By Robert L. Fastiggi Ph.D. (reviewed by Matthew Coffin)
Dr. Robert L. Fastiggi is professor of Systematic Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary. In What the Church Teaches About Sex – God’s Plan for Human Happiness, he draws on his experience as a theologian and educator to explain the Catholic Church’s teaching about human sexuality. Fastiggi begins by looking at St. Augustine, an admitted adulterer and exploiter of women, before he allowed divine grace to transform his heart. With God’s help Augustine went from sinner to saint.
Fastiggi uses Augustine’s struggle with chastity to show how openness to selfless love and prayer are powerful antidotes to sexual concupiscence. Our first parent’s original sin taints every human endeavor, but none more than conjugal love. Dr. Fastiggi argues the “sexual revolution,” far from liberating human beings, has left in its wake divided homes, broken families, and fractured lives. The greatest victims of this new sexual license are woman and children. Ironically, it is often in their name that abortion, contraception, and divorce is justified.
What the Church Teaches About Sex – God’s Plan for Human Happiness, is more than a refutation of contemporary values. It is a comprehensive yet readable presentation of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. Dr. Fastiggi looks at the Church’s greatest thinkers, from Augustine to John Paul II, relevant encyclicals, and catecheses. What emerges is the remarkably consistent view the Catholic Church holds regarding sex.
For any Catholic who wants to know why the Church teaches what it does about marriage, homosexuality, divorce, abortion, contraception, and more, this book is a good place to start. A forward by Catholic bioethics scholar Janet E. Smith and an appendix summarizing Church documents relating to sexual morality compliment the text. Whether you are a devout Catholic or unsure, this book will enlighten you like few others. (Despite having taught and studied Catholic Theology, I learned from reading it and will recommend it to students. Parents, engaged couples and young people would benefit greatly.)
The following is excerpted from an interview with noted Catholic theologian Monsignor Cormac Burke conducted by The Melbourne Record in 2007.
A former judge of the Roman Rota has called for Catholics to play a bigger role in counter-acting divorce among friends and family members.
Monsignor Cormac Burke visited Australia this week to give lectures in Melbourne and Sydney. The theme of his Melbourne talk, delivered at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family, was the importance of commitment in marriage. In an interview with The Record, Mons Burke warned of some of the dangers confronting marriages in the modern world.
People outside the marriage, especially relatives and friends, can play a crucial role in helping married couples get through these periods of sometimes "atomic" explosion, Mons Burke said. "It's very important that relatives and friends bear in mind that every couple goes through difficulties, and perhaps difficulties that seem insurmountable.
"Sometimes there is an 'explosion' against the other partner. The wise friend should listen, and say nothing, because many of these things can, and do pass. "Friends can do a lot of harm, otherwise," Mons Burke said.
The former judge warned particularly against the question of rivalry between the sexes, and what he calls "global judgments" about the other sex. "Someone might say: 'you're quite right, all men are like that, or all women are like that'," Mons Burke said. "That can not only be unwise but, from a Christian point of view, it can be a very grave sin, showing a lack of prudence and a lack of charity." The better thing in such situations is to say nothing, and after the other person has cooled down, offer them a more balanced picture of their spouse, he said.
The monsignor, a quietly spoken Irishman, is a canon lawyer and a member of the Dublin bar. He is also a professor of modern languages and has published extensively on moral theology, conscience and the anthropology of marriage. He currently teaches at Strathmore University in Nairobi, Kenya. Mons Burke said that moral theology, rather than canon law, had always been his primary field of interest... (to be continued)
Well, those are my (somewhat cranky) suggestions for listening to and benefiting from a liturgical homily.
Anybody want to add anything?
