In continuing my discussion of my Protestant friend's comment about this article by Mr Thomas Peters, I would like to look a bit more at Saint Paul's views concerning marriage. My friend's original comment was (with my emphasis and links):

Quote: I understand that Catholics are not encouraged to actually read the Bible ;) (Ok, in all fairness I think that might have changed with Vatican II) but many of the Biblical points the author makes are valid, unless the Catholic Bible is seriously different than the ones we Protestants use. Polygamy is fairly common in the Old Testament, see for example King David, and Paul was rather anti-marriage, saying it was better to remain married, except for all those sinful thoughts that build up in the weak, so if you are too weak to remain pure then marriage should be your recourse. As for burning women, I suppose that could also mean witch hunts, or various other women that have been burned either by the Catholic church, or in the name of the Catholic church (though the latter becomes a bit trickier), just a guess... Of course, the article makes some good points about the author's blatant logical fallacies, so I am not saying I fully disagree with the article. In summary, it seems that both sides of this argument are writing from their highly specific point of view, which kind of undermines both their claims to have access to an impartial "actual" reality. Don't get me wrong, I believe that one exists, I am just not seeing it very near to that argument.

Was Saint Paul "anti-marriage?" To put this in context, it is worth looking at what Mr Thorp originally said: "Apparently, the Archbishop [Wenski] is unaware that early Christians, beginning with Paul, absolutely loathed marriage. They saw it as an excuse to fornicate."

The specific passages to which he is probably referring is:

Saint Paul wrote: "Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:1-10).

At a glance, this does seem like a low view of marriage. It is tempting to say tat Saint Paul sees marriage as merely a treatment for concupiscence, or as a means of avoiding fornication. It almost seems as though he views the marriage act as "baptized fornication." According to this view, all *** is bad, and it's a dirty little thing which married people are allowed to do so long as it results in children; this would be a false caricature of St Paul's views on marriage and of the Church's teachings about ***. A more extreme caricature, the truly "anti-marriage" view which Mr Thorp tries to paint Saint Paul with, is that it is simply a license to fornicate, albeit only with one's spouse, and that marriage is therefore bad because it encourages this fornication by making it less sinful. Such a view is not so much Saint Paul's (nor the Church's) as of the heresy of Manichaenism, best-known for being the heresy embraced by Saint Augustine before he became Catholic, and next-best known for ravaging Europe during its reincarnation--the Cathari and especially the Albegensians--in the middle ages.

Saint Paul himself did not disapprove of marriage, nor did he look down on it. To see this, we should not restrict ourselves to this one single passage taken out of the context of St Paul's writings, but should look at what he has to say about marriage elsewhere. My favorite passage pertaining to marriage--we had it read at our wedding--is from the saint's letter to the Ephesians:

Saint Paul wrote: "Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband" (Ephesians 5:22-33).

This sounds a lot less disparaging of marriage. Here is St Paul, telling us that marriage is a sacrament and a mystery, and that it symbolizes the union between Christ and His Church. Archbishop Fulton J Sheen, in his Three to Get Married, stated that

Archbishop Fulton J Sheen wrote: "A marriage, before it is consummated, represents the union of Christ with the soul through grace. But once the physical union takes place, then a marriage symbolizes the union of Christ and the Church. In the first instance, it is a symbol of the individual nature of man; in the second, his social nature….The union of Christ with the individual can be broken by sin; but the union of Christ and His Church is unbreakable and eternal" (emphasis in original).

It seems to me that this is a fair exegesis--though second-hand--of Saint Paul's view of the matter. Marriage is, therefore, a very good thing, and this includes the sexual intercourse by which it is consummated. Rather than being "an excuse to fornicate," or even a mere sanctification of sex, marriage does something else for entirely: it sanctifies us and makes us clean, so that when we engage in sexual intercourse we can do so purely and chastely. Archbishop Sheen continues:

Archbishop Fulton J Sheen wrote: "The sanctity of marriage is not something that takes place alongside marriage, but by and through marriage. The vocation to marriage is a vocation to happiness, which comes through holiness and sanctity. Unity of two in one flesh is not something that God [merely] tolerates but [rather] is something that He wills. Because He wills it, He sanctifies the couple through its use. Instead of diminishing in any way the union of their spirits with one another, it contributes to their ascension in love" (emphases in original).

