Maried Life, Change of Status, Unmarried

1 Corinthians 7 (NIV)

Concerning Married Life
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Concerning Change of Status
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

Concerning the Unmarried
25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

Pope Benedict and the Condom Question

by Fr. Joel O. Jason

(In response to many questions I received regarding the days headline connected with Pope Benedict and the condom question, I offer the following as clarifying points to ponder on. Please post it on your profile and share with as many friends you can. For our collective guidance. Thanks!)

It was Sunday night (November 21, 2010) and I was readying myself to sleep. I turned on the TV to while away the time. Half asleep and half awake, I remember vaguely seeing in the running headlines at CNN, something connected with Pope Benedict and the issue of condoms. Too sleepy to even listen in, I switched off the television and went to sleep. Monday morning I woke up with text messages from friends inquiring about the supposed "turn around" in the Church’s teaching regarding condom use.

True enough, international as well as local journal headlines read:

“Pope says condoms are justified in fight against HIV”

“Pope says condoms are acceptable in some cases”

“Pope softens on teaching on Condoms, Aids and Contraception”

“Pope: Condom use OK for fight against AIDs”

So for the sake of intellectual integrity, I decided to do some research and found out that what started it all was a supposed “leaked” German interview the Pope granted to journalist Peter Seewald in an upcoming book yet to be released entitled “Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs of the Times”. To let you in on what the Pope really said, allow me to show you an excerpt of the transcript of the interview connected with the condom question:


From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119:

Peter Seewald:
On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism. Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

Pope Benedict:
The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.

I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done (emphasis mine).We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway.But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself (emphasis mine). More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves (emphasis mine). This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, (The preceding is the only sentence the secular media focused on to reach their conclusions) on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality (emphasis mine).

(The next question and answer was totally ignored by the secular media in their reporting)

Peter Seewald:
Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

Pope Benedict:
She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution (emphasis mine), but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection,a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality (emphasis mine).

So with the full text in question now presented, what conclusions can we derive?

First things first. There is a principle in Biblical interpretation that goes:

“A text, out of context, is pretext.”

It means that every text of the Bible should be understood in its integral context: in the unity of the whole message of a chapter, of a series of books, of the theology of the writer, and even the unity of the whole Biblical message. Taken in isolation, a text in the Bible can be reduced to a pretext, i.e., a half-truth or at worst, a misleading misinterpretation.

The headlines we read above, regarding the supposed change Benedict proposes on the consistent sexual ethics of the Church connected with condoms and HIV, are clear examples of a text taken out of context. As you can see, Pope Benedict gave a long answer to a rather short question. I highlighted the parts that spell out clearly Benedicts’ convictions as well as that of the Church’s. What some interpreters took out in isolation was that part where it says, “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility…”. They did not even finish the whole sentence.

With these laid out, so what now did Pope Benedict NOT say?
First of all, this is a personal interview. Pope Benedict is not speaking here in his capacity as the Supreme Teacher of the Catholic faith. What you find in the book are not proposed as official teachings nor pronouncements being sent out to the Catholic faithful. Some of the things we can read here can even fall in the category of personal opinions and therefore do not and cannot present themselves as official Magisterial teachings. If the Pope wants to hold out a new teaching based on his reasoned discernment as the Successor of Peter, a personal interview is not the place to do it. Everyone who knows basic Catechism understands this, much more the Pope. And so headlines claiming, “Pope changes teaching on Condoms, Contraception and HIV”, or “Pope: Condoms OK in fight Against AIDS” are totally way out of line.2.Nowhere in the text of Pope Benedict’s response can we find a summary justification of the morality of condom use. This is clear in the texts I highlighted. Let me highlight them once again:“…that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done,” ; “…But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself” ; “ This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves” ; “…But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” I don’t see how the quotes above translate to “Pope OKs condom use”. On the contrary,the above quotations reflect the consistent conviction of the Church regarding condom use vis a vis HIV/AIDs: that condoms are not the solution. If at all, they contribute to the perpetuation of the problem.