So then, the great Mother of God, so mysteriously united to Jesus Christ from all eternity by the same decree of predestination, immaculately conceived, an intact virgin throughout her divine motherhood, a noble associate of our Redeemer as he defeated sin and its consequences, received, as it were, the final crowning privilege of being preserved from the corruption of the grave and, following her Son in his victory over death, was brought, body and soul, to the highest glory of heaven, to shine as Queen at the right hand of that same Son, the immortal King of Ages
Pope John Paul II restores man firmly at the center of reality, making moral absolutes essential. Like Augustine and Aquinas before him, he confirms the fundamental harmony between faith and reason. Using phenomenology and Sacred Scripture, the pontiff affirmed objective moral truth and the dignity of persons, who are shaped by and responsible for their actions.
The fruit of this synthesis, John Paul’s Theology of the Body, is a reflection on our nature and life as persons made in the image and likeness of God, conjugal love, the meaning of celibacy, and the beatitude to which every human being is called. This is the Holy Father’s catechesis for a culture where sex is an obsession, marriage and families are endangered, and the dignity of persons is denied. Teaching about human sexuality using language subjective, inductive, experimental minds can understand, the Theology of the Body is a light in darkness guiding us toward an authentic vision of the person as divine gift.
I highly recommend this translation. The preface and introductory essays are themselves illuminating. This is not summer reading, however, or for the theologically faint of heart. For those unfamiliar with it, I recommend reading and reflecting on one or two catecheses a day to get the most out of this book.
But it has, until recently, clearly been the most influential. A comparison of 1917, 1947 and 1987 world maps will show how inexorably this system of thought flowed so as to inundate one-third of the world in just two generations-a feat rivaled only twice in history, by early Christianity and early Islam.
Twenty years ago, every political and military conflict in the world, from Central America to the Middle East, turned on the axis of communism vs. anti-communism.
Even fascism became popular in Europe, and is still a force to be reckoned with in Latin America, largely because of its opposition to "the specter of communism," as Marx calls it in the first sentence of his "Communist Manifesto."
The "Manifesto" was one of the key moments in history. Published in 1848, "the year of revolutions' throughout Europe, it is, like the Bible, essentially a philosophy of history, past and future. All past history is reduced to class struggle between oppressor and oppressed, master and slave, whether king vs. people, priest vs. parishioner, guild- master vs. apprentice, or even husband vs. wife and parent vs. child.
This is a view of history even more cynical than Machiavelli's. Love is totally denied or ignored; competition and exploitation are the universal rule.
Now, however, this can change, according to Marx, because now, for the first time in history, we have not many classes but only two-the bourgeoisie (the "haves," owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (the "have-nots," non-owners of the means of production).
The latter must sell themselves and their labor to the owners until the communist revolution, which will "eliminate" (euphemism for "murder") the bourgeoisie and thus abolish classes and class conflict forever, establishing a millennium of peace and equality. After being utterly cynical about the past, Marx becomes utterly naive about the future...
Fr. Phillip Neri Powell
2. Pay attention to key words, images, phrases, ideas.
Robert L. Fastiggi
Marriage is a sacred mystery that symbolizes the covenantal love between Christ and His Church (cf. Eph. 5:21-32). It is a primordial blessing that goes back to the creation of the human race. The dynamics of this blessing should be obvious: love, intimacy, communion, and fruitfulness. So precious are these gifts that God preserved them for humanity even after the fall.Father, You have made the union of man and wife so holy a mystery that it symbolizes the marriage of Christ and His Church.
Father, by your plan man and woman are united, and married life has been established as the one blessing that was not forfeited by original sin or washed away by the flood.
Apostle of Absurdity
He called his philosophy "existentialism" because of the thesis that "existence precedes essence." What this means concretely is that "man is nothing else than what he makes of himself." Since there is no God to design man, man has no blueprint, no essence. His essence or nature comes not from God as Creator but from his own free choice.
We continue to urge you to
1. Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test.
2. Adopt measures that protect and improve people’s health care. Reform should make quality health care affordable and accessible to everyone, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who live at or near the poverty level.
