Catholic Sex Blog

Have you ever asked yourself this question: Why are humans born male and female? Why don’t we reproduce asexually, like some creatures? Why weren’t we born bisexual? Okay, hermaphrodites are, but that’s a physical defect. Hermaphrodism is an anomaly.

Normal humans are created male or female. Why? If you don’t believe that humans are created, but evolved to be male or female, then let me rephrase the question: why have humans evolved to be male and female?

I would say that there is only one answer to this question, and that is: we are not made to be alone. Humans have evolved to be male and female because evolution has shown that living in a community has higher chances of survival than living alone.

The organs that enable human beings to live as members of a community include the sexual organs, and what drives human beings to live in a community is the sexual urge.

Like all basic functions of the human body which are necessary for survival of the human race, pleasure is attached to sex. This pleasure that is linked to sex, as is linked to eating, drinking, breathing, sleeping, excreting… is what drives a person to do these things necessary for human survival.

Each member of the community contributes in some way to the survival of the community. Some bring food to the table, some cook, some produce art, some build… but one thing that all can do is that all can reproduce. This ensures that each function in the community has direct successors to continue the work that is being done in the community. This is the natural order of human life.

What happens when a human being is not able to reproduce? This is usually because of some physical defect, such as sterility through age or disease. These are not part of the natural order of human life; they are defects that occur through the deterioration of the human body. It is not that defective human’s fault that he or she is unable to reproduce. This human therefore has to contribute to the community in some other way.

What happens when a human being is able to reproduce, but refuses to? Unless this human is sacrificing his or her own reproductive capabilities for a higher purpose, we can say that this human is being selfish, that is, choosing to rely on his or her own self, rather than preserving the unity of the community. It becomes even more apparent when such humans demand the same rights as the rest of the community, while not contributing to it in the same way.

Instead of building up the community as each member ought to, this person is destroying the community by refusing to contribute his or her fertility to the betterment of the community.

We can quite easily see how any act of sexual intercourse that is not open to life stems from self-centeredness. This root of self-centeredness by itself runs contrary to the whole meaning of community living.

We find great difficulty in saying that a person who is self-centered in one area in his life, can be community-centred in other areas, since self-centeredness is a character defect that is at the root of all we do.

A person who says he is community-centred, but has a sexual life that is not open to life, is either being dishonest, or he doesn’t know himself very well, since there is a clear discrepancy between what he says and what he is doing. 

If he is dishonest, it is because he is saying one thing with his mouth, and saying a completely different thing with his body. It is like an unhappy person putting on a brave front, or a smile, and saying that he is happy.

We often don’t realise that our sexual organs and our sexual urge have a particular purpose. They are oriented towards community building, and we know that the very basic community in society is the family.

Thus when a person has sexual intercourse that is not open to life, he is saying with his body: “I want to start a family with you. I want to welcome new life and to help our community to grow.” But he is saying something completely contradictory with his mouth.

This is why contraception, masturbation, oral and anal sex, pedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality are immoral - because they not only do not contribute to building the community, they are tearing it down.

Note: My opinion of homosexuality (or same-sex attraction) is that it is a psychological disorder which can be treated. However, if you are of the opinion that homosexuality is not a disorder, then it’s basically saying that sexually active homosexuals have a character defect which is self-centeredness.

A person who has sexual intercourse is also saying with his body: “I want to be there with you and with our children as they grow up.”

The last line is added, because as humans, we mature far slower in life than other animals. It is therefore beneficial for the human being, as a creature, to remain monogamous in marriage, as this aids the bringing up and maturing of children as adults.

A parent who does not take responsibility for raising the children he bears is also doing something that harms the community, since the child is unable to replicate that parent’s role in the community.

This is why our first reaction to single motherhood due to irresponsible fathers, divorce, polygamy, adultery, and rape is often disapproval, because deep down, we know this does not contribute to the building of community, but instead tears it down.

