A couple of weeks ago I posted an entry titled: What If I Was Miss California – and I wondered how I would answer if I was asked the same question she was asked, on national television.
The question is: Do you believe every State (in the U.S.) should legalise same-sex marriage?
My response would be that whether same-sex marriage is legal or not is not the real question. The real question for me is “what is marriage?” And that is what I tried to answer. Here’s what I came up with:
A Marriage is a relationship within which sex is guaranteed not to cause any problems, heartaches, disease, issues or any pain.
This of course, created some confusion – but that’s good, ‘cause I needed to explain it first. But I wanted to hear if anyone could come up with another definition for Marriage. Instead, we received two responses.
Fearghus writes:
It’s fine for me that Carrie Prejean has her viewpoint so long as she doesn’t seek to impose it on me. I’m also sorry that she was discriminated against for holding those views because we know that discrimination is wrong, don’t we?
Now the much thornier issue in your post is a definition of marriage that is focused on sex. Love always seems to me a more valuable focus and where does your definition leave those heterosexual couples who no longer have sex. And what of those heterosexual marriages where sex is the cause of heartache, disease, issue and pain? There are no guarantees who ever you are and who ever you love. That’s why we have faith in each other, in the people we love, and yes, in God.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you and look forward to reading your explanation.
I responded:
Thanks Fearghus for your post. You make a very good point, and one that I’ve struggled with for the past years – if Marriage ONLY has to do with love, then what sets marriage apart from any other loving relationship? Why is two friends who love each other living together, not a marriage? Why are two lovers who live miles apart, not necessarily a marriage?
Why do we think that a sex-less relationship can be a marriage, but one that is not healthy, but full of sex, is? Doesn’t make sense to me.
For those of us who strive to understand the world from a Christian/Biblical point of view, why is there marriage at all? Why has the Church (and Christ) elevated it to the level of Sacrament?For these questions and more, I am more and more beginning to be convinced that there is something about marriage that has to do with procreation and not just the “making” of the babies, but the bringing them up. This is in fact going to be the point of my next blog entry – once I hear more from people like you.
Having thought about it a bit longer, I also want to say to Fearghus that the Church is not “imposing” her view on anyone. No one is telling anyone what to do. The Church simply believes to be teaching God’s design for Marriage. People can still go ahead and do whatever they want – and they do.
Another comment came from Celia, who writes:
I’m truly confused Pedro,
If I’m correct you are trying to establish that Marriage is the union where a couple loves each other, has sex with each other and raise children together. My parents had in my opinion, what I use in my personal life as a definition of Marriage. They trusted each other to have the same principles when related to life, they had the same beliefs when related to Faith, they truly did for the other the best that they could because that is what their partner would have done for them; and they assumed all the responsibilities that two adults have when committing to have children together; to raise and teach their children on the best of their abilities and with the faith and principles that they were raised with…
I think that in bringing the marriage definition for discussion we transform in questioning all beliefs and maybe our unconditional faith… Leaving our next generation with very little to work with.
How do you explain to a young couple that the only difference in between living together and marriage is the fact that they can have “a relationship within which sex is guaranteed not to cause any problems, heartaches, disease, issues or any pain” and raise children together? In a society where the easiest way out is the one that we pick I believe that by doing that you are saying…Marriage is not a good option, it brings lots of headaches and responsibilities and make all the good things that you feel that really make you want to get married eventually go away and you are left with responsibilities only…No wonder the indices of divorced are so high!
I responded:
Celia,
I hear what you’re saying – and that is in fact the biggest challenge we have: how do we explain this to young people? And I am a firm believer in beginning to teach these things about love, sex, marriage and relationships to our children from the time they are very young, because you can’t explain it in one blog entry. It takes a long time to teach, explain and understand.
What I would say to young people is this: Don’t you want to be in a relationship that is guaranteed to not have any problems? Do you want to be guaranteed to not have any pain, any disease? Who wants to have broken hearts? No one, right? Well then let’s teach them how to have healthy relationships. Marriage is the only relationship within which sex can be healthy. That’s what I mean. I don’t mean that marriage is only about sex. For sex to be healthy, love has to be part of it. So, of course, love is an integral part of the equation, but love is not specific to the marriage relationship.