3. Include effective measures to safeguard the health of immigrants, their children and all of society. Ensure that legal immigrants and their family members have comprehensive, affordable, and timely access to health care coverage. Maintain an adequate safety net for those who remain uncovered.
Bishop William F. Murphy
Diocese of Rockville Centre
Committee on Domestic Justice & Human Development
Cardinal Justin Rigali
Archdiocese of Philadelphia
Committee on Pro-Life Activities
Bishop John Wester
Diocese of Salt Lake City
Committee on Migration
Fr. Phillip Neri Powell
Yet, along with flashes of genius, we find the most bizarre ideas in his writings—e.g., that mothers cuddle their babies only as a substitute for their desire to have sexual intercourse with them.
Sigmund Freud's most influential teaching is his sexual reductionism. As an atheist, Freud reduces God to a dream of man. As a materialist, he reduces man to his body, the human body to animal desire, desire to sexual desire and sexual desire to genital sex. All are oversimplifications.
Freud was a scientist, and in some ways a great one. But he succumbed to an occupational hazard: the desire to reduce the complex to the controllable. He wanted to make psychology into a science, even an exact science. But this it can never be because its object, man, is not only an object but also a subject, an "I."
At the basis of our century's "sexual revolution" is a demand for satisfaction and a confusion between needs and wants. All normal human beings have sexual wants or desires. But it's simply not true, as Freud constantly assumes, that these are needs or rights; that no one can be expected to live without gratifying them; or to suppress them is psychologically unhealthy.
This confusion between needs and wants stems from the denial of objective values and an objective natural moral law. No one has caused more havoc in this crucial area than Freud, especially regarding sexual morality. The modern attack on marriage and the family, for which Freud set the stage, has done more damage than any war or political revolution. For where else do we all learn the most important lesson in life—unselfish love—except in stable families who preach it by practicing it?
Yet, with all his faults, Freud still towers above the psychologies that replaced him in popular culture. Despite his materialism, he explores some of the deeper mysteries of the soul. He had a real sense of tragedy, suffering and unhappiness. Honest atheists are usually unhappy; dishonest atheists happy. Freud was an honest atheist...
- Lord, make haste to help me (us).
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:
- As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen. Alleluia.
[ ... ]Protect us, Lord, as we stay awake; watch over us as we sleep, that awake we may keep watch with Christ, and asleep rest in peace. Alleluia.
There are two sides to every sin: the turning of the will toward fleeting satisfaction and the turning away from everlasting value. As regards to the first, the principle of all sins can be called lust--lust in its most general sense, namely, the unbridled desire for one's own pleasure. As regards to the second, the principle is pride-- pride in its general sense, the lack of submission to God.
Friedrich Nietzsche called himself "the Anti-Christ," and wrote a book by that title. He argued for atheism as follows: "I will now disprove the existence of all gods. If there were gods, how could I bear not to be a god? Consequently, there are no gods."
He scorned reason as well as faith, often deliberately contradicted himself, said that "a sneer is infinitely more noble that a syllogism" and appealed to passion, rhetoric and even deliberate hatred rather than reason.
He saw love as "the greatest danger" and morality as mankind's worst weakness. He died insane, in an asylum, of syphilis-signing his last letters "the Crucified One." He was adored by the Nazis as their semi-official philosopher.
Yet he is admired as profound and wise by many of the greatest minds of our century. How can this be?
There are three schools of thought about Nietzsche. Most popular among academics is the school of the "gentle Nietzscheans," who claim that Nietzsche was, in effect, a sheep in wolf's clothing; that his attacks should not be taken literally and that he was really an ally, not an enemy, of the Western institutions and values which he denounced.
These scholars resemble theologians who interpret sayings of Jesus like: "no one can come to the Father but through me" as meaning "all religions are equally valid," and "he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery" as meaning "let your divorces be creative and reasonable."
Second, there are the "awful, awful" Nietzscheans. They at least pay Nietzsche the compliment of taking him seriously. They are typified by the footnote in an old Catholic textbook on modern philosophy, which said only that Nietzsche existed, was an atheist and died insane-a fate which may well await anyone who looks too long into his books.
