Saturday, July 6, 2013

Maria Goretti, Chastity and Christian Marriage

A photo believed to be of St. Maria Goretti


Brothers and sisters: "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food" -- and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.  1 Cor. 6:13c-15a, 17-20

I guess I don't so much want to reflect on the life of today's Saint, Maria Goretti, as the reading from St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians that is suggested for her Mass.  The virtue of Chastity, which Maria died for,  is central to the living of the Christian life.  Sadly the broader culture doesn't see it that way, and current attitudes toward marriage that are prevalent among many is proof of that.

Needless to say, the definition of marriage has been a hotly debated topic over the past several years, and is again at the forefront of people's attention with the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.  Many do not understand why the Catholic Church is uncompromising in Her opposition to the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples.  Is the Church bigoted against gays?  Are we holding to some Victorian notion of sexual morality that society has long ago abandoned?  The answer lies in our understanding of marriage, not born of a lack of charity or of social convention but of Divine Revelation, and our notion of Christian Chastity in general, born of the same.

We are stubborn on this issue, because from the beginning God created them male and female, as Scripture tells us.  The first couple were given to each other by God to be partners and companions, true, but also to "be fruitful and multiply."  We don't know from Genesis how long Adam and Eve enjoyed the Original Blessing before the Fall, but sex and family would have been a part of that blessing, whether they partook of them or not.  They were joined in a marriage, the primordial Sacrament, as Bl. John Paul put it, central to God's plan for humanity.  Because of the intrinsic link in our understanding between sex and child rearing, love and responsibility, Christian marriage is never simply about romantic love.  Romance may be the spark that lights the fire, but if the flames of love are to be enduring they need to be rooted in something deeper than sexual attraction or even the need for companionship.

As Paul reminds us above, sex is not to be seen as a good in and of itself.  Any attachment to bodily pleasure, be it eating, drinking or whatever pleasure a person finds comfort in, should be ordered toward a greater good or we will become self centered, closed off from the blessings God wants to give to us.  The body has value.  We are not bodies with souls, but neither are we a soul who lugs around an animated corps.  Christ redeemed the whole human person, and the body is meant as the visible expression of the invisible reality "underneath" it.  It is how we love, serve and live out our vocation as Christians.  In baptism we are joined to Christ, body and soul, and this union is renewed and made more explicit in the reception of the Eucharist.  When we sin we bring Christ with us to a place he doesn't want to go.  He doesn't want to accompany us in sexual sin because it is a misusing of the body and the gift of sexuality that is is ordered to a particular good; the good of the couple, yes, but also family life, which prevents sex from becoming self centered and egotistical.

When gays feel that the Church, and others who stand against same sex marriage are singling them out for scrutiny unjustly, they have a point.  The wider Western Culture has long a go separated sex from family life, and reduced marriage to a romantic relationship or maybe, on a deeper level, sees it as a profound companionship that involves certain legal benefits.  Children and family can be, and usually are part of this arrangement, but is far from essential.  All that matters is the couple themselves independent of any reference to family and society at large.  If marriage is thus defined, than why not include couples of the same gender among those who can join in wedlock?

Yes, I am stubborn.  Whatever you might want to call such a union, it is not a marriage as I understand it as a disciple of Christ, and it doesn't make a bit of difference if the couple is gay or straight.  This is so not because "I" believe it, but because I have thrown my lot in with Christ who teaches me through Scripture and Tradition, which includes in this case a teaching reiterated by Pope Francis in his latest encyclical.  These are my guides; not opinion polls or changing social attitudes.  I judge social mores by the Gospel, not the other way around.

I guess I feel compelled to conclude by saying that Christ holds His disciples to a high standard, not easy to follow.  Sometimes people fail, and then we trust in God's mercy and His grace that makes conversion possible.  Jesus made it clear that the Kingdom is not for the unchaste, but also showed great compassion for those who fell into sexual sin.  Jesus will always take us back.  But in this issue we are not simply talking about sin and weakness but in the institutionalizing of a way which is simply contrary to the Gospel message.  My only fear is that by going down this path, it is not Christ who will withdraw his love and compassion from us, but we who are closing ourselves off from it. 

No comments: