Since we didn't complete the discussion of the family last week -and, in particular, didn't really get on to discuss what I suppose is probably a key worry about Catholic social teaching: that it imposes a particular shape on the family (one man, one woman in a lifetime exclusive commitment for the raising of children)- we'll focus on that this week. We can then postpone week 4 until 5, and combine weeks 5 and 6 to form a discussion of politics and the role of the Church. This gives us:
Week 4) The family (continued).
Week 5) The social nature of the human person: civil society and the role of associations intermediate between family and State.
Week 6) The social nature of the human person: politics, the State and the role of the Church.
Key issues it might be worth thinking about before Wednesday:
a) What follows ethically from biology and our physiology? It takes a male/female couple to produce a new individual by way of sexual intercourse: does this biological fact have any implications for what follows ethically (particularly thinking about the shape of the family)?
b) A related question: women and men are certainly physically sexually dimorphic (ie we are built differently!). Given that physical complementarity (ie the need for both to come together to produce offspring), what about psychological (or even ethical) complementarity? (Do we need each other in deeper ways?)
c) Are families just about love? (What's important is that the members of a family love each other rather than that they are are certain types of persons.)
It might be worth reading this article by Rod Dreher before Wednesday (link here). The questions that it prompts me to ask would include:
i) Given that we have to see sex as part of a greater (theological) whole, are there elements of Christian teaching that suggest a traditional emphasis on procreation and sexual difference actually fits badly into this greater whole?
ii) Does Catholic teaching in this area depend on (revealed) theological principles rather than natural law? (Which would suggest that the Christian worldview on sex would not be accepted by a culture which did not also share those revealed principles.)
Look forward to seeing you on Wednesday!
I have now commented!
ReplyDeleteI am the lesser half of the married couple that attends. We have three young kids and get a couple of hours off a week so attend these meetings.
Interesting reflection I have had about the married v celibate discussion is in those (I believe me) who are called towards the permanent diaconate. We would sit half way in between. I am married but would not be able to remarry if widowed. Wonder what people would class that sort of situation in relation to Wednesday's meeting
Thinking about the married/celibate and supernatural/natural ends distinctions...I was reminded of the success of Fr Christopher Jamison's TV series a few years ago about life in a monastery (and follow-up on the benefits on Silence). Reminded me that monks and nun though celibate have to live in community with each other (and put up with each other as in a family!) and that they have useful rules such as the rule of St Benedict to help them do this and which are sometimes quite helpful in family life! Also the series on Silence brought out the fact that even in modern society there is a desire for the benefits of contemplation and to try to understand its association with 'a supernatural end' even if there is a general reluctance to embrace lifelong celibacy. Not sure how to answer Eddie's point - except to say that the permanent diaconate seems to be the best of all possible worlds!
ReplyDeleteA point I've just been reminded of which applies most obviously to Eddie's case but to all married people: everyone is called to celibacy for at least part of our lives. (In youth, illness, becoming a widow/widower etc.) Those periods do offer the possibility of a different focus in our lives rather than just being irritating pauses in our married lives.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, the gulf between forced celibacy and chosen celibacy makes for interesting reflection. One is chosen and the other is given. Does that in itself give a different experience or is the end result the same?
ReplyDeleteMore over, why is celibacy always where the focus ends up in these sorts of discussions? Perhaps it is the least natural part of natural law that gets people interested? Just a thought.