to get married in order to shore up a breaking relationship. It usually does little other than to hasten the split, and leave the couple in difficulties

"The restlessness of the external man"....lust in marriage and NFP. fourth part regarding ToB

Many, many years ago when I took an NFP course, (I ended up teaching it as well later), my fiancée and I, taking this as part of our pre-nuptial prep in our diocese, met a lovely Evangelical couple. I talked with the woman and learned that she and her husband, also a Protestant, had taken the course and were part of the team presenting the classes. I was at first surprised that an Evangelical couple were part of the team teaching the course, but soon learned that their story provided a background for the entire weekend of classes.

Her witness was extremely powerful, as she told us (a very large group at the time in the hundreds, as it was a diocesan course), that her marriage changed dramatically once the couple decided on NFP.

She explained that she and her husband had fallen into a less than Christian relationship in marriage. They had fallen, as a married couple, into the sin of lust and were approaching sex in a way, as they came to understand, not pleasing to the growth of their own spirits and not pleasing to God.

The grace of their married state had slipped away and the pursuit of pleasure became a goal in and of itself.

They forgot about love and sacrifice, procreation and child bearing. IT was all about THEM. God was out of the relationship.

NFP broke the spell and brought a conversion to both the man and the woman. They grew in love with each other and most importantly, with God. God became the centre of their marriage again, not themselves.

This is the number one danger of ToB. It replaces God with gods, little gods, little idols which entrap the soul and keep a couple bound to the material instead of addressing the needs of the soul.

That God gave such a wonderful grace of conversion to this Evangelical couple allowed them to spread the Good News of the Gospel in their own marriage, which had moved from eros, to agape, to caritas.

Only abstinence and the awareness of the needs of the soul can allow this movement of grace.Only the emphasis on the souls of the man and woman in the marriage can bring about this growth in holiness.

And, by the way, this movement of the souls of the couple in marriage, between a man and a woman, is ordained by God, made into the sacrament of marriage, which is for the salvation of the souls of the man and the woman primarily. The inner man and inner woman must be made strong. Too much emphasis on the material body, which is only part of who we are and not entirely our being, leads to a different emphasis.

Let me quote Bl. John Paul II on this point.

In suffocating the voice of conscience, passion carries with itself a restlessness of the body and the senses. It is the restlessness of the external man. When the internal man has been reduced to silence, then passion, once it has been given freedom of action, exhibits itself as an insistent tendency to satisfy the senses and the body.

This gratification, according to the criterion of the man dominated by passion, should put out the fire; but on the contrary, it does not reach the source of internal peace and it only touches the outermost level of the human individual. And here the biblical author rightly observes that man, whose will is committed to satisfying the senses, finds neither peace nor himself, but, on the contrary, "is consumed." Passion aims at satisfaction; therefore it blunts reflective activity and pays no attention to the voice of conscience. Thus, without itself having any principle of indestructibility, it "wears out." The dynamism of usage is natural for its continuity, but it tends to exhaust itself. Where passion enters into the whole of the most profound energies of the spirit, it can also become a creative force. In this case, however, it must undergo a radical transformation. If instead it suppresses the deepest forces of the heart and conscience (as occurs in the text of Sirach 23:17-22), it "wears out" and indirectly, man, who is its prey, is consumed.

This destructive force can happen in marriage, if the couple is contracepting and if the love is stuck in the material goals. Sex education in schools and in religious education leads to sin because the corresponding element of mature, caritas love, is not presented and cannot be as this is for a married couple to discover.  I am convinced that ToB is not the way for youth or adults to learn about real love, sacrificial love. It is severely flawed philosophically.

Only parents should teach youth sex education in the environment of the loving, mature relationship which the young person sees in the marriage. Teachers have no right to usurp this role. And, these types of love real love, sacrificial love, are learned in the relationship in sacramental marriage, which confers sanctifying grace.

 To be continued...

Third Post on Theology of the Body

I knew a woman who was married to one of the most wonderful men ever. We all loved him. He was kind, gentle, self-less, a great husband and a great dad.

This woman, and I shall call her Susan, and her husband, and I shall call him Martin, had three beautiful, well-disciplined and loved children. They were about 12, 9, and 6. Then, Susan got cancer. She deteriorated quickly from a rare cancer which caused her to lose the use of her legs. She was confined to a wheel-chair at thirty-five or so. Martin took care of her. He got the best home care. He loved her. He brought her to Mass and prayer meetings. He brought her to her treatments and to healing Masses. He was devoted. He then took time off work and helped with everything, including helping with the children.

But Susan was not happy. She had expectations for her marriage and her relationship with Martin. She became angry and bitter. She could not come to terms with her suffering.

Martin did. For better, for worse, in sickness and in health....

For the last two or so years of her life, Susan was daily unhappy, angry, bitter, sad.

Marriage was a disaster for her. Life was only a trial. She hated everything. She hated Martin's love.

It was clear that her idea of the sacrament of marriage had been based on pleasure and personal enrichment. The idea that the sacrament of marriage would lead from eros to agape to caritas was an ideal she could not accept.

She never got past eros. She died very unhappy, making life very hard for those around her.

Martin understood agape and caritas. He never complained.

Several years after the death of Susan, Martin met Delia. They got married and were very happy.

The only reason I knew Martin had suffered in his first marriage was one comment-"It was hard sometimes." But, we all saw her bitterness.

Martin suffered for his wife Susan's inability to be married, to be grateful for a loving husband who cared for her. She could not accept suffering as part of the relationship. She resented his love.

I hope she found peace. I do not know.

But, if marriage is not taught as a sacrificial act of self-denial, expectations grow larger than life.

