Franciscan at Home

As I write this article, I'm nursing the tail end of a mild bout of COVID-19. I don’t share that for pity but to point out how much the world has changed in the past few years. Before this decade, I didn't know what a novel coronavirus was. Everything I understood about pandemics was mainly picked up from disaster movies. Social distancing was only a dream my introverted wife possessed in her heart. And the virus that demanded fear as it first swept across the planet is now so common that it's possible to write an article while infected. Though we can celebrate the medical advances and technology that have helped us fight COVID-19, as the dust still settles on the pandemic, we are just now getting a real glimpse of how all this has affected today’s youth.

The CDC recently released a study revealing that over one-third of high schoolers have experienced poor mental health since the pandemic. At the same time, almost half acknowledge a persistent feeling of sadness or hopelessness.[i] Perhaps these stats are surprising, or maybe they are not; teens’ general mental health and well-being were on the decline long before COVID-19. However, we would be remiss if we failed to acknowledge the unique needs that young people now face. Though vaccinations and vitamins may combat the virus, it will take something far more powerful to heal these more profound ailments now facing teens’ interior life. To find the answers to the deepest sorrows of this life, we must turn our minds to the next one. The virtue of hope helps us do just that.

[i] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “New CDC data illuminate youth mental health threats during the COVID-19 pandemic,” CDC Newsroom, March 31, 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p0331-youth-mental-health-covid-...

The Theology of the Body (TOB) catechesis[i] culminates with profound teachings on responsible parenthood and a vigorous defense of Humanae vitae, but St. John Paul II equally proclaimed the depth and importance of the unitive aspect of marriage. In fact, nearly half of the TOB reflections are based directly on Jesus’ teachings on the indissolubility of marriage (TOB 1–23, based on Mt 19) and the monogamy of marriage (TOB 24–63, based on Mt 5). While emphasizing the inseparability between the procreative and unitive aspects, a key teaching of Humanae vitae, St. John Paul II also provided a profound way to understand the enormous personal value of unity for man and woman precisely as persons made in the image of God.

By highlighting the meaning of marital unity beyond the juridical level through his focus on the total self-giving and personal communion at the center of Christian marriage, he also gave us some clear criteria for understanding the essential difference between marital sex and premarital sex. This installment of the series describes that essential difference and why our theology says that couples must wait for marriage to begin their sexual life together.

[i] John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, trans. Michael Waldstein (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 2006), hereafter cited parenthetically in text as TOB.

Don’t scientists, believers, nonbelievers, liberals, and conservatives alike all rejoice in the splendor of creation? Don’t we all wonder about stars that shine lightyears away? About the depths of the ocean swarming with fluorescent fish and star-shaped creatures? About the hummingbird whose wings flap in song while she drinks nectar to satiety? Not only do we experience joy and wonder as we contemplate creation, we also have an innate longing to discover. We long to discover the mysteries of creation and thus uncover the mysteries of God. And this, I’d argue, is true for most people—regardless of their religious belief, nonbelief, or affiliation.

Why is it important to recognize this universal appreciation of nature? God is an artist, and creation is his artwork.[i] My cousin, who was a seminarian at the time, described this idea to me years ago while we walked along the coast of Maine, amid misty harbor air and abundant wildflowers. Just as we can learn about artists from their work, we also can learn about God from his creation. How exciting, then, that so many people are captivated by nature; so many spend their lives studying creation. For many, evangelization might begin with these moments of joy and wonder.

[i] Robert Barron, “God as Artist,” Angelicum 80, no. 2 (February 1, 2003): 403–16.

In 1947, Pope Pius XII launched (what we would call today) a “new evangelization” of the Catholic Church in his great encyclical letter Mediator Dei.[i] Seen as the Magna Carta of the modern liturgical movement, the Pope sought to use that movement as the principal means for the adaptation of the Church to a radically and rapidly changing world. After two catastrophic world wars, 1914–1918 and 1939–1945, the Church could not simply ignore the fact that the world had dramatically changed and that the Church needed to adjust accordingly.

Renewing the Liturgy

It was, therefore, necessary for the Church to ensure that its spiritual relevance continued to permeate all of modern social life. For the Holy Father, it was the Liturgy that would have the greatest transformative power upon the world in this time of great need because it is the Liturgy that bears the greatest public witness to the faith of the Church.

[i] Pius XII, Mediator Dei.