The couple who enters into a marriage is not degrading themselves, al la the Albigensians, Cathars, and other Manichaeans. Far from it, they are availing themselves of a source of grace freely given by God, of an institution which is itself very good. After all, if we look to Genesis, we see that God instituted marriage between Adam and Eve (see Genesis 2:21-25, and Genesis 1:27-30, and Matthew 19:4-6, 8), and also that "God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good" (Genesis 1:31). This would include marriage, then, which is what the previous passage of Genesis had been discussing.

Indeed, St Paul is not at all "anti-marriage," and goes so far as to condemn those who are. Writing against the Marcionites, Gnostics, Manicheans, and other heretics who absolutely condemned marriage (as, for example, an "excuse to fornicate") in his letter to St Timothy, St Paul states that

Saint Paul wrote: "Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth....For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:1-3, 5).

Indeed, he specifically commends marriage, saying that "he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well" (1 Corinthians 7:38). What are we to make, then, of the supposedly "anti-marriage" in verses 1-10 of this same letter to the Corinthians? How can it be reconciled with the rest of his thought concerning marriage?

I would begin by quoting again the last verse, this time in its entirety. "For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well. Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better" (1 Corinthians 7:37-38). Notice that he does not say that the man who gives his virgin (daughter) to marriage--and thus the daughter herself--does not do badly, whereas the one who does not does well. Rather, he says that both do well, but that the latter does better. In chapter 9 question 2 of his Good News About Sex and Marriage, Mr Christopher West addresses this very point:

Christopher West wrote: 2. Does the Church still teach that celibacy is a "higher" calling than marriage? Yes, but this must be carefully qualified. History has seen some grave distortions of St. Paul's teaching that he who marries does "well," but he who refrains does "better" (see 1 Cor 7:38). It's led some to view marriage as a second-class vocation for those who can't handle celibacy. It's also solidified people's erroneous suspicions that sex is inherently tainted and that only those who abstain can be truly "holy." Such errors led John Paul II to assert firmly: "The 'superiority' of continence to marriage never means in the authentic tradition of the Church a disparagement of marriage or a belittling of its essential value. It does not even imply sliding, even merely implicitly, toward Manichean positions." Celibacy is "better" or "higher" than marriage in the sense that heaven is better or higher than earth. Remember that celibacy is not a sacrament of heaven on earth. It is in some sense heaven on earth. But this shouldn't lead those who are called to marriage to devalue their vocation. Everyone is called to a life of holiness by responding to the call of "spousal love" stamped in his or her body. But not everyone is called in the same way: "Each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (1 Cor 7:7). Each of us should respond to the gift we've been given. If we're called to celibacy, then we shouldn't choose marriage. If we're called to marriage, then we shouldn't choose celibacy. Hence the important need to discern our vocation prayerfully.

Thus, when St Paul says things like "For I would that all men were even as myself [celibate]...But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt" (1 Corinthians 7:6-9), he is simply telling his reader that neither marriage nor singleness is a curse, but rather a blessing when it is the person's proper vocation. For some people, marriage really is the correct vocation, in which case trying to remain single and celibate will prove to be more difficult and problematic than getting married. In this case, marriage is the better choice, because a person whose vocation is to marriage will suffer more greatly from temptation if he tries to remain celibate than will a person whose vocation really is to celibacy.

Saint Paul is therefore not "anti-marriage," though he is "pro-celibacy." Rather, he uses strong language to emphasize his point, namely that celibacy is a higher calling than marriage, and yet not all people are actually called to celibacy.

-----
This was originally posted on my Equus Nom Veritas blog.

Tags: Culture Philosophy Exegesis Catechesis Theology

Bookmark: