by Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

My dear brothers and sisters in the Lord,

This is the fourth of a series on the Theology of the Body.

This week, President Obama thrust the issue of same-sex marriage into the headlines. Given that we are six months away from a national election, that he would choose now to flip-flop on the issue of marriage, can only be described as political expediency. Perhaps, we can take this as an opportunity to examine the fourth and final topic as we address questions related to the theology of the body.
The spousal meaning of the body, as articulated by John Paul II, reveals that the human body and human sexuality were purposely designed by God to enable man and woman to enact their complete self-donation and self-surrender in love in marriage. This giving and receiving of oneself in the marital embrace also, by God’s design, has the potential of bringing about new life. Thus, the deepest purposes of the sexual act and marriage are revealed: the self-surrender and union of the spouses in love and the possibility of new life flowing from that act.  Any use of our sexuality that does not respect those two inseparable dimensions is a misuse of the God-given gift of human sexuality.
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons states, “Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.”
It is not easy to state in just one paragraph the fundamental principle on which we base our belief and teaching. Yet, it goes beyond mere belief or doctrine. It is based on the nature of the human person. It is from here that all Catholic moral teaching, even in the area of social ethics, takes its beginning: the fundamental dignity of the human person. The human person lives on many levels: biological, psychological, and spiritual. Human sexuality pervades each one of these levels of existence. It is, however, the integrity of the human person that must be the guiding principle for moral behavior.
If the dignity of the human person is our beginning point, where must this take us when we apply it to those who have a homosexual orientation and find it difficult to abstain from homosexual acts?  This is a pastoral concern. However, some distinctions must be made regarding the intrinsic evil and distinct disordering of homosexual acts as distinguished from persons themselves.
No person is evil; however, certain acts in themselves can be evil. Nevertheless, the person’s moral responsibility for that act is not judged solely on the basis of objective criteria. Rather, any culpability must be judged through the lens of the person who acts, even if those acts are disordered.
The Catholic Church recognizes the fact that persons with same-sex attraction have often been the object of violence in action and in speech. The Church declares clearly and forcefully that these persons should not be the object of any discrimination or violence. At the same time, we cannot equate sexual orientation with race, nationality or other characteristics that frequently give rise to unjust discrimination.
The Church warns that we cannot generalize in judging cases or individuals. We cannot assume that the sexual behavior of homosexually oriented persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.  What is at stake is the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him or her dignity, a dignity to be recognized as belonging to the persons themselves.
This brings us to the question of the  origin of homosexuality. There is no conclusive scientific evidence, one way or another, that homosexuality arises from genetic, hormonal, or psychological causes. At the same time, the issue of nature and nurture leads us to understand that certain influences can lead a person to act in ways for which they are not totally responsible.   Today, some advocates of homosexuality believe that homosexuality is a choice and therefore it is fruitless to seek an outside determination of the homosexual orientation. They conclude that the homosexual lifestyle should be respected as are any other lifestyles.
The pastoral care of homosexuals is a great concern for the Church. The Bishops Conference of the United States issued two separate documents aimed at discussing these matters.  First in 1997, “Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers” was issued, and then, in 2006, “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclinations: Guidelines for Pastoral Care.”
Today, some persons refer to themselves as “LBGT,” or gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. This pneumonic seems to have found its way even into our Church parlance. These labels do damage to individual persons. To label a person as straight or as gay, or any other label, is to see only one aspect of their personality as determining all that they are. This truly does not respect the full dignity of the human person. Whenever we try to concentrate on labels or use the same categories that are used by the advocates of any lifestyle, we fall into traps that are inescapable.  The pastoral care of persons with same-sex attraction must be directed to their spiritual well-being in a non-discriminatory fashion. They are welcome always to the Church and should be welcomed by all. But at the same time, we cannot condone homosexual activity.
The second document of the U.S. Bishops Conference mentioned above, “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclinations: Guidelines for Pastoral Care,” deals with more of the doctrinal matters involved in pastoral care. It states, “Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented as teaching that persons with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. The disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural ends of human sexuality.” This must be the touchstone for understanding the compassion towards a person of homosexual inclination, while at the same time the Church must resolve to assist persons to deal with their inclinations, and, with the help of God’s grace, to overcome them. We cannot abandon those with these inclinations; we must support them to live a life of chastity and integrity and to find the road to happiness which is available to everyone who seeks to do the will of God.
We are reminded of the sacredness of the human person and the intended ends for which God has created us, male and female, in our individual sexuality.  At times, an individual struggles to integrate and exercise sexuality properly according to his or her state in life, whether it be married, single or celibate. As sexual persons, we put out into the deep.  There are a few contemporary guideposts that seem to point in the right direction.  Hopefully, a deeper understanding of the theology of the body will not only give guidance and support to all who struggle, but also a way of trying to understand that the God-given sexuality is a gift.

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

My dear brothers and sisters in the Lord,

This is the third in a series on the Theology of the Body.

As we continue the series on the Theology of the Body, and having considered last week marriage as a sacrament and the great challenge that it is today in our Church and world, we cannot ignore the practical consequences found in loving, sacramental relationships.

Pope John Paul II once said, in one of his catechetical sermons, “The way some people talk, you would think that Christ left us six sacraments and a trap; namely marriage.”  No, marriage is not a trap.  But it does have innate difficulties.  Although the mandate we hear in Genesis is, “Be fertile and multiply,” at times married couples have recognized for good reason that they must limit the size of their family according to their ability to educate and care for them.  This is a very personal decision for those families, one that only they can make for themselves. One family may have the ability to care for ten children, while there are those who with great difficulty can care for only two.  The Church recognizes that families may limit the number of their children; however, this should be done always through natural means which respect God’s plan for procreation.  And here begins the problem of interpretation.  What exactly are natural means?

The recent mandate from the United States Department of Health and Human Services that even religious organizations, through their health plans, must provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs to their employees has brought out into the open again a problem that has largely gone un-discussed for many years; namely, the immorality of contraception and sterilization.  The Church’s position on these matters was developed over a long period of time.

But perhaps the only way to understand the true moral difficulties of contraception is in the context of the Theology of the Body.  Unless we understand marriage as the complete mutual self-giving of the spouses and the sexual act within marriage as the physical personal expression of that total self-gift, the intrinsic evil of contraception cannot be understood.  If spouses are truly to give themselves to the other completely, they cannot withhold the fruit of that gift, be it an ovum or a sperm.  Although the moral teaching in this regard, especially as set out over 40 years ago by Pope Paul VI in the Encyclical Letter, “Humanae Vitae,” has been misunderstood and ignored by many, the wisdom of his teaching still remains.
What are the alternatives for couples seeking to regulate birth, since artificial means of contraception always block the mutual gift that marriage should be?

Natural Family Planning (NFP) over the years has developed scientifically to provide methods of spacing children and determine fertility that if used properly are extremely successful.  However, it is not only the success rate of these methods that recommends NFP.  Rather, it is the understanding that by taking advantage of infertile periods and by abstaining during fertile periods couples do not compromise their mutual self-gift, instead they foster a deepening of their gift of self to each other.

Unlike artificial means which require the couple to perform a willful act against the possibility of conception (rendering the sexual act anti-procreative), natural means cooperate with God’s design in which there are times of natural infertility (the act being naturally non-procreative). Obviously, these natural methods demand periodic continence; that is, abstaining from sexual relations during the time of month when a woman is fertile.  This seems for many almost impossible in our society today which glorifies instant gratification.  Yet, the self-discipline implied in Natural Family Planning is a discipline necessary for a truly happy marriage.

Recently, in our own diocese here in Brooklyn and Queens we have made available more seminars on Natural Family Planning.  The next classes will be offered on June 14 and July 12 at 7:30 p.m.  The classes will be held at 310 Prospect Park West in Park Slope.  You would be most welcome to attend.  Simply call 718-965-7300, extension 5540 and speak with Martha Hernandez.  These classes are intended to not only allow couples to learn about Natural Family Planning, but it also assists them in learning the practice of generosity in married life.

Contrary to contraception is the issue of infertile couples who desperately wish to have children.  Today, modern science has intervened with various methods of artificial conception; many of these methods, such as in vitro fertilization, are morally unacceptable according to the teaching of the Church.  Christian couples, notwithstanding the good and natural desire to have children, cannot use these means.  Not every means used can be justified by the end that is sought.

The dignity of persons in marriage and the dignity of any child conceived demand that normal sexual intercourse should be the way in which conception occurs.  Other means of conception fall short of the possibility of respecting the integrity of marriage and God’s plan for procreation.  This I know is difficult for most people to understand; however, it must be stated that children are a gift from God and not the right of any married couple.

The issue of sterilization, as well as abortion, has been included in the recent HHS mandate.  Again, sterilization of either the male or female would preclude the use of a natural faculty for the purpose for which it was created.  Abortion is the ending of a human life once it has been conceived, either through the various abortifacient drugs available today or through a direct surgical abortion.

