banner

Chastity: the Crucial Message of a Canonization

Senior Editor’s note: As Robert Royal (@RobertSRoyal) notes in his latest report from Rome, we’re at the midpoint of the 2015 Synod. Today, Bob writes, “we’ll receive the second set of small language circle reports on the relatively uncontroversial middle section of the Working Document, ‘The Discernment of the Family Vocation.’ All signs are that these will be fairly straightforward in nature, cleaning up misleading wording and filling in gaps in the text.” Of course, there’s more, so click here to read “Musings at the Midpoint.” And check back every single day – for Dr. Royal’s dispatches and for the always superb TCT columns, such as today’s from Fr. Pilon. – Brad Miner (@ABradfordMiner)

To my way of thinking, the single most important event that will occur during the 2015 Synod on Marriage and the Family will be one over which the participating bishops will engage in no discussion and take no votes. Indeed, I think the most inspired decision surrounding this whole Synod is to have the canonization of St. Thérèse’s parents – Zelie and Louis Martin – take place this Sunday.

The Church has always pointed to the lives of saints to teach us the great truths of our faith. In this case, the example is not only the fidelity of this holy couple, nor their obviously great conjugal love, nor the permanence of their union. All of these things can also be found outside Christianity, because marriage is a natural institution.

What the Martins exemplify, as do all holy Catholic marriages, is the integral and necessary role of chastity within marriage. True Christian marriages are chaste, and chaste marriages are always holy.

The holiness of the vocation of marriage within the sacrament of matrimony is a major theme of this particular Synod, as it was at Vatican II. What is not so clearly a theme is the integral relationship between this holiness and the chastity of the married couple. I suspect that this theme is mentioned at times, but it does not get the same level of attention as many other topics. Yet nothing will be more important for the renewal of Christian marriage than the reassertion of the Church’s teaching on chastity within marriage, and courageous and wise practical efforts to re-evangelize the Catholic laity on this point.

It doesn’t totally surprise me that the theme of marital chastity does not have quite the same emphasis in these discussions as it did in the past. Just recall the very title of Pope Pius XI’s great 1930 encyclical on marriage, Casti connubii, “of chaste wedlock,” which numerous times praises the wisdom of God contained in this “chaste and sacred fellowship of nuptial union.” Pope Pius XII, Paul VI, St. John Paul II all wrote beautifully extolling the greatness and holiness of chaste marriages. But today, after a half-century of radical sexual transformation of our western societies, chaste marriages are rarely found – or understood – even among Christians, and sadly even among many Church leaders.

Louis and Zelie Martin
Louis and Zelie Martin

When Pius XI wrote his encyclical on chaste marriage, he was responding to the sexual revolution taking hold in the Church of England, which had just given moral acceptance to the practice of contraception at the Lambeth Conference. Today, we can easily see, if we have eyes to see, the devastating effects of contraception on marriage and society: the terrible breakdown in marital fidelity, the breakdown of conjugal love leading to divorce, and the tragic demographic suicide of virtually all Western countries that have adopted contraception as a way of life both within and outside marriage.

Much of this devastation was foreseen by Pope Pius XI and was restated by both Pope Paul VI and St. John Paul II. What they profoundly understood was the intimate connection between the contraceptive lifestyle and the destruction of chastity within marriage. Unfortunately, this close connection is not always understood by Church leaders. And even more unfortunately, the value of chastity itself has been deeply undermined, both within marriage and in the single life.

Some years ago I came across a powerful editorial statement from 1931, by the editor of the Washington Post, a Methodist layman, who understood this connection every bit as much as Pope Pius XI. This insightful layman concluded that the decision of the major Protestant denominations to approve contraception would produce a moral and spiritual disaster: “Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report, if carried into effect, would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscrim­inate immorality.” He also understood that contraception would destroy the very holiness of the marriage vocation and world inevitably lead to indiscriminate immorality, unchastity, both inside and outside of marriage. He was right, as were the Popes, a first prophetic ecumenical agreement.

It makes me suspicious about most of the attendees at the Synod, apart from certain outspoken bishops and lay observers, is the fact that the topic of contraception got so little attention in that final document of the 2014 Synod, as if it were just a minor problem affecting Christian marriage. Yet all the religion polls tell us that a vast majority of Catholics in most Western countries have rejected the Church’s constant teaching on the immorality of contraception. That means unchastity has become a dominant feature of contemporary Christian marriage. So the question arises, how can this Synod hope to make any real impact on the renewal of Christian marriage and family life if it refuses to recognize the central importance of chastity within marriage, and the impact of contraceptive practice on that conjugal virtue?

