|
|
|
|
||
| Bishop Speaks | ||
|
||
| September 13, 2007 Edition | ||
|
||
<< Back to regular Bishop Speaks page
|
 |
|
|
|
|
||||
Dear friends,
Please forgive me if I run the risk of sounding like a "broken record" or like one who has a "one track mind." It is not at all my intention to keep raising this topic, but current events will not allow me, it seems, to get away from it.
The latest about the cultural discussion in our country about marriage takes the form of an initiative in California, supported by the governor, to remove the word "marriage" from the Constitution.
I have pointed out many times that monkeying around with language usually conceals something which we, as reasonable human beings and faithful followers of Jesus Christ, would not want to support.
We have noticed many times how the word "abortion" was eliminated so that the more deceptive terminology "pro-choice" could be used, and I have observed repeatedly that, so often, politicians omit the word "embryonic" from the expression "embryonic stem cell research" so that, just as the baby who loses his or her life is forgotten in the discussion about abortion, so too the human being, the embryo who loses his or her life in embryonic stem cell research, is also forgotten.
It seems to me now that the first move has been made so that the expression "marriage," might be forgotten. The best way to promote a societal redefinition of "marriage" would be to eliminate the term. Using the term "civil union" to describe some sort of partnership is not really helpful, because marriage itself is a civil union and a civil contract, and that terminology applied to some partnership other than the partnership of husband and wife, for life, open to children is, at best, extremely misleading.
The removal of the word "marriage" from Constitutional vocabulary would clearly complete the deconstructing of this term. I bring this up because it is not unheard of that trends which develop in California sometimes are reflected in Madison or vice versa.
Again I'm sorry to raise this issue once more, but I'm not really the one raising it. It is Governor Schwarzenegger's initiative, but I cannot lie down and roll over, as it were.
It was while I was in the governor's State of California a few weeks ago that I came across a text that I had read as a senior in high school, in Latin from Virgil's Aeneid, with regard to Dido's illicit sexual encounter with Aeneas in the cave - that well known episode in Book IV (Book IV lines 166-172). Of course, the poet Virgil was a pagan writing roughly between the years 27 and 19 BC. The one who is the True Light certainly had not yet come into the world. But, on the basis of reason alone, Virgil comments on the illicit affair of Dido and Aeneas in the cave as follows:
"That day was the first day of death, that first the cause of woe. For no more is Dido swayed by fair show or fair fame, no more does she dream of a secret love: she calls it marriage and with that name veils her sin!"
The natural law, the law of reason, regarding the definition of marriage was very clear in the mind of this pagan poet, Virgil, roughly 20 years before "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." How really shocking it is that in our own day and age we have lost a conviction of reason that was so clear to a pagan poet so long ago. Virgil thought that Dido's illicit encounter with Aeneas in the cave was an offense against the truth about marriage.
It amazes me how some, even among those who call themselves followers of the Word made flesh, are open to the redefinition of marriage or even to its elimination as a concept from constitutional and legal vocabulary.
It is very clear that, in the Diocese of Madison and in the State of Wisconsin, this legal matter has not been finally determined, nor was I, nor will I ever be intimidated by some of the nastiness which is directed at me - even by brother and sister Catholics - when I raise this issue as I must. Pope Benedict has made it clear that bishops must regularly bring the basic convictions of the natural law to the attention of those who are called to follow his teaching, unworthy though the bishop is.
Speaking of Pope Benedict, with God's help I will see him briefly on September 19, as I also seek to consult at the Vatican about my tentative decisions regarding parish planning in light of the "Guided by the Spirit" process.
Please know that you and your loved ones will be very much remembered in my prayers, especially at the holy places in Rome. And I humbly ask the support of your prayers for health, safety in travel, and most importantly, deeper faith, through the experience of this journey to which the Lord calls me at this particular time.
Thank you very much for reading this and God bless each one of you.
Praised be Jesus Christ!