Married life not only carries with it tremendous responsibilities, but also joys and pleasures which sustain a married couple through the vicissitudes of what married life entails.  Every marriage certainly is an experience of putting out into the deep.  When the troubled waters of the issues described above present themselves, perhaps it is to the ark of the Church that people must flee, less they be swallowed up in the tempests and waters of the many contemporary storms.  Hopefully, as we discuss these issues today we will remember married couples in our prayers, especially those who are experiencing the difficulties and challenges cited.

by Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

My dear brothers and sisters in the Lord,

This is the second of a series on the Theology of the Body.

A couple renews wedding vows at a diocesan celebration of wedding anniversaries last weekend. The Tablet will have full coverage of the event in next week’s edition.

When all is said and done, Blessed John Paul II’s book, “Theology of the Body,” is truly an anthropology of the human person.  Modern science has limited itself to studying the origins of the human person and perhaps has not given adequate concentration on the present conditions of the human person.
When “Theology of the Body” speaks to the sacramentality of marriage, it uses St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 5:22-33) as the basis of its teaching.  Many have misunderstood these words of St. Paul, which begin with the phrase, “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence to Christ.  Wives should be submissive to their husbands, as to the Lord.  While the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the Church and He Himself is the Savior of the Body.”
This passage uses three analogies.  First, St. Paul compares Christ to the Church, the husband to the wife, and the head to the body.  These analogies permeate the entire letter and give us a basis on which we can understand the relationship between spouses and the relationship of the love of Christ to His Church, as well as the human understanding of how the head is related to the body.  This theological explanation, while using such understandable human analogies, gives us an insight into the sacramentality of marriage as intended by Christ and developed in the life of the Church.
We need to reemphasize the sacramentality of marriage which is so often misunderstand.  In the current situation today, unfortunately, when we speak of marriage we almost instantly have to speak about the dissolution of marriage, which is all too common.  In the United States, the number of marriages has dramatically reduced to almost half the rate of 20 years ago.  The number of divorces has increased to almost 11% of those who are married.  The situation of out-of-wedlock births in the past five years is almost 40% of live births.  The question comes to us, “Is marriage a thing of the past?”
The sacrament of marriage is never a thing of the past; however, we must understand how marriage is a sacrament.  The Church in the last 50 years has concentrated on pre-marriage preparation, either through Pre-Cana classes, Engaged Encounter or individual sessions.  As good as these preparatory programs are, however, the real preparation for marriage takes place neither in courses nor in school, but rather in the family.  Here is where the problem lies.  Marriage is basically modeled after the marriage into which the person is born.  Given today the large number of divorces, and so many children living without fathers in the home, the image of marriage and the modeling of marriage are rather difficult.  Perhaps this is why we see so many couples cohabitating, either because they cannot make a commitment or because they want to make a commitment and want to make sure that they can fulfill it given the experiences they have had in their own lives and families.  Unfortunately, there is a fallacy here and the statistics prove that the break-up rate among those who cohabitate prior to marriage is roughly similar to those who do not do so.
True, also, is the issue of pre-marital sexual relations which also have contributed to the breakdown of the understanding of the sacramentality of marriage.  This is why so many people today cohabitate without the benefit of religious or civil marriage.  Sex for many has become merely a matter of pleasure or convenience, without a life-long commitment, which humanly speaking is difficult.  This is why marriage is a sacrament, because it allows the union of spouses in a partnership strengthened by the graces of the sacrament.  Marriages are not made in heaven, but they cannot live without heavenly assistance.
If we return to the analogy of the Ephesians, we recognize that the spousal love of Christ for His Church is the image of the type of love a husband must have for his wife, and the wife must have for her husband.  The Church is the Bride of Christ, He loves her as Himself.  And so too for the husband, his bride is to be loved as himself.  And the bride is to love her husband as she would love Christ Himself.  This does not result in any submissive relationship, but rather one of mutual equality.
Many times at marriage ceremonies or wedding anniversary gatherings, I use the story that comes from Jewish rabbinical teachings to describe the creation of woman from Adam’s rib.  The story goes that God has a choice from what part of the man’s body He would take material to form the woman.  If He were to take from the man’s head, then woman might dominate man.  If He were to take something from the man’s leg or foot, then the woman would be the slave of the man.  God had the perfect solution when He took one of the man’s rib.  God took a rib from the side of Adam, close to his heart, to remind man that woman was his equal and to be loved as himself.
The sacramentality of marriage is part of the theology of the body and is necessary for a revival of our understanding of the sacrament of marriage today in the world.  As I said above, marriage is a form of modeling an experience.  But perhaps only the experience of good Christian marriages in the service of the New Evangelization can turn the tide and show the world what marriage truly is and what marriage can truly be.
Every marriage is an experience of putting out into the deep.  Two persons come to know and love one another and do not know what lies before them into the future.  They make a life-long commitment to support and love one another as they love themselves.  Only if we can restore this understanding of marriage to our Church and then to our world can we hope to evangelize the world in need of both human and religious conversion.

by Nicholas DiMarzio

My dear brothers and sisters in the Lord,

This is first in a series on Theology of the Body.