In scientific circles, it is openly admitted that condoms are in fact not 100% safe. On an average, it is said that there is a 10-15% inefficacy, since the AIDS viruses are much more ‘filtrating’ (i.e., able to pass through) than the sperm. Google “condom voids”and you will discover that the male sperm is small enough to easily pass through the pores/natural voids of the rubber latex, thus the 10-15% failure rate as a contraceptive. Condoms have natural microscopic holes which measure 5 micron (.0002 inches) while the HIV virus measures 0.1 micron (4 millionth of an inch). It’s a no-brainer. Prescribing condoms as a protection for HIV and AIDS is a virtual Russian roulette. Sooner or later, you will have it. It’s only a matter of time. Therefore, even at a “technical” level of efficacy, one should question the scientific seriousness and the consequent professional seriousness of the condom campaign.

Condoms can only reduce the risk of infection. And with the fatally serious threat of HIV/AIDs, risk reduction is not acceptable. Prevention is the only acceptable option. And prevention is only served by abstinence (for the unmarried) and monogamy and fidelity (for the married).

In the first place, Pope Benedict’s response was not even a direct commentary on the possible moral justification of condom use, clearly not for contraception. He was making a moral speculation on what may be going on in the heart of one (a male prostitute ) who uses the condom in a homosexual sex act.

What did Pope Benedict intend to say?

Pope Benedict was specific in his response. He spoke of a “male prostitute” who uses a condom. What the Pope stressed was not that condom use is OK in the case of a male prostitute engaged in heterosexual or homosexual acts. He merely said that “this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility…” Perhaps an analogy can help us appreciate what the Pope is saying (for this point I will modify a principle I picked up from lay moral theologian Janet Smith).

There are two robbers. One uses a real knife with a real intent to kill and harm. The other, uses a plastic knife, because he does not intend to kill. He only intends to frighten and intimidate. Both men will be committing an evil act. But obviously, between the two, it is the one who employs a plastic knife that shows at least a hint, a semblance, a little amount of moral responsibility which hopefully, can still mature to a real and correct kind of moral responsibility that will let him realize that robbing people is an evil option to take. Does this mean the Church will teach that it is “OK” and moral to rob people using a toy knife? No. The Church simply says that between the two, the one with the toy knife is the one that manifests a semblance of an “assumption of moral responsibility”, immature it may be.

The same logic can be applied to Pope Benedict’s example. Obviously, the mere fact that the person used a condom indicates a “semblance of responsibility.” One who engages in prostituted sex without a condom, shows a total absence of moral responsibility, for himself or for the other. Compared to this one, one who uses a condom at least shows a hint of “assuming a responsibility” which Benedict hopes can be a “first step in the direction of a moralization” i.e., hopefully it can develop to a more correct kind of responsibility, not in the direction of regular condom use, as secular interpreters assumed, but, as Benedict finished his sentence, (which the secular media left out), “on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

As we see here, Pope Benedict is too deep a theologian and a thinker to be presented from a shallow and surface level interpretation. The Pope and the Church’s consistent ethical teachings deserve more than that. We pray that the media may also assume responsibility in reporting matters especially those related to faith and morals. We pray that intellectual integrity and professionalism may not be sacrificed for the sake of ideology, sensationalism and paper sales.

The Mouse Trap

Author: Unknown

One day, a mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package. "What food might this contain?" The mouse wondered - he was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap. Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning. "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"

The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it."

The mouse turned to the pig and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!" The pig sympathized, but said, "I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured you are in my prayers."

The mouse turned to the cow and said "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!" The cow said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin off my nose." So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap alone.

That very night a sound was heard throughout the house -- like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey. The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital, and she returned home with a fever. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient.

But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig. The farmer's wife did not get well; she died. So many people came for her funeral; the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them.

The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness.

***
So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and you think it doesn’t concern you, remember–When one of us is threatened, we are all at risk. We are all involved in this journey called life. We must keep an eye out for one another and make an extra effort to encourage one another.

Each of us is a vital thread in another person’s tapestry. Our lives are woven together for a reason.

