Marriage Advice from Pope Benedict

Especially to those couples going through a crisis in their relationship (underlining mine):

Meeting with participants of the Retrouvaille Association, Pope Benedict XVI explained that when a marriage is suffering, the spouses are facing an opportunity that "will help them to grow." Guided by Mary and with the help of the Lord, their love will be purified, deepened and strengthened.

This morning at the Apostolic Palace of Castel Gandolfo, the Holy Father received 300 participants of the Retrouvaille Association, an international movement which aims to assist married couples in crisis. In his meeting with them, the Pontiff recalled how the group was formed in Canada in 1977, by husband and wife, Guy and Jeannine Beland, "to help couples in serious crisis to face their problems with a specific program aimed at rebuilding their relationship, not as an alternative to psychological therapies but following a different and complementary route."

The Pope then stressed that though the members are not professionals, they are married couples who have faced similar marital difficulties and have "overcome them with the grace of God and the support of Retrouvaille."

The Holy Father also said that serious marital crisis "is a reality that has two faces. On the one hand, and especially in its most acute and painful phase, it appears to be a failure; this is the negative face. But there is another face, one we are often unaware of but that God sees. In fact, as nature shows us, each crisis is a passage to a new phase of life. At the moment of break-up," he told his audience, "you offer couples ... a positive reference to which to entrust themselves in their desperation."

In this way "your meetings offer a 'handhold' so as not to lose the way altogether and gradually to climb back up the slope."

Finally, the Pontiff concluded by emphasizing the need to carry out this mission of helping married couples in crisis while nourishing "your spiritual life continually, to put love into what you do so that contact with difficult situations does not cause your hope to run dry or be reduced to a mere formula." (CNA)

Let's take a moment to say a quick prayer for all those couples experiencing difficulties in their marriage.

The American Bishops are working on a new postoral letter on marriage due by November.

Video: Pro-Obama ad features Catholic theologian Lisa Cahill

AmP Reader Damian of Conservathink notes the inclusion of Catholic theologian Lisa Sowle Cahill in a pro-Obama ad which implictly criticizes John McCain's poor marriage record. This ad played on CNN (and possibly MSNBC) during Saturday's values forum.

Over at ultra-liberal haven Daily Kos, someone from the Matthew 25 Network - the team that put this ad together - claims it is "the first time clergy have appeared in a [television] commercial to speak out in support of a Democratic Presidential Candidate." It describes Cahill as "one of the biggest names in Theology Today. Lisa Cahill is a major voice for Catholic Women, and will be a great voice for Barack in the coming month."

Cahill made it onto the AmP radar last November when she "predictably [made] the case for continuing the status quo in regards to the USCCB's public instruction on voting, pro-abort politicians, receiving Communion, etc." Obviously, the USCCB did not follow her advice in their publication of Faithful Citizenship.

Well, Cahill is back in the public eye:

She is described in this video as a "Catholic theologian", or at least Boston College thinks so.

This is her script:

Cahill: "He understands the pressures families are under. And what it takes to help families thrive."

Unfortunately, one of Obama's solution to the pressures families are under ... is to abort their offspring, even through partial birth abortion.

Matthew 25, meanwhile, promises "In the coming months you will see more ads spots in various formates on Torture, the Poverty, the AIDS crisis, and the Environment from us."

... and yet no mention of moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research.

Ph/t: Hot Air, which asks:

Exit question: Which opportunistic reversal is more shameless? Democrats suddenly deciding that infidelity is a serious electoral issue or Democrats suddenly deciding that no, on second thought, military experience isn’t essential in a commander-in-chief?

Now that's a new take on Obama's "new politics."

And do note that this video is an example of Obama's outreach efforts to Catholics and other Christians. Does it strike you as genuine?

nota bene: Obama's prime vice presidential candidate is a pro-abortion Catholic - Tim Kaine.

NYT columnist quotes priest for marriage advice, offends feminist

Sometimes when it's a slow news day or when I'd like to see the world through the eyes of someone coming from a completely different perspective I visit feministing.com. Today was a classic:

Getting marriage advice from a priest.

"Dowd has stooped to a new low. Paraphrasing a priest on advice on what to look for in a husband. I guess I can see on some level, since marriage is frequently a religious thing, but in general, this gets a no. And by the way, apparently we should be looking for man-robots that have never experienced any trauma or disruption in their life." - Samhita

Get this: a priest should evidently be the last person in the world to give relationship advice. Marriage is only accidentally a "religious" thing but in general religious considerations should play no part in it. Finally, she thinks the priest presents impossible ideals about what women should look for in a potential spouse.

Now the nice thing: the first two commenters on this post at feministing.com completely disagree with "Samhita's" critique, and provide good reasons for their agreement with the advice given.

Now judge for yourself: "An Ideal Husband" by Maureen Dowd over at the New York Times. Was the priest telling women to look for "man-robots that have never experienced any trauma or disruption in their life" or instead for virtuous men who can love and care deeply for their spouses?

It's frustrating to once again see a self-proclaimed feminist disregarding the kind of advice that might improve her perspective on the male gender because of her own a priori reservations and ideology.

Hopefully she can see that on some level.

Time Magazine Rethinks Scripture on Divorce, Separation and Remarriage

The fact-pattern:

Christianity Today publishes an article entitled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce" which attempted to revise the biblical teaching on these questions so that it could be reconciled to the modern prevalence of divorce in secular societies well as Evangelical circles. David Van Biema covers the story for Time magazine, and it has become one of the most popular articles being read on the Internet.

My take:

A false assumption plagues this piece from the outset (all underlining mine):

Last month, the cover story of the monthly Christianity Today was titled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce." The heated controversy provoked by the story showed how Biblically flexible some Evangelicals can be — especially when God's word seems at odds not just with modern American behavior, but also with simple human kindness.

Catch that? Jesus' teaching on marriage doesn't seem to square even with "simple human kindness." Jesus' historical teaching that husbands cannot put away their wives and thereby marginalize their subsistence was actually contrary not only to "modern American behavior" (the new normative guide to morality?), but also to "simple human kindness." You know, the stuff that's just darn evident to everyone. Cruel Jesus, making husbands keep their wives.

From the beginning the author operated upon the false premise that Jesus' teaching on marriage required all spouses to remain with their husbands no matter what.

This false premise appears again in the second paragraph:

Finally, Instone-Brewer tallies four grounds for divorce he finds affirmed in both Old and New Testaments: adultery, emotional and sexual neglect, abandonment (by anyone) and abuse.

What is in fact allowed in these cases is separation (which no one would argue, if the grounds for separation are legitimate). Remarriage is an entirely different question, but don't expect Van Biema to present that consideration.

Errors quickly compound as Van Biema's inability to distinguish separation from "divorce" play-out:

... the Instone-Brewer essay appeared to be its editors' attempt to offer Evangelicals an escape from a classic dilemma. The "plain sense" of Jesus's words without quotes seems clear enough, but also inhumane: how could a loving God forbid divorce, even by omission, in cases of wife-beating, or of abandonment by a Christian spouse?

See above. Jesus isn't teaching that women should stay in an abusive marriage. Perhaps the "plain sense" of scripture mentioned here isn't enough. That's no surprise. But it's wrong to conclude that a holistic reading of the biblical accounts contradicts the "plain sense" teaching of Jesus against divorce, when accurately understood.

Next it really gets good (by which I mean, of course, bad):

Each branch of Christianity deals with divorce in its own way: Catholicism bans it entirely, but many divorced and remarried couples nonetheless find that their conscience permits them to take Communion.

Error count rising. "Catholicism bans [divorce] entirely." False. Legal divorce which results in the de facto separation of spouses is allowed, and even suggested to spouses in an abusive relationship. Van Biema happily constructs a straw-man of the Church's teaching. And it's easy to destroy a straw-man. And it's rare to find anything but straw-men in this treatment.

Second error: "Many divorced and remarried couples nonetheless find that their conscience permits them to take Communion." Well, receiving Communion isn't only a matter of "finding oneself permitted." If one has remarried after a divorce, and has not received an annulment from their marriage, the Church presumes that they are committing fornication, which as a mortal sin, bars the communicant from receiving until they have confessed.

Amazingly, the article even quotes someone who brings up the significance of remarriage:

If a split itself is inescapable, notes Christianity Today editor Andy Crouch, "remarriage is where the rubber meets the road," and many remarried couples find themselves denied church membership.

It remains inextricable to me why Van Biema didn't claim something along the lines of "nonetheless, many Evangelicals find that their conscience permits them to remain part of their church." Such flawed ecclesiology evidently applies to Catholics - why don't Evangelicals get the same (false) primacy of conscience option?

Van Biema seems to have encountered at least one person who realized that he wasn't going to understand the problem, but incredibly, Van Biema takes this reticence to discuss the issue as some sort of "gotcha!":

Asked if he does [believe that an abused woman should leave the marriage], Moore demurred: "Let me think about that for a little bit. I could answer in a way that would be very easily misunderstood."