Anyway, I love the comments – I will write a new blog entry with a clearer explanation of my definition of marriage – but let me say for now that a marriage is not a marriage if it is not free, faithful, fruitful and total. I believe that if we stick to those criteria for marriage, then sex within that relationship will always be healthy and good.
I hope that makes sense.
I hesitate to write too much more at this point. I really am curious how other people would define marriage. But here’s my problem: If we say that “Marriage is the loving union between two consenting adults of the opposite sex” that doesn’t explain why. What I am trying to get to is that marriage is the institution created by God to safeguard the family. If it is meant to safeguard the family, it has to safeguard sex (because without sex there is no family) and so we go from there.
But now, it’s your turn. More on this later.
Miss California – Carrie Prejean
In my old age, I am a bit behind… so I didn’t hear about the whole Miss California, traditional Marriage thing until last week. And when I did, the first thing I thought was, “Perez Hilton is not the same as Paris Hilton?!” Go figure! For someone who grew up in a family that watched the Miss Universe and Miss World pageants faithfully year after year (not to mention the Miss Panama pageant), I’m really letting it slip.
So, in case others out there are just as lost as I am: Carrie Prejean is the 21-year-old Miss California who was one of the 5 finalists for Miss U.S.A. two weeks ago. During the portion of the contest when she has to answer a question, she randomly (was it random?) picks a judge, who will ask the question. She picks judge number 8 — Perez Hilton, born Mario Armando Lavandeira, a well-known gay-rights activist, blogger and trouble-maker (Why is he a judge on this pageant?). Again, as in Britain’s Got Talent, we question whether this was planned or not. The young contest hostess exclaims, “Should we be worried?” Like she didn’t know what the question was going to be.
So here is it: Do you believe every State (in the U.S.) should legalise same-sex marriage?
Here is what Miss California, a self-professed Christian, responded: “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.”
And the media feeding-frenzy began. Needless to say, she did not win the Miss U.S.A. crown. She was the first-runner up.
But why? It’s not like statistically the majority of Americans do not agree with her. Thirty U.S. States have voted to keep the traditional defition of marriage. Carrie Prejean is not alone in her views. Perez Hilton is in the minority. But the media would have you thinking otherwise.
Carrie Prejean was put on the spot. No other contestant got a similar question. Of course she was not prepared for a question like that, but she should be. We all should be.
Here’s where I am going: What would I answer if someone asked me that? Would my answer be any different if it was asked on national television?
I don’t know, but here’s a start:
Even though it’s great we live in a democracy and we have freedom of choice, I don’t think Marriage is a right. Jean Vanier is famous for saying that all human beings have the right to be loved and to know that they are loved – but we don’t have a right to Marriage. I think that Marriage is much more than a loving-committed relationship between two adults. There are many good and loving relationships – they are free, they are faithful, many even fruitful. Are they bad? No. Are they evil? No. But are they marriage? I don’t think so… But what makes a marriage a Marriage…
And here is where I don’t know if I can continue with merely a short answer. This is getting too “theology-of-the-body”. And how can we explain all that in two paragraphs?
So we are stuck trying to define marriage to those who don’t see it as more than a loving, committed relationship between to consenting adults.
Here’s my attempt:
A Marriage is a relationship within which sex is guaranteed not to cause any problems, heartaches, disease, issues or any pain.
I’m curious to know what you think. Then I’ll post my explanation to the above.
Pedro
We sometimes forget that “the Church has always venerated Scriptures just as much as she venerates the body of the Lord” (Dei Verbum (herein DV) 21). I remember many years ago, having a discussion with a classmate about the most important part of the Mass. “It’s the teaching,” he said. “No,” I replied, “It’s Communion,” and so we continued our discussion, he with his “protestant” view (or so I thought), me, with my traditional Catholic one. But if we look at the Mass, it is divided into two equal parts: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Both are equal.