A third school of thought sees Nietzsche as a wolf indeed and not a sheep, but as a very important thinker because he shows to modern Western civilization its own dark heart and future. It's easy to scapegoat and point fingers at "blacksheep" like Nietzsche and Hitler, but is there not a "Hitler in ourselves" (to quote Max Picard's title)? Did not Nietzsche let the cat out of the bag? The demonic cat that was hidden in the respectable bag of secular humanism? Once "God is dead," so is man, morality, love, freedom, hope, democracy, the soul and ultimately, sanity. No one shows this more vividly than Nietzsche. He may have been responsible (quite unintentionally) for many conversions...
The pope called for "a clear discernment with regard to issues touching the protection of human dignity and respect for the inalienable right to life from the moment of conception to natural death, as well as the protection of the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care workers, and indeed all citizens."
He made the remarks at a ceremony Oct. 2 to accept the credentials of Miguel Diaz, (pictured) named in May by Obama as the ninth U.S. ambassador to the Holy See. After the encounter at the papal villa in Castel Gandolfo south of Rome, Diaz held talks at the Vatican with the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone...
Kant - Subjectivizer of Truth
Few philosophers in history have been so unreadable and dry as Immanuel Kant. Yet few have had a more devastating impact on human thought.Kant's devoted servant, Lumppe, is said to have faithfully read each thing his master published, but when Kant published his most important work, "The Critique of Pure Reason," Lumppe began but did not finish it because, he said, if he were to finish it, it would have to be in a mental hospital. Many students since then have echoed his sentiments.
Yet this abstract professor, writing in abstract style about abstract questions, is, I believe, the primary source of the idea that today imperils faith (and thus souls) more than any other; the idea that truth is subjective.
The simple citizens of his native Konigsburg, Germany, where he lived and wrote in the latter half of the 18th century, understood this better than professional scholars, for they nicknamed Kant "The Destroyer" and named their dogs after him.
He was a good-tempered, sweet and pious man, so punctual that his neighbors set their clocks by his daily walk. The basic intention of his philosophy was noble: to restore human dignity amidst a skeptical world worshiping science.
This intent becomes clear through a single anecdote. Kant was attending a lecture by a materialistic astronomer on the topic of man's place in the universe. The astronomer concluded his lecture with: "So you see that astronomically speaking, man is utterly insignificant." Kant replied: "Professor, you forgot the most important thing, man is the astronomer."
Kant, more than any other thinker, gave impetus to the typically modern turn from the objective to the subjective. This may sound fine until we realize that it meant for him the redefinition of truth itself as subjective. And the consequences of this idea have been catastrophic.
If we ever engage in conversation about our faith with unbelievers, we know from experience that the most common obstacle to faith today is not any honest intellectual difficulty, like the problem of evil or the dogma of the trinity, but the assumption that religion cannot possibly concern facts and objective truth at all; that any attempt to convince another person that your faith is true—objectively true, true for everyone—is unthinkable arrogance.
The business of religion, according to this mindset, is practice and not theory; values, not facts; something subjective and private, not objective and public. Dogma is an "extra," and a bad extra at that, for dogma fosters dogmatism. Religion, in short, equals ethics. And since Christian ethics is very similar to the ethics of most other major religions, it doesn't matter whether you are a Christian or not; all that matters is whether you are a "good person." (The people who believe this also usually believe that just about everyone except Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson is a "good person.")
Kant is largely responsible for this way of thinking. He helped bury the medieval synthesis of faith and reason. He described his philosophy as "clearing away the pretensions of reason to make room for faith"—as if faith and reason were enemies and not allies. In Kant, Luther's divorce between faith and reason becomes finalized...
POP PSYCHOLOGY VS. CATHOLIC THEOLOGY
Was Adam from Mars and Eve from Venus? Or were Adam and Eve both from Eden?