In conclusion, I would say that sex is not a private matter reserved for the bedroom. Sex is intrinsically linked to the formation of families, the basic unit of community life, the basic unit of society. Thus, for us to turn a blind eye to what couples are doing in the bedroom is to turn a blind and uncaring eye to the future of society.

At the very bottom of it, sex is not so much about what we do, but who we are. We have sex because as humans, we are made (or evolved) to live in community. Everything that has to do with sex concerns the whole community and our whole culture (anthropologically speaking).

Colossians 2:6-15

You must live your whole life according to the Christ you have received - Jesus the Lord; you must be rooted in him and built on him and held firm by the faith you have been taught, and full of thanksgiving.

Make sure that no one traps you and deprives you of your freedom by some secondhand, empty, rational philosophy based on the principles of this world instead of on Christ.

In his body lives the fullness of divinity, and in him you too find your own fulfilment, in the one who is head of every Sovereignty and Power.

In him you have been circumcised, with circumcision not performed by the human hand, but by the complete stripping of your body of flesh. This is circumcision according to Christ. You have been buried with him, when you were baptised; and by baptism, too, you have been raised up with him through your belief in the power of God who raised him from the dead. You were dead, because you were sinners and had not been circumcised; he has brought you to life with him, he has forgiven us all our sins.

He has overridden the Law, and cancelled every record of the debt that we had to pay; he has done away with it by nailing it to the cross; and so he got rid of the Sovereignties and the Powers, and paraded them in public, behind him in his triumphal procession.
____________________

Luke 6:12-19

Jesus went out into the hills to pray; and he spent the whole night in prayer to God. When day came he summoned his disciples and picked out twelve of them; he called them “apostles”: Simon whom he called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot who became a traitor.

He then came down with them and stopped at a piece of level ground where there was a large gathering of his disciples with a great crowd of people from all parts of Judaea and from Jerusalem and from the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon who had come to hear him and to be cured of their diseases. People tormented by unclean spirits were also cured, and everyone in the crowd was trying to touch him because power came out of him that cured them all.
____________________

Imagine you have a child, and throughout his developmental years, you never said ‘no’ to him. From somewhere you read or heard that if a child hears the word ‘no’ when he makes a request from you, he will grow up with a fear of rejection. So in order to prevent that, you say ‘yes’ to every request. After twenty years of having said ‘yes’, your child asks something of you which you cannot give. Can you say ‘no’? Chances are, you can’t. And your child, whom you’ve never said ‘no’ to, is not your child, but your master; you are his slave.

What does this have to do with today’s readings? In the first reading, St. Paul tells the Colossians: Make sure that no one traps you and deprives you of your freedom by some secondhand, empty, rational philosophy based on the principles of this world instead of on Christ.

What is the philosophy that today’s generation is taught? I think it would be Nike’s tagline “Just do it.” I wrote to an American about sexual freedom recently. Our generation is taught today that sexual freedom means being able to “just do it” without fear of constraints from previous generations or religious beliefs. Today’s generation tends to believe that if they can “just do it”, if they can say ‘yes’ to sex whenever, wherever and however they want to, only then are they sexually free.

However, a generation of people who won’t say ‘no’ to sex, quickly becomes a generation of people who can’t say ‘no’ to sex. A person who can’t say ‘no’ to sex is not sexually free. He or she is a slave to sex. This means that the philosophy that today’s generation is taught is a “secondhand, empty, rational philosophy based on the principles of this world” and it is one that traps them and deprives them of their sexual freedom.

If today’s generation (and I’m not referring just to the youth) is quickly becoming a generation of sex slaves, what then can be done for us? How can we find true freedom if the philosophy of the world only serves to make us slaves? In the gospel reading, we see Jesus and his apostles setting people free of their diseases, their demons, and all that chains them down. Today, we can find freedom from sexual slavery in the Church’s teaching of abstinence.