As bishop, I have noticed one particular area today that seems to be misunderstood, even within church-going Catholic circles, is the human person and sexuality as seen from Sacred Scripture.  Over the next few weeks, I will discuss the dignity of the human person and will take my inspiration from John Paul II’s teaching on Theology of the Body, which he introduced in weekly audiences from 1979 to 1984.

It is hard to argue with the Word of God in the Sacred Scripture.  We can begin to understand the human person by going to the beginning: the Book of Genesis and the creation of man and woman. It is here that we see the original unity of man and woman in their original innocence, and how this was destroyed by sin.

In Genesis, we find Adam is viewed by God as incomplete, and that he should not be alone.  So God created them in His own image, male and female. From the rib of Adam, He created Eve to be his helpmate. Adam and Eve are made for one another as partners, to be fertile and to bring new life into the world.  It is no less than the image of God that is invoked by Scripture to explain the true dignity of man and woman. Theology of the Body can also be understood as the theology of sex for masculinity and femininity because we find in our understanding of the human person the true value of sexuality in the personality of man and woman.

In a beautiful homily on the occasion of the rededication of the Sistine Chapel, Blessed John Paul II said, “It seems that Michelangelo, in his own way, allowed himself to be guided by the evocative words of the Book of Genesis which, as regards the creation of the human being, male and female, reveals: ‘The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame’ (Gn 2:25).  The Sistine Chapel is precisely – if one may say so – the sanctuary of the theology of the human body.”

Several years after Michelangelo’s work was originally finished, a new pope from Holland, Adrian VI, ordered that loin cloths be painted over most of the images in the Sistine Chapel.  Today, the loin cloths have been removed and the true beauty of Michelangelo’s understanding of the human body is revealed.  No one looks upon his masterpiece, The David, and believes it is pornographic.  Our problem today is that our sense of sin and shame has been corrupted.  We no longer understand what sin is about.

The two pillars on which Blessed John Paul II built his Theology of the Body are the Sermon on the Mount and St. Paul’s teaching on the human body.  In the Sermon on the Mount, the greatest sermon preached by Jesus, we see the teaching of purity of heart.

We see in Our Lord’s conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well that He demonstrates an understanding of human weakness and the many obstacles to living a life of grace. As with the woman caught in adultery, Jesus neither condones her actions nor condemns her.  Rather, he tells her to go and sin no more.
Today, in our own society, unfortunately, the phenomenon of open marriages and promiscuity contradicts the commandment not to commit adultery.  When there is a lack of appreciation for the dignity of the human person, sex is reduced to a means of pleasure. Adultery becomes, for too many, an inconsequential action.

However, it can destroy a relationship between a couple where human forgiveness of such actions is nearly impossible.

St. Paul’s teaching on the human body is the other pillar of John Paul II’s teaching on the Theology of the Body.  It is best characterized as life according to the spirit.  St. Paul has been mischaracterized as one who did not appreciate human sexuality.  In fact, the opposite is true.  When St. Paul speaks of life according to the spirit, the perennial conflict between the flesh and the spirit is always at work.  In his view, the fruits of the spirit compliment the true understanding of human sexuality.

Still, St. Paul also did not shy away from  listing the works of the flesh, the cardinal sins, or also known as the seven deadly sins.  He condemns them, yet the words he uses to those to whom he writes are “To live by the spirit, for our bodies are temples for the Holy Spirit.”

St. Paul’s understanding of the Incarnation gives a basis for an understanding of the human body beyond the Old Testament terms because now the body of the God Man becomes the image of every human person.

It is hard to do justice to the wonderful teaching of Blessed John Paul II on the Theology of the Body.  However, in this brief synopsis, I have put out into the deep and, hopefully, what has been said by way of précis has not been misunderstood.

Obviously, there is no substitute for reading the Theology of the Body for oneself.  It is available under the title “Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body,” translated by the internationally renowned biblical scholar Michael Waldstein in 2006 by Pauline Books and Media.

Another book by Christopher West entitled, “At the Heart of the Gospel: Reclaiming the Body for the New Evangelization” is another good explanation in light of the needs of the New Evangelization and how this theology can be applied.