"Just like a sunbeam can't separate itself from the sun, and a wave can't separate itself from the ocean, we can't separate ourselves from one another. We are all part of a vast sea of love, one indivisible divine mind."
— ☼ Marianne Williamson

The Condom Conundrum

By Fr. Joel O. Jason

{K} Kerygma Magazine

No. 241 Vol. 20 June 2010

In its February 2010 issue, Time magazine ran an article on Dr. David Ho, a scientist very active in researching over an antibody that he believes would prevent HIV infection. Interestingly, the article narrated a 2007 incident when, in an AIDS conference where Dr. Ho was in attendance, a presenter flashed a cartoon of a blindfolded baseball player swinging mightily at an incoming ball and, of course, missing. I’m not sure what the purpose of the presenter was. But according to Time, the imagery was clear. The blindfolded baseball player was Dr. Ho and his team, and the incoming fast ball was AIDS. It was another futile swing and a miss — one of the many in humanity’s long battle with HIV and AIDS.

I admire Dr. Ho and his team for their dedication and humane passion to eradicate the challenge of AIDS. But I thought that cartoon incident offers volumes of commentaries over the issue.

It reminded me of a story I read before.

A bull that has been working in the bull ring for several years finally retired. Talking to a fellow retiree, he shared his conundrum (i.e., a paradoxical, insoluble, or difficult problem or dilemma). In utter frustration he shared, “For years I have been chasing after that red cape and I never really did catch it. How do I solve the problem of that red cape?” The fellow retiree whispered, “Just between us, the problem is not the cape. It’s the matador. Eliminate the matador and you eliminate that pestering cape as well.”

This Aesop’s fable explains why the bull was always painted as a dumb animal. It charges mindlessly, without thought, without purpose. Driven by inordinate passion and sheer instinct, it chases its target clueless and not knowing that the real target should be something or someone else. The result: frustration, energy spent in futility and, for some, even death at the hands of the matador.

Isn’t this our collective experience so far in our long standing battle with AIDS? It has been more than 25 years since the pandemic and we all look like a blindfolded baseball player swinging mightily at an incoming AIDS fastball — frustrated, spent and, for some, dead. The rate of HIV transmission and AIDS continues to swell. Just last March, the DOH noted an alarming increase in HIV cases among the young and specially the MSM (men having sex with men) sector in the country.

In February 14, 2010 the Department of Health placed itself at the center of discussion with its distribution of free condoms to celebrate “love” day. When called to task for such actions, the DOH explained that it’s the Department’s way of battling the HIV and STD transmission. It was to remind people to have safe sex. I was asking myself, “What is safe sex?” More properly, since when has sex become unsafe anyway?

In the Beginning, It Was Not So

Once, I was at a conference with young professionals and I was sharing with them John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.¹ During the open forum a guy came up and asked, “Father, is having a good sex life important?” I was a bit surprised. Gathering my senses, I answered, “It depends what you mean by good.” “If by good sex you mean sex whenever, wherever and with whomever I want,” I continued, “then my answer is no.” Then I concluded, “ But if by good sex you mean, sex as God intended it to be, then by all means, go and have good sex.”

When we read in the Bible, “(t)hen God blessed them and said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it’” (Genesis 1:28), God was telling the first man and woman to have sex. God created sex. Genesis 1:31 concludes by saying, “And God looked at what He has created and it was good.”

Sex is among the things God has created. Therefore sex is good, sex is safe. Notice that sex and the ability of the woman to bear a child is the first thing that God blessed in the world (see Genesis 1:28). John Paul II calls it the world’s “primordial blessing.” But why do we now speak of the need to be protected from “unsafe sex” and the need to have “safe sex”?

It is not because sex is naturally unsafe. It is our behavior and the inordinate desires of our hearts that has made sex unsafe. No scientific literature will contest that sexually transmitted diseases like HIV and others are not natural by-products of sex. God did not make sex with HIV and STD on the side. They are the by-products of irresponsible sexual behavior. Christ calls it in the Gospel of Matthew as the “hardness of our hearts.” It is our “sex whenever, wherever and with whomever” mentality that has ruined the world’s primordial blessing and morphed it into the modern world’s primordial threat. Case in point, no one who is practicing abstinence or monogamy and fidelity has ever contracted HIV or any other STDs (unless he is a drug user and may have used an infected needle).