I don't think the interviewee was demurring because he thought his answer was incorrect, I think it is more likely the case that he didn't want his words twisted. Well, they were anyway.

Van Biema wraps it all up for us:

Still, the controversy suggests that even the country's most rule-bound Christians will search for a fresh understanding of scripture when it seems unjust to them. The implications? Flexibility on divorce may mean that evangelicals could also rethink their position on such things as gay marriage, as a generation of Christians far more accepting of homosexuality begins to move into power....It could also give heart to a certain twice-divorced former New York mayor who is running for President and seeking the conservative vote. But that may be pushing things a bit.

The message: when scripture doesn't square with a) your pre-conceived categories of justice, or b) the practice of individuals or c) could get in the way of your presidential-hopefuls candidacy then...

Rethink scripture.

Oh! And hey, while we're at it, we can revise what the scriptures teach about homosexuality and "gay marriage". Isn't it amazing what new vistas of human self-fulfillment are available to those who ...

Revise scripture.

(A note to Christianity Today: when Time Magazine starts agreeing with you, that's a warning sign.)

Update: And of course, if we want to be cynical about it (not saying we don't), this article is handily presented by Time just as Rudy Giuliani begins to take increasing flack for his multiple remarriages (this claim is supported by the fact that the Christianity Today article is evidently over a month old already) . And who, you might ask, is dishing out the Giuliani criticism? *drum roll* ... that's right: evangelicals and social conservatives! So what better time than the present to paint them as hypocrites? And hey, if we can call into doubt the teaching of Scripture on homosexuality, then all the better. Forget rethinking or revising, let's just forget it.

Workers in Marriage Tribunals get a little nod...

... by Pope Benedict at the end of this Wednesday's general audience:

Benedict XVI greeted the participants in a course on matrimonial law and the canonical process.

The Pope mentioned the course at the end of today's general audience, encouraging the participants to take advantage of this "precious occasion of juridical formation so as to be able to offer your dioceses and communities a qualified and diligent service."

The course, sponsored by the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, is under way in Rome through Friday. [Zenit]

Another problem with the co-habitation argument: canonical

One more nail in the coffin:

Michael Lawler and Gail Risch (U.S. Catholic on-line) propose to treat certain co-habiting couples essentially as married. This bad idea should, and will, go nowhere (Abps. Charles Chaput and Elden Curtiss and folks like Carl Olson see numerous problems with it), so I need not comment much on it. I should point out, though, that L&R's presentation of the canon law on marriage is problematic in several respects.

[How?]

USCCB buys tv/radio ads to strengthen U.S. marriages

The Associates Press reports:

U.S. Roman Catholic bishops began a campaign Wednesday to strengthen the institution of marriage by encouraging spouses to perform simple day-to-day gestures for one another.

The campaign, a series of radio and television spots, is part of a broader effort to bring a greater Catholic voice to the debate over the meaning of marriage.

The spots show ordinary people in parks and other public places answering the question "What have you done for your marriage today?" The answers _ waking up early with the baby, organizing a date night _ are meant to promote small acts of kindness as medicine for making marriages last a lifetime.

Missing from the spots is any overt religious message, although they are identified as Catholic and end with an invitation to visit http://www.foryourmarriage.org/. The Web site promises resources for Catholic and non-Catholic couples on everything from conflict resolution to finances.

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, a member of the bishops' committee on marriage and family life, said the spots deliberately avoid religion to reach a wide audience.

"Both marriage and family are necessary for the common good of society," he said. "When either institution weakens, all of us suffer the consequences. When both marriage and family grow stronger, all of us benefit."

You can view the TV spots here at the ForYourMarriage website (look on the left sidebar).

I watched a few of the spots and they're pretty decent. I mean, resources could definitely have been spent in a worse way and - who knows? - if this campaign is successful, maybe the CCC might have its next series ask the question "What Have You Done For Your Voting Conscience Today?". Oh well, one can hope.... baby steps.

Flippancy aside, these tv ads (or technically, "public service announcements"), are part of a wider, more serious campaign with some real content for Catholics:

The bishops' larger marriage initiative, set in motion in 2004 and still in the research and development stages, aims to promote marriage as both "a human institution and a Christian sacrament." Plans call for improving parish marriage ministries, a pastoral letter and working in the legal and political arenas to "promote, strengthen and protect marriage."

Perhaps anticipating one criticism, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops emphasizes that married couples have played a key role in the initiative, both through focus groups and continued consultation. [Associated Press]