The fact that one marriage, the holy union of Zelie and Louis Martin, could already have produced three saints – and so many vocations to virginal chastity – is not unrelated to the practice of the heroic virtue of chastity by the parents. This has often been the story of holy marriages in the history of the Church.

If marriage is in trouble today in the Catholic Church, and if vocations to religious life and priesthood are also in trouble, certainly the crisis of marital chastity is at the root of this problem. I suspect that if you polled all the popes back to Peter, they would agree with that assessment. Let’s hope these canonizations will also have some impact on the final deliberations of the Synod. It almost certainly will have an impact on the life of the Church. For that, thank you, Pope Francis.

Fr. Mark A. Pilon

Fr. Mark A. Pilon

Fr. Mark A. Pilon, a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, received a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from Santa Croce University in Rome. He is a former Chair of Systematic Theology at Mount St. Mary Seminary, a former contributing editor of Triumph magazine, and a retired and visiting professor at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. He writes regularly at littlemoretracts.wordpress.com.

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments relevant to columns that are civil, concise, and respectful of other contributors. We do not publish comments with links to other websites or other online material.
  • veritasetgratia

    Father I agree that artificial contraception planted the idea of sexual freedom without responsibility, and it really took off during the 1960’s propelled as much by the launch of the sexual revolution with its supposed explanations of psychological well-adjustment; today we cannot ignore the devastation being caused to marriage and pre-marriage young adults through the widespread profit-driven dissemination of pornography which also leads to violence in marriage. Iin this country a sudden frightening increase in deaths of women in de facto relationships is happening right now. Also, new corporations which are based on pornography and adultery (eg Madison) promote the status quo. This is what families are up against and the Church is faced with, and it is too bad that these issues (if they are getting a mention) are not being written about by the media covering the Synod.

  • Michael Dowd

    Excellent Fr. Pilon. Very well and forcefully stated. Contraception is such a serious sin that it is leading to the demise of the Catholic Church itself. When Christ wondered if He would find any faith on earth when He came again I think he was considering the impact of contraception on nearly all the “faithful”.

    Most folks who do this don’t confess it because either their priest or their conscience tell them it is not a sin. Who is mostly to blame for this massive sinfulness and sacrilege? Why, the Catholic Church, of course, by winking at sin, not stating the doctrine, not encouraging confession. And even worse, the lost opportunity for holiness. Married couples have a great opportunity for saintliness by being chaste in regard to contraception by having the opportunity to be generous in having more children and/or offering up sexual restraint for the salvation of souls.

    May God enlighten the Synod participants in regard to the various impacts of the sin of contraception.

    • Faithful Catholic

      Not only is the sin of contraception rarely mentioned from the pulpit to remind and warn the faithful of the perils of this practice, but some priests even excuse penitents who confess it in the sacrament of penance. I know because it happened to me AND my husband years ago, when we confessed this to different priests in different parishes. I was told not to worry about it; that I had done the “right thing.” Other relatives told us of having similar experiences in the confessional regarding contraception. So if this has brought about the crisis in marriage in the Catholic Church, what can those clerics at the synod be thinking who hope to advance the notion of people in invalid marriages receiving communion? Surely this will only do further harm to the concept of marital chastity!

  • kathleen

    Dear Father, Thank you for this beautiful article. I had just finished a little prayer asking Louis and Zelie Martin to pray for my family and for me, and then I opened your lovely commentary on marriage. A wonderful reminder of the things we need to be thinking of now as we pray for families, for our Church, for the Synod and the Holy Father. I heard a homily just the other day on EWTN where the priest reminded us of the canonization of Louis and Zelie Martin coming up this Sunday, and that the relics of St. Therese and her parents are in Rome now, and that we should be asking for their intercession for the Synod and for our own needs. As we continue our prayers for the Synod and the Holy Father, let us invoke the intercession of St. Therese and her parents, that they would pray with us and for us, for God’s help for the Church and for faithful bishops and priests – faithful to the teachings of Christ and His Church.

  • StatusQrow

    When the American Psychiatric Association declared that homosexuality was no longer to be considered a pathology, in 1973, I immediately sensed it would be a major blow against marriage and the family.

    By taking that action, the APA was saying that here is a group of persons for whom sexual activity is not a disorder but a normal and, therefore, good thing. Yet that activity was, by definition, extra-marital since, how many homosexuals even conceived of the notion of marriage amongst themselves way back then? Any?