Abstinence is applicable not only to single persons, but persons who are married as well. The Church teaches abstinence is also healthy for married people. There are times when married people have to abstain from sex, such as when due to illness, pregnancy, travel or other reasons. What would a person who cannot say ‘no’ to sex do in cases when abstinence seems to be the only answer? If you think about it for a moment, you will understand why the media has been glorifying those answers.

Abstinence is the true test of whether one has sexual freedom or not, because abstinence shows that a person can say ‘no’ to sex, even at times when he can say ‘yes’. Freedom means having a choice and being able to make either choice. In Christ we find freedom, not just sexual freedom, but freedom in the best sense of the word.

Today is September 11, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America. We also remember that one person that is more dangerous than all the terrorists put together is Alfred Kinsey, the grandfather of the sexual revolution which took place all over the world. The impact of his work on sexual morality has truly devastated the world, and America, much more than any terrorist will ever do.
___________________

Prayer:
Dear Lord, help us to desire true sexual freedom in the way that you offer it to us. Grant us the courage to turn our backs on the secondhand philosophy of the world that we are surrounded with, and turn our eyes to the redemption that you offer us through your cross. Amen.

Give Thanks to the Lord for: Showing us what true sexual freedom is.

There’s one thing about masturbation that I’ve been on the lookout for, but have never found, is something on masturbation addiction, and how it works. I know how pornography addiction works, but I’m interested in how the act of masturbation affects the human body. What does it do to the person?

I am aware of some emotional changes through the process, both before and after, so clearly there are some hormonal changes in the body. What are they? Are they really healthy, as many people seem to claim without any medical proof? Or could they actually be harmful? Because I have found no long-term benefit of masturbating regularly, but in fact a lot of negative effects, one of which would be an addiction to masturbation.

There are other substances that cause similar hormonal changes in a person’s body such as nicotine, heroin, cocaine, marijuana… and all of these are harmful. Could masturbation actually be harmful as well? Could masturbation be, perhaps, the nicotine of addiction to pornography?

I came across this website (www.newlifehabits.com) the other day. On one particular post “Masturbation Addiction Explained“. It speaks of the harmful mental and physical benefits of masturbation:

On mental effects, it says:

When a person masturbates, the ability to create and maintain relationships is hindered. Masturbation makes us more reserved and turns us inward to be concerned mostly with pleasing ourselves. Relationships are about caring for others and this is hard to do when we are being so selfish in private. Masturbation can cause us to be less outgoing and we may isolate ourselves from others in shame. We may feel uncomfortable in crowds because we lack the confidence to conduct ourselves in a healthy social way. It can effect our dating relationships and put too much weight on the physical part of the relationship and ignore the friendship that should be developing.

Sounds like the story of my life, if you ask me…

As for physical effects, it says, in a summarized form:

There are different chemical reactions happened when you masturbate as opposed to having healthy sex in a marriage. A lot of what is going on during and after these acts originates in the pituitary gland. Two main hormones are interacting and regulating each other. These are the dopamine and prolactin hormones.

Dopamine makes us feel excited and prolactin makes us feel relaxed. When a person reaches climax after arousal, the body knows how to release prolactin to suppress the dopamine so we will feel relaxed and satisfied. In marriage this is accompanied with many emotions of love and so the satisfied feeling is multiplied and you become bonded to your spouse physically and emotionally.

Over 400% more prolactin is released at climax when engaged in healthy sex with a loved one than when one masturbates. So what does that mean? It means that the person who masturbates is no where near as satisfied and definitely not bonded in love as they would be in a healthy normal marriage. In fact, the person who masturbates has no idea what they are missing out on but instead have sort of a pseudo miserable bond with fantasies that are ever changing and progressing in order to keep the person somewhat satisfied.