One of my favourite Scripture passages is from Luke 24: The road to Emmaus. We sometimes tend to focus on how the disciples, “recognised Jesus in the breaking of the bread” (24:35) but I love that Jesus “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures” (24: 27). Jesus used Scriptures; He didn’t just quote Scripture, He interpreted Scripture.
And so, I’d like to offer the following tips to help you, not just read and pray with Scriptures, but to do so with your children:
Read them prayerfully: Fr. Graham Keep (you may know him from In Your Faith) suggests this prayer before reading Scripture: “Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts, which we are about to receive from your bounty, through Christ, our Lord.” Sound familiar? If Scripture is nourishment, then why not approach it as nourishment?
- Read them frequently: Do you include a short Scripture reading when you pray with your children? The Church offers several daily readings, in the Office of Readings, the Daily Office and the daily readings. Most of us have access to a Missal. Open it up and read the day’s Gospel with your children. Or simply read a Bible story with them. Do this every day.
- Read them again: Read the same story twice. Here’s a suggestion. Read it once and then ask your kids what one word stuck out for them. They don’t have to explain it, just one word. Or ask them which character in the story they would like to be. Then read it again. See if the word or the character has changed. There are many “lectio divina” style activities that you can do to help bring the readings to life and to help them make sense in your life and the life of your children.
Lastly, there are many resources. If you have a child who prefers comics or graphic novels, try the MANGA Bible. They now have several other publications: The Manga Messiah (the Gospels) and the Manga Metamorphosis (the book of Acts) are two of them. If your teen-age daughter is into magazines, get her the REVOLVE version of the New Testament (published by Thomas Nelson). They also have REFUEL (for Boys) and several others for working Women, for men and for younger children. Just note: These do not include the Catholic Deuterocanonical books, but the translation is generally the same.
Read the Bible. I am a great believer of reading it from beginning to end. But if you think that is too daunting, pick a book and read a chapter every day (a good place to start is the Gospel of Mark). Your children will see you spending time with Scripture and in time, they will learn to do the same.
Susan Boyle
Since currently there are over 40 million hits on You Tube, and Matthew wrote about her yesterday, I probably don’t need to introduce Susan Boyle, the underdog story of the day – the woman whom everyone judged and turned out to blow everyone away.
When I finally watched the clip, I did not have any particular reaction. I already knew the end of the story. I knew Susan could sing, but honestly, the way people spoke about it, I thought she’d be horrible-looking and completely ignorant-sounding, which she is not. In fact, my youngest son, looking at the video exclaimed, “She’s not fat.” And, it’s true. She’s not.
What was terribly obvious to me, however was how fixed this all was. I may not know much about the actual show, “Britain’s Got Talent” and how they make it – but I do know something about how TV is made. It is very obvious that the three judges, as well as many in the audience (if not everyone), knew Susan could sing. The whole show was presented that way. Had it been a surprise, it would have been shot differently. Just listen to the reactions of the two hosts backstage, throughout.
Had people really been surprised at her voice, they would’ve had taken a little longer reacting to it. Instead, as soon as Susan opens her mouth, the audience bursts into an uproar of cheers and applause. Immediately, the three judges produce the biggest smiles ever (and when have you seen Simon smiling?). But more importantly, the cameras capture them. Had it been unexpected, the director would not have known to go to them right away for the reactions. In fact, my initial thought was that those reactions were shot afterwards. I am convinced that the whole eye-rolling-exchanging glances-thing, before she sang, was, if not rehearsed, shot afterwards. I’m serious. Watch it again and look at the way it’s edited. Look at Piers Morgan’s face. Watch when Amanda Holden’s stands up to clap in the middle of the song. Listen to the music crescendo at the end when she’s given the “yes” to move on. That’s reality TV.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the show producers, looking to improve their ratings and to guarantee successful CD-sales afterwards (you watch, Susan, whether she wins or not will go on to record an album, produced maybe by Simon Cowell himself and sell millions – in fact, sales would be better if she doesn’t win, but comes in second), went out looking for a “frumpy-looking-every-woman” who could sing. That’s how these things work. (Remember Paul Potts’ performance in the same show last year? He’s gone on to record 2 albums.)