So how do we make sex safe and redeem it back as the world’s primordial blessing? Unless we change our behavior and look into the “hardness of our hearts,” we remain a hapless bull and a blindfolded baseball player, helplessly missing the point. No one in his right mind will contest that abstinence (if you are single) and monogamy/fidelity (if you are married) are the only 100 percent ways of eliminating the HIV and AIDS menace. But why aren’t we considering it? It is not because it doesn’t work. It is because we are not willing to give it a try. It’s the hardness of our hearts.

The Heart of the Matter

I once read of a man suffering from obesity due to his uncontrollable desire for food. To remedy the situation, he underwent an operation to shorten his small intestines to simulate the feeling of being full even with a little amount of food. It didn’t work. The man developed new complications. His intestines were close to bursting with continuous food intake. What’s the problem? The problem is not with food. The problem is not with his small intestines. The real problem is with his heart — his inordinate desire for food. Even if all of his intestines are taken away, the problem will remain unless he corrects his attitude.

Similarly, the problem of STDs and HIV is not about sex. It is not an issue of disease control but self-control. It is not a technical problem. It is ultimately a problem of the human heart and it will not be solved apart from correcting the desires of our hearts.

The Condom Files

Last March 19, 2009, the National Review Online reported in its publication the results of the work of Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. In his recent study he announced, “We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”

We should not be surprised at this. In scientific circles, it is openly admitted that condoms are in fact not 100 percent safe. On an average, it is said that there is a 10 to 15 percent inefficacy, since the AIDS viruses are much more ‘filtrating’ (i.e., able to pass through) than the sperm. Google “condom voids” and you will discover that the male sperm is small enough to easily pass through the pores or natural voids of the rubber latex, thus the 10 to 15 percent failure rate as a contraceptive. Condoms have natural microscopic holes, which measure 5 microns (.0002 inch) while the HIV virus measures 0.1 micron (4 millionth of an inch). It’s a no-brainer. Prescribing condoms as a protection for HIV and AIDS is a virtual Russian roulette. Sooner or later, you will have it. It’s only a matter of time. Therefore, even at a “technical” level of efficacy, one should question the scientific seriousness and the consequent professional seriousness of the condom campaign.

Speaking to the National Review Online, Mr. Green added, “The pope is correct, or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. (T)here is… a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates.”

Green added, “I also noticed that the pope said ‘monogamy’ was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than ‘abstinence.’ The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates.”

Missing the Mark

In ancient Greece, archery is a sport of excellence, a measure of greatness. Failing to hit the bullseye is considered a great failure. They have a term for it — hamartia, i.e., missing the mark. It’s no coincidence the Greek word for sin is likewise hamartia. Sin, or moral failure, is not only about breaking a moral law. It is missing the mark of human excellence, of true manhood (humanity).

More than the threat of HIV and AIDS, the Church looks at the issue as a question of growing in authentic love and in our humanity as sexual persons. With or without the threat of HIV/AIDS and STDs, the Church has always called and will call for an education in chastity, premarital abstinence and marital fidelity, which are authentic expressions of human sexuality. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gave out the invitation to experience the joy and thrill of being chaste. Secular mentality proposes an attitude of always being on a chase.

Look at a recent TV ad showing in local television. A sexy woman passes by, looks seductively at a man of her fancy, and the man begins to run after her. Whether the man or the woman is committed to one another or to another one is not important. The point of the TV ad is best described by the sheepish smile and boast of the male lead, “Ang tunay na lalaki, proteksyon bago umaksyon.” It’s a “bullish” portrayal of manhood. If I feel like charging, I will, for as long as I have protection. No wonder our relationships leave us frustrated, spent, dead.