As another Holy Day of obligation rolls by, the question arises once again about the wisdom and sustainability of current Mass provision in our Catholic schools in Scotland. In our Cathedral parish here in Motherwell, we have three Sunday Masses, but between us as clergy we normally celebrate eight Masses on Holy Days, mainly in school settings, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and participation on the part of pupils. What is the point? Are we (as is often argued) sacramentalizing pupils who have never been evangelized, never mind catechized? In addition, as Catholic schools worldwide also become increasingly multi-faith—with, for example, 20 percent of non-Catholic pupils in Catholic schools today in the U.S. compared with 5 percent in 1972—is compulsory Mass attendance responding to the spiritual needs of all pupils?[1] And how can we strike a balance between the school’s responsibility to celebrate liturgically and the freedom of individual members to either embrace or opt out of such celebrations?

[1] National Catholic Educational Association (2022) Data Brief: 2021-22 Catholic School Enrollment, 1. https://images.magnetmail.net/images/clients/NCEA1/attach/Data_Brief_22_...

Diego is eleven years old. For years he has received religious formation through the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd (CGS) in a carefully prepared environment for the religious life of children called an atrium. He is working with a material known as the “Unity and Vastness of the Kingdom of God,” a timeline that takes a long and essential view of the history of salvation. Diego ponders the moment in this history when God says, “Let us make humankind in our image and likeness” (Gen 1:26). The catechist asks: “What do you think that means?” Diego never answers immediately. After a few minutes, he says, “It means we are able to live the Maxims.” Then, he brings over the box of “The Maxims of Jesus.”[1] This material consists of twelve wooden tablets, each holding a scripture verse of Jesus’ moral announcements. Under the words of Genesis, he places some of these Maxims:

• “. . . be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mt 5:48)
• “I give you a new commandment: love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 13:34) 
• “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mt 22:39)

While Diego has not yet studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church, he is living what it teaches: “Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person” (CCC 1738).

In the atrium, Diego is “recognized as a free and responsible being” and is given the time and the space needed for him to exercise that freedom. It is his response to being called by name by his Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, who “loves you; he gave his life to save you; and he is now living at your side every day to enlighten, strengthen and free you.”[2]

 

If someone is married, in love, or has ever been in love, they can likely tell you when they knew they were in love and, more importantly, when they knew their significant other was in love with them. It’s also likely that one of the individuals fell in love first. Their heart had been moved and they had “arrived” to love. After having arrived, they had to do one of the hardest things: they had to wait. Why wait? Well, because love cannot be rushed, and it certainly cannot be forced. It must profoundly respect the freedom of the other because a love that is forced is no love at all—it is coercion. The human heart is only meant to open from within: to make a free choice to love.

Jesus spoke often about the heart of man. Speaking of the Pharisees he says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mt 15:8) and again, “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart and this defiles a man” (Mt 15:18). While for some it can seem like faith is nothing more than a list of doctrines and creeds, and conversion is nothing more than accepting “new teachings”; from the beginning, faith, conversion, and the work of bringing the Gospel to others, that is evangelization, have always been about the heart.

Evangelization, from the Catholic perspective, is “the carrying forth of the Good News to every sector of the human race so that by its strength it may enter into the hearts of men and renew the human race.”[1] From this definition, we can see that there are necessary aspects to authentic evangelization. First, there must be a proclamation of the Gospel. This speaks to the missionary mandate of the Church to bring the Good News to the whole world, not only in action but also in preaching and proclaiming. Scripture makes clear to us this mandate as we read Jesus’ final command, the last thing he spoke to his disciples before ascending into heaven. We call this final command the Great Commission, and we read one account of it in Matthew’s Gospel:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18–20, emphasis added)

However, this “carrying forth of the Good News” is not an end in and of itself. Disciples of Christ do not proclaim the Gospel for the sake of its proclamation, just to speak the words. It is done to accomplish another end—namely, entering “into the hearts of men and renew[ing] the human race.” But we remember that the human heart must never be coerced, neither into love nor into belief. Instead, it must be approached with all its freedoms intact. This means that if reaching the human heart is the primary goal of authentic Catholic evangelization, then these efforts must always profoundly respect the other and his or her personal freedom. If this evangelistic atmosphere is not present, if proclaiming the Gospel is not being carried out in a way that profoundly respects the freedom of the other, then it is not authentic evangelization.

Lastly, we see that the strength by which this goal is achieved is not our own but belongs to the Gospel itself as we read, “so that by its strength it may enter into the hearts of men” (emphasis mine). When we evangelists remember that the Gospel has an intrinsic power, we experience freedom as well. We truly become “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9), as Paul references in his letter to the Corinthians. Of course, we will aim to use every one of our God-given and developed gifts, but we will also make ourselves docile and open to the power of the Holy Spirit and the Gospel working through us. We will immerse ourselves in God’s Word, understanding that his Word contains power beyond any words of men. The freedom of the evangelist to become a vessel of God’s power through the Gospel message is necessary for authentic evangelization.

Over the past seven years that I have been working in youth ministry, the only thing that has remained consistent is that young people are constantly changing. The middle and high school students I worked with in my first year of ministry are radically different from the students I encounter today.