The person who masturbates will continue to be excited by the unregulated levels of dopamine. They may feel a little relaxed but the arousal returns quickly and they must masturbate again in order to feel relaxed again. So with a shorter period of relaxation the person must masturbate more frequently to try to reach the equivalent level of relaxation they would have in a healthy marriage. They will never reach this level of satisfaction.

In this uncontrolled and unhappy state the person is definitely not even ready to experience a marriage since they have no self-control and would bring their warped sense of love into the marriage. Remember, true love involves self-control.

In conclusion, no good comes from masturbation. Those who promote it either have never dealt with the problem or have just created an opinion with little knowledge of the negative effects.

While trying to fall asleep this morning, I was thinking of the word “marriage” and its definition.

Dictionary.com defines marriage as:

the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Canon Law defines marriage as:

The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

Of course the definition of marriage in Canon Law applies only to baptized Christians, but even in the dictionary.com definition, we see that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. That’s the very definition of marriage.

To ask for a man to be married to a man or a woman to be married to a woman is to change the very definition of marriage. Or should I say, such a thing does not exist. There can be no real union between two people of the same gender, and there can be no real biological fruit from such a thing.

It’s not a marriage, so why call it a marriage? It does not fit into the definition of what a marriage is, so why call it a marriage? Call it “barriage” or something else, because “marriage” is reserved for a man and a woman.
After making a mental note to blog this down, I managed to get back to an uneasy sleep.

Brought up and formed by our culture, it is hard at times for us to abstain, because our culture teaches us to indulge, anytime and anywhere we want. Abstinence is to be avoided.

Abstinence can be the loving thing to when, for example, our bodies need detoxification. We abstain from food and only drink water, so as to purify our bodies.

In marriage, abstinence from sex can be the loving thing to do when one partner is ill.

In church, abstinence from Communion can be the loving thing to do when one knows one is sinful.

I remember a couple of incidents in the past when I was going up to receive Communion and I saw a friend who refrained from receiving, and I asked him “Why?” Isn’t the whole point of coming for Mass about receiving Communion, I asked.

But now I know that choosing not to receive Communion can be the loving thing to do. It can even show a greater respect for the sacrament than receiving it in any condition that we are in.

Likewise, abstinence from food during detoxification shows greater respect for the body than indulging anything at any time.

And abstinence from sex in marriage shows greater respect for the marriage than indulging in sex, whenever and wherever.

Have you ever thought of this question - why was Jesus a man? Why did God become a man, not a woman? It isn’t as simple as saying that if Jesus had been a woman, then people would not have listened to her. As in, it’s not for a cultural or social reason that God became a man. It’s Jesus we’re talking about, and he broke almost all the social and cultural rules of his time. Why then did God become a man? Here, we’re asking why God became specifically a male human.

To understand this, we need to understand two things. First is that God created humans male and female. He could have created us unisex, but he chose to create us male and female. Why? Because if humans are made in the image of God, then humans have to live in a communion of love. When a man looks at a woman, and a woman looks at a man, they understand very well that they are made differently, and that the parts that are different fit together in a complementary way. This is how humans were created in the beginning.

From this reason, it follows that men and women are fundamentally different, not only in terms of the way their bodies are built, but also in the roles they play in life. It is true that women can be a police officer (as opposed to policeman), a fire fighter (as opposed to fireman), and that men can be nurses and secretaries, but there is one thing that a man can do, and no woman can. That is to father a child. In the same way, only women can become pregnant; no man can do that.

So the first thing we need to understand is that God created men and women differently, to play different roles, but to live as a communion of love in God’s own Trinitarian image.

The second thing we need to understand is that God has a male role. I’m not saying that God is male, but that God plays a male role. By this I mean that God is the Initiator, while humans are the Recipient. When we look at the male-female relationship, especially in the conjugal aspect, we see that the man is always the initiator. He gives of himself and the woman receives the man’s seed. This is further strengthened by the fact that the man tends to climax first. I quote the following from Pope John Paul II:

If a husband is truly to love his wife, “it is necessary to insist that intercourse must not serve merely as a means of allowing [his] climax. … The man must take [the] difference between male and female reactions into account… so that climax may be reached [by] both… and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously.” The husband must do this “not for hedonistic, but for altruistic reasons.” In this case, if “we take into account the shorter and more violent curve of arousal in the man, [such] tenderness on his part in the context of marital intercourse acquires the significance of an act of virtue”.