Jason Evert, a husband, father, chastity speaker and Theology of the Body enthusiast couldn’t have said it more eloquently, “A real man is not someone who will conquer a woman for the sake of his desires. A real man is someone who will conquer his desires for the sake of a woman.”

What kind of manhood does condom distribution promote? Your answer is as good as mine.

The Thrill of the Chaste

I end with another fable. An eagle egg was accidentally mixed with chicken eggs. After a period of time, the eagle egg hatched and soon the eaglet found itself growing in the company of chickens. All the while, he thought he was a chicken, a ground creature. Until one day, he saw an eagle soaring up in the heavens. Something in him was stirred. He found himself constantly looking up in the heavens, waiting for the eagle to soar by. The image of the soaring eagle seemed to awaken a deep unconscious desire in his heart. Until one day, while admiring the flying eagle, he just found himself flapping his wings, lifting himself up in the air, and soaring with the eagle he daily admired. It was then that he realized he was not a chicken. He was an eagle destined to soar up in the heavens.

It took the image of a soaring eagle to reveal to him his genuine identity.

Our culture wants us to believe that we are nothing but chickens — ground creatures. I hear it often. Someone will say, “Father, palay na ang lumalapit sa manok.² Ano pa ang gagawin ko? (Father, if it’s the grain that approaches the chicken, what will I do?)” I always answer back, “Kung manok ang tingin mo sarili mo, eh di tukain mo (If you think of yourself as a chicken, then go peck the grain).”

The first line of the morality section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1691) richly says it, “Christians, recognize your dignity.” The Church position on the condom question is more than a question of technical efficacy (although even by technical efficacy, the Church position is unarguably the best solution). It is a question of educating and inviting us to discover the joy of genuine love, the beauty of genuine human sexuality and our nobility as human persons.

Is AIDS really an untouchable fastball? Is the red cape really invincible? Maybe we’re just blindfolded and simply “bullish” in our approach. In any case, we are missing the mark. How do we solve the condom conundrum? I propose we take our blindfold, get wise, stop our “bullish” behavior and start aiming at the real mark. Otherwise, like a mindless bull we will forever be on a chase, missing out on the real thrill of the chaste.

----------------------------------

¹ Fr. Joel O. Jason is also the author of the book “Free Love, True Love: Rediscovering Love and Intimacy in John Paul II’s Theology of the Body” published by Shepherd’s Voice Publications and available at major bookstores

nationwide. The Theology of the Body is the late John Paul II’s teaching on the beautiful and truly liberating teaching of the Bible on the meaning of human love and sexuality. The book is now on its third printing.

² A Filipino idiomatic expression for a woman who makes the first move to attract a man

Are You A Real Man?

(By Bo Sanchez)
http://bosanchez.ph/are-you-a-real-man/

The crisis of the world today is a crisis for real manhood.

My eldest boy Bene is turning 7 this month and he’s thrilled. One reason: I’m making him a special manhood “Ritual of Passage” for his 7th birthday. I told him it’s the first of a three-part series: The first at age 7, the second at age 14, and the third at age 21. I copied this pattern from the knighthood culture, where a boy becomes a “Page” at age 7, a “Squire” at age 14, and a “Knight” at age 21—and since my son loved reading about knights, he’s giddy with excitement. I’ve learned that ancient and medieval cultures always had great manhood “Rituals of Passage”. The Jews have the Bar Mitzvah. Australian Aboriginal Tribes had circumcision. African Tribes sent their boys into the wilderness—alone.

But prior to these ceremonies, Dads usually passed on their craft to their son. That meant countless hours teaching their boys how to hunt boar, or saw wood, or shape iron, or throw a spear. Fathers also taught their sons how to endure difficulty and pain so they could fight for what they loved.

But once they got initiated in these rituals, the boys knew without a doubt that they were no longer boys, but men. They took the leap—from irresponsibility to responsibility, from being carefree to being disciplined, from ignorance to wisdom, from being a follower to being a leader.

Today, we no longer have these “Rituals of Passage”. Why? Because we don’t know what a real man is anymore.

Some guys think they can prove their manhood by getting drunk or picking a fight.