How is it that no one knew she could sing? Did she not audition for the show? Surely this performance in front of two or three hundred people was not the initial audition! I don’t buy it.
And the dream? Even the song she chose is too obvious. These are some of the words to I Dreamed a Dream, from Les Miz: “I had a dream my life would be, So different from this hell I’m living, So different now from what it seemed, Now life has killed the dream I dreamed.” Is this not part of the whole manipulation thing?
In fact, watching the Britain’s Got Talent clip made me react a little bit the same way I reacted when I first saw Les Miz. I felt manipulated. And don’t get me wrong – it’s a great show, with a great message. I love the music. But it’s designed to make people cry and to stand up in an ovation at the end. I refused to stand. I felt manipulated to respond a certain way. And it was the same all three times I watched the show.
But honestly… so what? Why would the show producers choose this scenario to boost their ratings? What is it about the underdog, slum-dog-millionaire, story that appeals to people? Or are they really trying to make a point of showing us how judgmental we are? Or are they trying to clean up the image that these shows have of being ruthless and demeaning: let’s give a frumpy woman a chance – and show the world how we are not really that judgmental (just imagine what it would have been like had Susan not been able to sing!)
And not to put Susan down – because whether real or not, it is an inspiring and positive story, and she can sing – but when I first heard her sing I thought the same thing I thought when I first heard Andrea Bocelli sing: can he sing? Yes. Is he good, yes? Is he better than a Pavarotti or a Domingo? Not really. Is it worth listening to? Yeah. Is it worth buying a CD? Maybe. Is it worth all the hype? No, it isn’t. Why then, all the hype? Because he’s blind. But his blindness doesn’t make him a better singer. The same with Susan: her ordinariness doesn’t make her a better singer than anyone else in that competition. But perhaps she will win in the end. Why? Because she’s the better singer, or because she’s the ugly duckling?
I wonder what the reactions would have been, had we heard her sing first before seeing her (and not coloured by the reactions of the judges and the audience, manipulated by the show’s producers). We would’ve heard a beautiful voice, imagined the face and body of the person to whom it belonged and then been surprised to see the actual owner of the voice? I don’t know.
Hermana Glenda
I had the same reaction when I first met Hermana Glenda. I am a bit ashamed to admit this, but I had been listening to a Hermana Glenda tape for about a year or two before I met her. If you don’t know who I’m talking about, she has an angelic voice. Have a listen. It is beautiful. I heard it and imagined a beautiful 18-year-old. I imagined the most beautiful young girl in the world. Who else could have that voice? In truth, Glenda is not 18 and she’s not the typical magazine-cover model. She’s short, stocky and in conversation, a bit loud (and lots of fun). But she has a beautiful singing voice. As far as Hollywood and Broadway go, despite her voice, (and despite Britain’s Got Talent’s new non-judgmental approach) she’d never get cast as the leading lady, only as the stepsister. And the singer who gets cast as the stepsister can’t have an angelic voice. So she wouldn’t get cast at all. That’s the sad reality.
The not-so-sad reality is that I know many people who sing beautifully, but are ordinary-looking. I also know many ordinary-looking people who are beautiful people. I also know many gorgeous people who should be modelling, who can’t sing and/or who are not beautiful people. But I know some gorgeous-looking people who can sing very well and some not-so-good-looking people who can’t sing – some of them are nice and some are not nice. Get my point?
It’s not about judging or not judging – I think most of us will catch ourselves when we judge – and we do judge all the time. For me, it’s about how we let popular culture shape our lives and our beliefs. If pop culture says it’s ok to laugh at someone, we do. If they say it’s not ok to laugh, then we become all self-righteous. Don’t get your truth from popular culture, because tomorrow, despite all the Susan Boyle-hype about not-judging a book by its cover, those same reality shows will continue being just as demeaning and making fun of people and their dreams. And they’ll still have 40 million hits on You Tube.
deacon pedro 