- Love and Responsibility, Karol Wojtyla

God always reaches out to humans. He is always the Initiator, and humans are always receiving God in themselves. Throughout the Bible, we see that God’s one desire is to marry us. God literally wants to impregnate us with his Word. In fact, there was one woman in history who was literally impregnated by God’s Word, who later became a unique fusion of God and human - Jesus. This is why Mary is the model for the Church. She represents the Church, who is the Bride of Christ, and she represents humanity, who receives the gift of God himself into us.

So the second thing we need to understand is that God wants to marry us, and that God is always the Initiator in this relationship.

Understanding these two things helps us to see why God had to become a man, not a woman, when he became human. As a God-man, Jesus was able to initiate his gift of love, his gift of self on the cross. If Jesus had been a woman, she would not have been able to initiate anything. She would have to receive something from humanity. But humanity is the one who receives, not initiates.

When we understand the reason why God had to be a man (not a woman), we understand why the Church insists that the ministers of the altar and the Eucharist have to be male, not female. In order to act in the person of Christ at the altar, the priest has to be a man. If we insist on women ordination, then we will not be able to explain why Jesus is a man; why the Church is the Bride of Christ; and why men and women are different.

In addition, if we insist on women ordination, then we will also not be able to explain the importance of having two complementary genders in marriage. Guess what follows? You know it - homosexual unions. This is clearly painted out in the path taken by the Anglican Church, something that began back in the time of Henry VIII.

As you probably know Henry VIII broke away from the Church because the pope refused to allow him to marry another woman. Henry VIII decided to change the meaning of marriage in his new church. But when we change the meaning of marriage, we also change the meaning of Christianity - why God wants to marry us. And we also change the meaning of our own humanity - why we are made male and female.

This is the reason why the Church cannot allow women ordination - because it understands that the priesthood is not merely a career or ministry - it is a role in which the ordained minister acts in the person of Christ… and Christ was not a woman. He couldn’t have been, not without changing the meaning of marriage, the meaning of humanity, and the meaning of Christianity.

This is also why the Church can never approve of homosexual unions not because of discrimination, but simply because homosexual unions deny the fundamental differences between male and female; deny the significance, sanctity, and the very meaning of marriage… and this directly leads to denying the meaning of Christianity. You will find that Christians in support of homosexual unions are not able to explain why Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride (Ephesians 5:25; Revelation 19:7-9), or even why Christ lay down his life for his Church. It is, in essence, the denial of the fatherhood of God.

That said, it must also be said that the reason the Church cannot allow women ordination has nothing to do with culture or the degradation of women. On the contrary, the Church holds women in a very high position. Pope John Paul II himself has called the feminist movement “praiseworthy”, and that it must continue. But he also stressed that it must not make the mistake of equating males with females. They have the same dignity, but they are not the same.

The Church does not degrade women. If it did, it would not place Mary as Queen of Heaven, and the role model for all disciples of Christ, and indeed the role model for all humanity. Mary is so highly esteemed because she received God into her so fully that a human person was conceived from that intimate union with God.

Each of us is also called to receive God fully in our lives, so that God may be born into the world. But as none of us can receive God so fully and completely as Mary did, since she was conceived without original sin, none of us will ever be able to physically give birth to a God-man. We can, however, still spiritually give birth to God in the world, increasing his kingdom of heaven on earth.

I remember a friend of mine once told me about discussions she had with her other lady friends. They were of the opinion that if their husband had an affair with another woman, they would immediately leave him. And these were the same women who saw nothing wrong with pre-marital sex.