There are a vast number of factors to consider when looking at the constantly shifting youth culture, but it is certainly the case that the dawn of TikTok partnered with a global pandemic has catapulted our young people into a new era—an era defined by uncertainty, division, and an increasing investment in their own experience and the experience of those around them.

Our young people today, more than any previous generation, have a deep interest in the well-being of others. We see this in the social issues that are at the forefront of their minds: health care, equality, mental health awareness, etc.[1] It is clear that, on some level, they recognize the value of the human person and they want to be part of helping people experience a deep sense of belonging. This emotional investment, while in itself commendable and inspiring, when coupled with a narrative that leaves no room for disagreement has given birth to what is referred to as the “cancel culture.”

This so-coined cancel culture has stripped from popular society the ability to discuss and disagree while still standing on a foundation of love. It has manipulated the younger generation’s good and beautiful desire to create spaces of belonging and has taught them that those who have different perspectives can and should be written off entirely.

This, of course, has key implications for the Church and her ministers and what it looks like to invest in our young people in the midst of the cancel culture.

 

As St. John Paul II concluded his Theology of the Body (TOB) Catechesis in November of 1984, he indicated that the application of TOB could go “far beyond the content of the reflections presented here” (TOB 133:1), while reaffirming the importance of his explicit applications to the teachings on responsible parenthood found in Humanae Vitae. Just three years later, the Magisterium provided its first major example of these wider applications of TOB when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith promulgated Donum Vitae to address medical interventions into the transmission of human life. The teachings of Donum Vitae continued the application of TOB to the theme of responsible parenthood but directed it to the question of how couples can seek to grow their family in a morally sound way when they are experiencing challenges with their natural fertility. 

 

 

Echoing the main teachings of Donum Vitae, this installment of the series summarizes how the anthropological and moral principles of TOB support the proper use of medical science in the exercise of responsible parenthood, while highlighting the grave evils of artificial reproduction. 

 

 

Procreative Love and Responsibility 

 

 

Within the TOB framework, procreation essentially means providing the dignified and just context for God’s creative action, and the essence of responsible parenthood centers on the commitment of man and woman to provide that context out of love for each other and with a sense of obligation before God. Responsible parenthood means being fruitful in a way that does justice to all involved precisely in order to fulfill the privileged role of man and woman in the mystery of creation, thus preserving the truth of procreation as an essential aspect of the love to which human sexuality is ordered. 

 

 

Procreation springs from the heart of conjugal love, rather than being something added on to the love of the man and the woman, and represents an utterly unique way for them to express their love and commitment to each other. Through procreation, man and woman give motherhood and fatherhood to each other and thereby give themselves to each other with an unsurpassed depth. For that reason, those who love in this conjugal way deeply want to give motherhood and fatherhood to each other and to see new life spring from their loving communion. Therefore, it is natural and fitting that a man and a woman in conjugal love seek medical help whenever they are experiencing infertility. Likewise, the teachings of the Church recognize with great compassion the pain of infertility precisely because it frustrates the deep currents of conjugal love. 

 

 

However, along with the deep desire to give children to each other, married couples stand before God with an obligation to cooperate with him in the transmission of life. Married couples should feel that same sense of obligation to seek proper healthcare if they experience infertility. In other words, a couple that truly loves each other and that wants to fulfill their obligations before God cannot remain indifferent to infertility. 

 

 

There are natural limits to human fertility within God’s plan for human sexuality, but medical science generally says that more than twelve months of sexual intercourse in the fertile phase of the woman’s cycle without conception would be a cause for concern. According to the meaning of responsible parenthood, a couple in that situation should seek fertility care out of love for each other and with a sense of obligation before God. 

 

 

We should keep in mind that this medical care does not always lead to very complicated or invasive procedures or expensive treatments; sometimes very simple observations and changes can be made to help a couple overcome their infertility. However, no matter how simple or complicated their fertility issues may be, the couple should feel a moral obligation to try to overcome their infertility within the bounds of prudence and within the meaning of the same language of the body that governs all responsible parenthood. 

 

 

By seeking fertility care in line with the principles of responsible parenthood, couples say to each other, “Because I care so much about you, I can’t act like I don’t care about our infertility. Sharing parenthood with you means so much to me that I am willing to take the time and effort to seek help and to accept the physical and emotional costs of trying to overcome our infertility. I am not willing, however, to do anything that degrades our bodies, contradicts the meaning of our spousal communion, or violates the dignity of the children we seek to give each other. The treatment we seek must be dignified and loving in order to genuinely express the movements of my heart toward you.” 

 

 

Fortunately, TOB offers couples a clear basis for understanding the criteria by which treatments would be dignified and loving and thus within the proper meaning of responsible parenthood.