    I knew right away that it would, through cultural inculcation, legitimize promiscuity within the heterosexual community because, if it’s ok—culturally translated as “not a sin”—for one group of people to be casually sexual, why should heterosexuals feel guilty for engaging in casual sexual activity?

    So, I confess, when same-sex marriage was first proposed, publicly, I was tentatively willing to endorse the idea—with one major proviso: that, in return, the gay community would agree to stigmatize extra-marital sex amongst themselves, and to lead the larger human community to a return to stigmatizing promiscuity whether pre-marital or extra-marital.

    Of course, even if it could be morally justified the whole idea was a pipedream and I abandoned it almost as soon as my imagination proposed it.

    I agree, Father Pilon, that the role chastity within marriage is crucial; and probably far less understood than the role of chastity outside of marriage. Both are in deep peril these days; and so I too rejoice in Louis and Zelie Martin’s being “raised to the honors of the altar” as saints. ONLY the example of holy marriages can, by their very contrast, stand as eloquent witness against a pornified and promiscuous culture.

  • samton909

    What are you talking about? We have gay marriage now, and as the Supreme Court told us, marriage has absolutely nothing to do with procreation. What a silly notion to think that it does! Everyone knows that because we allow heterosexual people to be married even if they can’t have children, this logically means that marriage has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with children! Get with the modern times. Get used to our new, modern way of thinking.

    And, of course, marriage no longer means the partners have to be faithful to one another sexually. As we now are coming to understand, most gay marriages make provision for having sex with other people, so marriage has NOTHING AT ALL to do with being faithful to your spouse, or being monogamous. Roam where thou wilt! And of course children that are adopted into these gay relationships will need to be taught that if their parents have sex with other people, that is totally normal and natural. Marriages, whether of two or three or four people, merely need to negotiate all of this. No problem if you feel the need to have sex with various people has they come along. Love wins. Or should we have said “Free love wins”?

    Get with it. Marriage has changed. Everyone is free! free! freeeeee!

    What are you talking about? No one wants to change the institution of marriage!

  • Bro_Ed

    “What the Martins exemplify, as do all holy Catholic marriages, is the integral and necessary role of chastity within marriage. True Christian marriages are chaste, and chaste marriages are always holy”

    And sometimes, a “chaste” marriage is unhappy too. If you had said “fidelity” I’d be in total agreement. As I said once before (to much chagrin, I might add) I was involved in church discussion groups of married couples, and a few religious leaders back in the Sixties, when we were sure Pope Paul Paul VI would reverse the ban on contraception based on the near universal feedback he received from his study committees, Alas, it was not to be. To many Catholic marrieds of my generation, that was a watershed event: the Vatican and Conscience collided.

    As for the Martins, God bless them. However, I would like to see another married couple canonized, a couple with whom we long time married Catholics can identify. A faithful, loving, married couple, doing their level best to live out the Gospel while participating in a happy and healthy and wholesome married sex life.

  • bernie

    Thank you Father Pilon for another excellent article. When the Martins lived out their
    Marriage, the very idea of frustrating the marital embrace was deeply offensive to a truly Catholic mind. There were two words that summed up the whole context of marital life. They are rarely if ever heard today without qualifiers. Those two words are: Continence and Generosity. Continence is now, at best qualified by “periodic”. Generosity is qualified by “career”, or a hundred other reasons that complicate or even offend the purpose of marriage. The Church is complicit in this by the way it foreshortens the dignity and generosity of women, assuring them that, if they think they might like to try it, each has a glorious career, panting for expression within her breast, that justifiably displaces the incredibly profound gift of Motherhood and the true glories of family life. The man is equally complicit in promoting that mindset. What the heck! It means more money. How can a Bishop truly justify the headline I have read on a prominent Diocesan website dealing with so-called ‘Natural” family planning. As I recall, it reads “99% effective”. Effective at what? Preventing pregnancy, of course. I cannot believe that virtually anyone uses NFP to get pregnant. Why not just call it “Not For Propagation” and openly join the “sustainable” development crowd that is destroying Catholic Civilization. I think I have even heard that faithless word in the context of the current Synod.
    If we truly, as a Church, go flat out in truly ‘Catholic’ marriage preparation, as we unquestionably ought to do, I suspect the Church may quickly be reduced to the “Remnant”
    of Scripture. Perhaps that is as it should be for God’s purpose in creating mankind to be even more clearly understood.

  • JGradGus

    “ . . . the crisis of marital chastity is at the root of this problem. I suspect that if you polled all the popes back to Peter, they would agree with that assessment.” I suspect that Alexander VI, for one, might not agree. A number of the early popes were also married and not that much is known about them or their attitudes regarding marital chastity. Pope John XIII, for instance, did have at least five children. And let’s not forget John XII, “a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium. War and the chase were more congenial to this pope than church government” from the Catholic Encyclopedia).

  • edith wohldmann

    thank you Father, the truth is a soothing balm for the heart

  • Jim Anderson

    Thank you, Fr. Pilon, for your great witness for marriage and family. I HIGHLY recommend the book you wrote on the Sacrament of Matrimony.

  • Dave Fladlien

    I think it is wonderful that St. Therese’s parents are being canonized, and I hope some day her sister Celine as well, if I’m right that this hasn’t been done yet. But…

    Regardless of your views on contraception — or anything else for that matter — please do not blame all the broad issues we have in marriage, vocations, and lots of other areas such as growing totalitarianism (even in the “free” societies of the earth) on any one cause, as your last paragraph definitely seems to do. These are all complex issues, and severely over-simplifying them only makes them more difficult to understand and deal with.

    We all have our opinions of what is causing the problems and what to do about them, but I hope we can agree on at least one thing: today’s religious and societal problems are complex, and careful, thorough, creative solutions are needed, not over-simplification.

    • DeaconEdPeitler

      The common denominator for all marriage failure is selfishness. It is contrary to the self-sacrificing love required for a successful marriage. Contraceptive practices has it roots in selfishness, not self sacrifice. Take any other dimension of today’s marriages and you will find there examples of selfishness. The epitome of selfishness can be found in the so-called homosexual “marriages” where the partner is a mirror image of oneself.

      • Dave Fladlien

        I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. We all have tendencies in our thoughts that we have to guard against. One of mine is a tendency to focus too much (I call it “over-zoning”) on one element of a situation, and put too little focus on another thereby. Over-emphasizing one element seems to actually create a kind of “numbness” to other elements. I can’t just assume there is one cause for each kind of problem.

        I think it varies greatly from couple to couple, but for me one key to a man/woman relationship is partnership. But I can’t focus on that to the exclusion, for example, of fidelity. Nor can I focus on fidelity to the exclusion of being sensitive to her disappointment at some business event, etc. I can emphasize some aspect for a limited period of time if I suspect I’m deficient in it, but before too long I have to get back to a balanced approach. It’s a whole relationship, not a bunch of elements.

        Possibly staying very broadly well-balanced in your focus comes readily to you. If so you’ll have a different attitude, of course. In my case, maintaining reasonable balance in my thinking is something that I have to work at, and over-simplification usually just sets me up for making things worse, not better.

      • Keith

        Amen. Please pray for my family. God bless.

      • KarenJo12

        No one was selfish before contraception?

  • GrahamUSA

    When the Holy Father met with five victims of the abuse or predation scandal, the five were three women and two men. As a pie chart, nothing could be more deceptive about what happened. Who put that group together for his American tour? With two USCCB reports stating that 80 percent of the abuse involved males exclusively, they could not find say, 4 men and 1 women? It is this dishonesty that troubles me in all of this. The Church continues to defer and tip-toe around the homosexual nature of what happened. I attended two Catholic high schools in the 1960s and 1970s and this is what I encountered as well. An honest discussion about what has happened to the Sacrament of Matrimony at the synod does not sound promising. When bishops congregate can do they actually do talk about sexuality today? I’m dubious.

    • bbb

      Glad you caught on to that trick. The question remains, who is behind this grand delusion that women, or lay straight people have anything to do with the sex scandal? This victim group was surely handpicked to amplify that lie. Who is behind this? Is it the gay bishops or just misguided lay people acting as useful idiots for this agenda? This has been the false narrative for 15 years on. I remember when the NYTimes first broke the story and quite obviously the facts were stacking up to show the homosexual nature of the crimes. Almost overnight it seemed, the editors were connecting the dots about what they reported and began furiously backpeddling or throwing out a new narrartive about the bishops lack of oversight and their coverup. No more homosexual priests being reported- it was all about the coverup. Very clever.

      • Richard A

        Great insight. It was maddening for me to see these pervert priests condemned by a media who could never, of course, be gotten to admit that what the priests did was actually wrong.