Why is it alright for their husband-to-be to have pre-marital sex, but not for their husband to commit adultery? Aren’t they really the same thing?

Pre-marital sex is committing adultery in advance. It lets you know something about your boyfriend or girlfriend - he or she is willing to have intercourse with someone who isn’t married. What makes you think that is going to change after you’re married?

The only reason people are having a lot of pre-marital sex is because they have access to contraceptives. Pregnancy is a deterrent to having pre-marital sex.

But guess what? Pregnancy is also a deterrent to adultery. If it is okay to use contraceptives in pre-marital sex, it will be okay to use it in adultery as well… which makes the rates of both pre-marital sex and adultery soar.

It is hypocritical to say that adultery is wrong but pre-marital sex is okay, because both essentially do not respect the marital bond. In both cases, people who are not married to each other are having sex with each other.

If that marital bond is not honoured and respected before marriage, there’s no reason to expect it to be honoured and respected after marriage.

I read in last week’s papers that supermodel Gisele Bundchen slammed the Catholic Church for its stand on contraception, that it was outdated in a world where no one is a virgin when they marry, and that contraceptives can be very helpful in preventing the spread of STDs.

If I gather rightly, Ms Bundchen is advocating for more sexual promiscuity and for more people to have irresponsible sex, that is, sex without consequences.

The rising rate of number of abortions procured, and spread of STDs can only be attributed to larger numbers of people having irresponsible sex because they can, or because they believe that contraceptives make them invincible.

But no contraceptive is 100% effective, and when there are larger numbers of people taking part in irresponsible sex using contraceptives, the number of unwanted pregnancies is only going to rise. Contraceptives are causing the very thing they were supposed to be preventing - rising numbers of unwanted pregnancies, and rising rate of STD transmission. And a country that uses contraceptives to reduce the number of abortions procured is throwing gasoline to put out a fire; it’s only going to get worse.

The Church is not just against the use of contraceptives; it is against the rotten fruits of contraception as well.

Let’s face it, contraception isn’t about preventing the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. There’s already a 100% effective solution to that, one that the Catholic Church advocates, and the secular world rejects, simply because the secular world promotes the spread of that which they claim to be against. Otherwise why would the secular world promote contraception instead of abstinence?

The secular world is interested in promoting what they call sexual liberty, but which is, in fact, sexual enslavement.

No? Take a good look at Ms Bundchen’s stand on contraception and sex. She is saying, together with the rest of the secular world, that men and women today cannot say ‘no’ to their sexual urges, and must jump into bed with someone before they are married.

What do you call a person who can’t say ‘no’ to his desire for another drink? An alcoholic. What do you call a person who can’t say ‘no’ to another smoke? A smoking addict. What do you call a generation of young men and women who cannot say ‘no’ to their desire to have sex? Sex addicts. Sexual enslavement is what this so-called “sexual liberty” is in fact resulting in. And the consequences? You know it - rising numbers of unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

Let’s face it, contraceptives are never going to work in lowering the rates of unwanted pregnancies and spread of STDs. For even if one day contraception acquires a 0% failure rate, there is still going to be user failure.

So what happens then? Obviously abortion is used to take care of all the unwanted pregnancies that result from irresponsible sex. Now this is serious, because each abortion procured is the murder of a child.

A fetus is not a ‘thing’, it is a human child, a living human person. All scientific arguments are against the position of abortionists and in favour of the Catholic position. If someone wants to put this to the test, let him simply ask a non-Catholic doctor who has performed an abortion whether what he has extracted from the womb is no more than a thing, or whether it is a living being. And if it is a living being, of what species is it?

No; the abortionist position is not based on science or on reason. It is based on prejudices and interests, neither of which have anything humanitarian about them.

Not all the posts on this blog are about sex. Some are about marriage, which is the only proper place for sex to take place. The trouble is, many modern couples today are planning for a failed marriage when they plan not to have children or to delay having children in the first few years of their marriage.