Love courtship and marriage can be difficult under the best of circumstances. One thing is clear, men and women communicate differently. Some call this a stereotype. Others dismiss it as chauvinism. Our Creator said, "Viva la difference." In making us male and female, God is telling us things otherwise unknowable, about human beings and Himself.
Pope John Paul II observed that in "the beginning," man and woman viewed each other "with all the peace of the interior gaze," and were not ashamed. He reminds us that the person is a divine gift; Adam and Eve were a gift to each other. Their bodies revealed this, speaking a language of love, untainted by lust and desire.
When sin entered the world paradise was lost paving the way for the battle of the sexes. Still, the remnant of grace, the echo of original innocence, is indelibly inscribed on our hearts. The life-giving love between husband and wife is a sign of this grace. Even in our fallen state, the differences between the sexes should be viewed as an opportunity to grow in holiness. Unfortunately, they also lead to misunderstandings, miscommunication, and pain. We can over come this, but only with humility and God’s help.
Daily OfferingVisit the Apostleship for Prayer's website for more prayers and information.
O Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I offer You my prayers, works, joys, and sufferings of this day in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass throughout the world. I offer them for all the intentions of Your Sacred Heart: the salvation of souls, reparation for sin, and the reunion of all Christians. I offer them for the intentions of our bishops and of all Apostles of Prayer, and in particular for those recommended by our Holy Father this month.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1496-1527) was the founder of modern political and social philosophy, and seldom in the history of thought has there been a more total revolution. Machiavelli knew how radical he was. He compared his work to Columbus' as the discoverer of a new world, and to Moses' as the leader of a new chosen people who would exit the slavery of moral ideas into a new promised land of power and practicality.
Machiavelli's revolution can be summarized in six points...
For all previous social thinkers, the goal of political life was virtue. A good society was conceived as one in which people are good. There was no "double standard" between individual and social goodness-until Machiavelli. With him, politics became no longer the art of the good but the art of the possible. His influence on this point was enormous. All major social and political philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Dewey) subsequently rejected the goal of virtue, just as Machiavelli lowered the standard and nearly everyone began to salute the newly masted flag.
Machiavelli's argument was that traditional morals were like the stars; beautiful but too distant to cast any useful light on our earthly path. We need instead man-made lanterns; in other words, attainable goals. We must take our bearings from the earth, not from the heavens; from what men and societies actually do, not from what they ought to do.
The essence of Machiavelli's revolution was to judge the ideal by the actual rather than the actual by the ideal. An ideal is good for him, only if it is practical; thus, Machiavelli is the father of pragmatism. Not only does "the end justify the means"-any means that work-but the means even justify the end, in the sense that an end is worth pursuing only if there are practical means to attain it. In other words, the new summum bonum, or greatest good is success. (Machiavelli sounds like not only the first pragmatist but the first American pragmatist!)
Machiavelli didn't just lower the moral standards; he abolished them. More than a pragmatist, he was an anti-moralist. The only relevance he saw morality having to success was to stand in its way. He taught that it was necessary for a successful prince "to learn how not to be good," (The Prince, ch. 15) how to break promises, to lie and cheat and steal (ch. 18).
Because of such shameless views, some of Machiavelli's contemporaries saw "The Prince" as a book literally inspired by the devil. But modern scholars usually see it as drawn from science. They defend Machiavelli by claiming that he did not deny morality, but simply wrote a book about another subject, about what is rather than about what ought to be. They even praise him for his lack of hypocrisy, implying that moralism equals hypocrisy.
This is the common, modern misunderstanding of hypocrisy as not practicing what you preach. In that sense all men are hypocrites unless they stop preaching. Matthew Arnold defined hypocrisy as "the tribute vice pays to virtue." Machiavelli was the first to refuse to pay even that tribute. He overcame hypocrisy not by raising practice to the level of preaching but of lowering preaching to the level of practice, by conforming the ideal to the real rather than the real to the ideal...