None of us know how a marriage will evolve. Physicality is simply not enough. It is not "everything". We are our bodies but so much more.

We are to be like Martin, living saints, putting the other first in all things. Knowing our strengths and weaknesses so that we can cope honestly and courageously is part of maturity, part of love.

Susan did not accept agape. She did not accept caritas. She could have been peaceful at death, instead of bitter. She could have grown to love Martin and to love her own life, as God had chosen it for her.

Marriage is a mystery. ToB destroys the understanding that love is a mystery.

ToB takes away the mystery of our physicality. It destroys intimacy.

We need to be taught intimacy. Susan did not know how to be intimate without sex. She could not love without her body. She was trapped in her own limitations, not seeing how she could transcend those.

Marriage helps us transcend our limitations. Love transcends sex and can flourish without sex.

Love is more sublime than sex.

To be continued....

We have "novused" sex-Theology of the Body, Two

I have written here on this blog and elsewhere that I think there is a connection to liturgical abuses and perverse sex. I think there is a connection between modesty and sex, privacy and sex, reverence and sex and humility and sex.

The modern world, which is so besotted with sex, continually misses the point and so does Theology of the Body.

Sex is mysterious and sacred. We do not need to talk about details. We learn in marriage and in the context of love what is appropriate. We sense what is not by being humans and through love.

Discussions with details are damaging.

I do not think seminarians need sex education classes. I do not think anyone does. Such things must be learned in the context ONLY of the family and from loving,parents.

We are too open and miss the mysteries of love in our details analysis of marriage and sex.

I am all against the trend in England to teach Theology of the Body as a normal part of catechesis. I know two groups which are pushing this and making students study this as if it were infallible teaching, which it is not.

We have become coarse as Catholics.

We have lost sensitivity to sacred things.

We have "novused" sex. 

ToB is not Catholic in my mind and the article by Alice von Hildebrand draws out my suspicions of ToB.

I am not prudish, but I am classy. 

Just as we have lost the reverence in the Mass for the Eucharist, so we have lost reverence for marital sex.

Think like Catholics. Marriage is a sacrament, not merely a vehicle for sex.

We need to stop supporting ToB in our parishes and in the seminaries. Such a pseudo-theology does not lead us to perfection

From Alice von Hildebrand's article listed in the last post.

Noli Me Tangere

Here, I would like to reflect on an incident in the life of the Little Flower, St Therese of Lisieux. When a student grabbed her as she was stepping out of the train, she responded as a proper female should.  She recommended herself to the Holy Virgin, and looked at him so severely that he immediately let her loose (Deposition of her sister Genevieve). Would West ridicule this great saint for being a “prude”? If he did, he would be wrong, for St. Therese’s response was thoroughly Catholic, and the only right one: she was responding with noli me tangere [Don’t touch me]. This attitude has nothing to do with an unhealthy fear of the body, or bodily contact, but a very healthy modesty and self-respect.

This "noli me tangere" is a key expression regarding the mystery of the supernatural. This is why, Dietrich von Hildebrand, who came from a privileged cultural and artistic background, and had been acquainted with holy paintings since his earliest youth, would never have made remarks about the size of the Holy Virgin’s bosom, as West has, repeating with praise an exhortation for Catholics to “rediscover” Mary’s “abundant breasts” (Crisis magazine, March , 2002) To Dietrich’s mind, this would be an act of irreverence. Her breasts were sacred and the response to the sacred is awe and not a critical approach to the size of "the blessed breasts that sucked thee". True religious art has always understood this.

Theology of the Body and Thinking Like Catholics: Part One

Psalm 130: "I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me"

Two bright readers and commentators brought my attention to this article which I highly recommend.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999

Now, the Theology of the Body proponents and those who less inclined to be so enthusiastic  the latter group which includes priests, seminarians and laity, do not see eye to eye on ToB

I have had misgivings on Christopher West's approach and even some seminarians I have spoken with were highly embarrassed at a presentation he gave and they had to attend several years ago.

Why all the details? Why the emphasis in our over-sexed culture on sex in marriage? I think most of us needed, before marriage, a course on how to love without sex, by the way, owing to illnesses, absences, real-life constraints and so on. If one needs to be taught the beauty of sex, and how sex is part of God's loving plan in a marriage, Houston, we have a problem.

The article I have linked is highly interesting and breaks away from this preoccupation with sex,

Now, one of the problems with the entire conversation revolves around the type of people who are most interested in Theology of the Body and in my limited experience, those are either fallen away Catholics who were promiscuous before re-conversion, or Protestants, who contracepted before becoming Catholics.

It is as if the local Church has felt the need to dumb down the real deal on marriage and sex to meet the demands of a certain group of people who DO NOT YET KNOW HOW TO THINK LIKE CATHOLICS.

What do I mean?

The name of the game in marriage is self-sacrifice NOT gratification of all desires.

The ancient religious perspective of marriage as one way to heaven which admits to varying levels of physical and emotional relationship is much healthier and more realistic than an emphasis on the sexual act.

Married couples have to learn many ways of loving in order to have a successful marriage and things can happen early on in a marriage which interferes with the ordinary sexual activities of a married couple.

The emphasis must be on what I covered in the review of the Pope's encyclical last year--the stages of love, not merely on one expression.

UPDATES FROM A READER:
FROM NEW SISTER.  

There are two excellent books by both Drs. Von Hildebrand

"The Privilege of Being a Woman" by Dr. Alice VH, and

"In Defense of Purity" by Dr. Deitrich VH. 

[the latter was out of print last I checked and selling for hundreds of dollars on Amazon …I need to find my copy!]