All marriages go through a crisis, writes Msgr Cormac Burke who, as a retired judge in the Roman Rota, has reviewed thousands of cases of marriage annulment from around the world. The following is partly adapted from his book “Covenanted Happiness”.

This crisis usually takes place at about two to five years after a couple gets married. Hence, he writes, a couple’s biggest and most frequent mistake for their marriage is to postpone having children until two to five years after they are married.

It is at this point of time that the romance and love between a married couple begins to fade. It is, according to Msgr Burke, nature’s plan for married couples to have children as the support for their marriage at this point of time. But because many married couples choose to delay having children, the support for their marriage does not exist when they need it.

Many young couples want to enjoy themselves to each other for a number of years after getting married. Despite whatever reasons they give, “to have a good time together” is not much of an ideal for two people to share, and is definitely not going to be enough to hold them together in love for a lifetime.

A couple that plans for a marriage with sacrifice reduced to a minimum and, if possible, totally eliminated, is a couple who wants a marriage where they will eventually lose respect for each other.

One reason that is given that the couple wants to mature first before having children, not realising that it is in the process of raising children together that they mature. I am sure that you can think of many young men in the army who are hardly mature simply because their parents have protected them and prevented them from undergoing hardship throughout their lives. These parents are not doing their children a favour, they are damaging them, spoil-ing them.

In the same way, a married couple that avoids having children under the pretext of maturity is, in fact, preventing their marriage from maturing. They are damaging their marriage deliberately, they are spoil-ing their marriage and themselves.

People have always cried out, “We want to be able to enjoy marriage without the Church telling us what to do. We don’t want to be weighed down by the rules of the Church.” It is ironic then that the people who pay least heed to the laws of the Church are the ones who are finding least happiness in marriage. What is more ironic is that they now blame the Church for giving them a guilty conscience which led to their unhappiness in marriage. That is one sign of immaturity in a person - the refusal to take responsibility for one’s own mistakes. Immature people are always looking for a scapegoat for their problems.

For love to exist and withstand the trials of life, there must be sacrifice, because sacrifice is part of love. To plan for a marriage with the least amount of sacrifice possible is to plan for a marriage with the least amount of love. It is to plan for a marriage that is most likely to breakdown.

- adapted from “Covenanted Happiness” by Cormac Burke

Note: Msgr Cormac Burke’s books can all be found online at his website.

Not all the posts on this blog are about sex. Some are about marriage too, which is the only proper place for sex to take place.

I’ve just started on a book called “Covenanted Happiness - Love and Commitment in Marriage” by Msgr Cormac Burke, who recently visited Singapore. A friend in Family Life Society highly recommended this book and loaned me his autographed copy. Below are some extracts and adaptations from just the first chapter of the book.

Why modern marriages go wrong

Already in the first chapter, Msgr Burke pinpoints the cause of many modern divorces. Marriages fail when the spouses expect to find perfect happiness in their marriage. That is asking too much from a marriage. That is trying to find unlimited happiness, which humans are made for, in an earthly thing.

When humans forget God, only in whom one can find perfect happiness, and expects to find it in marriage, it puts too much pressure on the marriage, and the marriage crumbles eventually.

Happiness can be found in marriage, but not unlimited happiness; to ask perfect happiness of marriage is to ask for too much.

The purposes of marriage

The second reason Msgr Burke gives for modern marriages failing is that humans today tend to invert the order of priority in the purposes of marriage. We tend to think that marriage is for the expression and enjoyment of love, and then only, if at all, for having children.

We then conclude that happiness of marriage depends mainly or even exclusively on mutual love between spouses, and then only, if at all, on having children.

But is this what marriage is for? Perhaps people go wrong because they have not understood how marriage is meant to work. There are rules for making a marriage work, just as there are rules to life. Ignorance of the rules doesn’t excuse one from having to deal with the consequences.