Manhood, my foot. Drunks are Sissies with a capital S. And hot-headed bullies are really disguised kids still throwing temper tantrums.

Real men have so much respect for themselves, they prize their self-control.

Because we don’t know what real manhood is, many boys, for most of their teen-age life, lose their way. For many years, they get stuck in limbo. They don’t know who they are or where they should go.

As Christian Dads, we need to teach what real manhood is to our sons and also recreate “Rituals of Passage” for them today.

For example, before my son’s “Page” ceremony on his 7th birthday, I’ll have 3 weekly father-and-son sessions with him. I’ll bring him out to his favorite restaurant (Thank God it’s inexpensive Jollibee), and while he eats his burger steak with mushroom sauce, I’ll discuss with him the 3 virtues necessary for a Page: Responsibility, Obedience, and Service—one virtue per weekly date. I’ll read stories, answer his questions, and give examples.

And here’s the hard part: I’ll give him specific projects to do connected to these virtues. It could mean doing things he never did before—like walking to Lolo’s house on his own to visit and serve him.

And on his birthday itself, we’ll have his “Page” ceremony. All the men in the family (his Lolo, Uncles, etc.) will gather around him. We’ll ask Bene to offer a symbol of his being a “Page for the Lord”—which would be a pair of brown sandals. We then bless him, sing a song, and invite the women of the family to join us for a festive meal together.

I’m going to be very blunt here.

Do you know why the world is in crisis today?

I’ll tell you why: Because men don’t know how to become real men.

Because fathers don’t train their sons how to live life.

Because fathers don’t raise their sons in the ways of the Lord.

Because fathers don’t mentor their sons to take responsibility.

Because fathers don’t teach their sons how to relate to women.

Because fathers don’t love and protect their wives.

Because fathers don’t lead their families towards a vision.

They’re cowards. They’re macho on the outside but flakes on the inside. They’re irresponsible. They’re passive. They’re parasitic jello.

Fathers don’t really “father” their kids on a daily basis. They leave childrearing to the mothers. They have no vision for their families.

Make no mistake about it. Families are in crisis today because we lack godly husbands and godly fathers.

The crisis of the world today is a crisis for manhood.

Let me give you this set of facts you may not know:

· Men commit 90% of major crimes.

· Men commit 100% of all rapes.

· Men commit 95% of all thefts.

· Men commit 91% of all offences against the family.

· Men commit 94% of all drunk drivers.

In one study, they asked fathers how much time they spent with their kids.

They were very honest and apologized that because of their busy schedule, they could only spend 15 minutes a day with their kids. After the interview, these same fathers were equipped with audio recorders—and for the next few days—the behavioural scientists measured the actual time they spent with their children. Average time a father spends with kids? 45 seconds a day.

No joke.

By the way, raising your children isn’t just about spending time with them. A father could be spending time with his children watching TV. Hearts don’t engage when you sit passively in front of the idiot box.

Here are the three things fathers need to do with their kids.

First, you bond with them.
Play with them. Laugh with them. Do things they enjoy doing. Because my sons are small, I play their games, no matter how silly they seem to me. “Waste” your time with them, doing what you may consider totally unproductive. In reality, playing with your kids is the most productive thing you can ever do as a human being.

Second, you teach values.
Yes guys, you actually open your lips. Not classroom lectures, mind you. But you tell stories. Exciting, inspiring stories. Don’t leave this to Mom. Men, pick good books and read stories to your sons. Stories of courage. Stories of service. Stories of heroism. Stories about God.

Third, you pray together.
That’s right, Dads. Don’t let Mom be the priestess at home. You’re the priest of the family, so act like one. On Judgment Day, God won’t first ask the mother, “Did you bring your family closer to Me?” He’ll ask this important question to Dad first. Fathers, let your children watch you pray and see your heart for the Lord.

How can you do all these three assignments if you don’t spend at least a weekly date with each of your kids?

Fatherhood isn’t for wimps. It’s requires men of steel. It requires rocklike warriors totally committed to winning the battle for the hearts of their children.

Will you be a real man?