For example, if I never knew about gravity or refuse to be subject to it, I can say I want to, and I have the right to, walk off a 20-storey building. Despite what I believe, I will still come crashing down, because my life is subject to the rules of life. Likewise, when I choose not to follow or do not know the rules of making a marriage work, and I set out on doing it my own way, my marriage will also come crashing down.

So what are the rules for marriage? How does one have find happiness in marriage? By understanding that married love is meant to become family love. Love in marriage is wider than mere married love. It is not meant to remain (and not likely to survive if it does remain) just the love of two people for each other. It is meant to spread out, to include more.

For most married couples, the true mutual love transcends the community of husband and wife, and reaches out to its natural fruit, the children, writes Msgr Burke, quoting from St. Josemaria Escriva. For special married couples who are not able to have their own children, their love reaches out to other children who have no parents to love them, and to formative and apostolic activities in favour of others.

The deliberate exclusion of children, in whole or in part, is almost certain to make any marriage work badly. This is a rule of life which is implicit in the Church’s teaching about the purposes of marriage and the relationship between them.

This does not mean that marriage is only for offspring, but it is equally for the happiness of the spouses. The key word is “equally”. Today, we tend to place more emphasis on happiness over having children.

Calculated happiness

A third main reason that Msgr Burke gives for so many marriages not working out today is the growing tendency not only to put mutual love before children, but to see actual opposition between these two purposes of marriage instead of seeing them as complementary.

Modern men and women seem to believe in what Msgr Burke calls “calculated happiness”. We believe that we can plan for happiness.

We know that love leads us to happiness. But what is love? I once asked a kid this question, and he said that love is the nice feeling that he gets when he is with someone he likes. Is that what love is? A good many adults also think so. In addition, many adults think of love in terms of personal satisfaction, rather than a rising towards an ideal, or self-giving, which implies struggle and sacrifice.

Happiness is the result of a generous dedication to someone or something worthwhile. Happiness is not something that can be bought with money or obtained through calculation. You can’t plan to be happy. Yet our modern philosophy is filled with cold calculations, many of which are quite selfish and quite mistaken.

The first calculation is that two people are sufficient to make each other happy. We see this when we see married couples say that love is the essential and all-sufficient constituent of married happiness.

The second calculation is that a certain number of children - one or two - may be a help to that happiness… or a hindrance.

The third calculation is that more than a certain number of children (two or three at a maximum) will certainly run counter to married love and happiness. Once you decide that a particular number of children will be detrimental to your married love, you can easily end up with any number - even one - as an obstacle to your married love. This is how birth control works in marriage.

When two people believe that there are made for each other, they may end up believing that they are not made for anyone else, and have no need for anyone else, even their own child. Should a child come along, husbands and wives, on becoming parents, feel some jealousy as they sense that they are no longer the exclusive object of their partner’s affections. This is a natural experience and it is natural that it will pass.

What is unnatural is to avoid having a child so as to possess the spouse fully and selfish. This runs contrary to love. No wonder marriages which are deliberately childless tend to break down after a while.

Why have children?

We know that love involves sacrifice. The more we sacrifice for another person, the more loving we become, and the more lovable we become as a person.

It is not enough for married people to sacrifice themselves for their spouses. What really makes people come out of themselves is when they sacrifice themselves for their children. If married love improves when married people sacrifice themselves for each other, then parental love is at its height when married people sacrifices themselves for their children together. Shared sacrifice is one of the best bonds of love. Children, above all, are what spur a couple on to a moral greatness, write Msgr Burke, quoting Jacques Jeclercq.

On the other hand, if a couple leave untapped the capacity for sacrifice stored in their parental instincts, they are likely to end up, at best, half-developed and half-lovable persons.

- adapted from “Covenanted Happiness” by Cormac Burke

Note: All of Msgr Burke’s books may be found online at his website.