What’s Love Got to Do with It?

 

One of the most difficult aspects of human existence to understand is the nature of love. We are born out of love and called to return to love and yet because we “see through a glass darkly” it is very difficult to discover what constitutes authentic love. Nearly all human art, poetry, and literature is an attempt to treat love in some form. Of all the virtues, it is the only one that will remain beyond human time. It is the single most important consideration of human existence. God is love. But still, the public talk of love has been diverted and now means nothing even remotely similar to what Holy Mother Church teaches us about love.

One of the most often cited reasons to attempt to justify an illicit redefinition of marriage is love. It goes like this: “people should be able to marry whom they love.” This is not only a misuse of the word love, but a grave misunderstanding of the nature of marriage and a categorical falsehood. Even proponents of “same sex marriage” set limits on the pool of possible marriage arrangements based solely on the claim of “love.” For an example, a five year old girl cannot marry her grandmother. As Catholics, we ought to turn to Holy Scripture to begin to understand the nature of love for the Bible is the book that explains love in the most complete terms.

In Mathew 22:36 we pick up a conversation between Jesus and a Pharisee lawyer who asks Jesus a question to try to trick Him. He asks: “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” So our primary concern with love is to love God first and foremost and secondarily, to love our neighbor in all proper respects. It is not readily apparent that these two commands not only embody the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, but properly understood, draw our hearts and minds to the fact that when it comes to love there is a public aspect of justice that calls us to consider God first and our communities second as we will to act in love.

self-emptying loveThere is a simple definition of love that has the potential to eliminate confusion, but the explanation following it would have to be quite extensive to make things crystal clear. Love is willing the good of the other. When it comes to the nature of married love it is best to follow up on St. Paul’s exhortation to men that they “love their wives as Jesus loves the Church.” This captures the embodiment of the true nature of married love. Christ emptied Himself completely for the sake of love. He loves us so completely that he humbled Himself to become one of us, and further willingly gave Himself over to be crucified for our sakes that we might end in heaven. This most profound self-emptying is the model of authentic love we are all called to cultivate for our spouses. It is self-donation in its highest possible form. It is the embodiment of divine love and fulfills Christ’s twin commandments.

St. Paul elucidates the nature of love in Corinthians 13:4-7 when he explains “Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” These truths about the real nature of love hardly resonate in the world today and especially not concerning the public debates about the nature of marriage. Opponents of authentic marriage often cite love, but never in the way understood by the Church.

When the world asks us to accept that two same-sex people might be joined in matrimony for the sake of love, they mean no such thing as explained by Christ Himself and St. Paul. There is no possibility of self-donation or self-emptying where there is no complementarity. It cannot be loving to participate in the marital act, or any other sex act outside the bonds of marriage. Marriage is a natural and divine institution made by and gifted to us by God to have us participate in the twin commandments and the miraculous process of procreation. Self-emptying and self-donation can only take place between two eligible complementary souls open to the possibility of life and sacramental unity as one flesh by sacramental grace within the bounds of Holy Matrimony. Any sexual liaison outside of the bonds of marriage is not an act of self-donating love but an act of objectification.

256px-El_Greco_-_Jesús_con_la_Cruz_a_cuestasWhat’s love got to do with all the modern debates on the nature of marriage? When it comes to the opinion of the world and the true nature of love expressed by Christ, it has nothing to do with it. When it comes to Holy Mother Church, it has everything to do with it. Though it has become the law of the land to sanction what is impermissible in the eyes of God, we must remember that it is an act of charity to tell our brethren the Gospel truth about the nature of love and the nature of Marriage. To do otherwise is not willing the good of the other, but “going with the flow” for the sake of false peace. Let us strive as Christ would command us to empty ourselves so that we may speak and live out Christ’s truth as we live out the twin commandments to love God and our neighbor.

Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg

Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg

Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg is a Catholic convert, husband and father. He is a Catholic writer and speaker on matters of Faith, culture, and education. He teaches, theology, philosophy and Church history at Holy Spirit Prep in Atlanta. Steven is a member of the Teacher Advisory Board and writer of curriculum at the Sophia Institute for Teachers and contributes regularly to several Catholic websites. He is a contributor to the Integrated Catholic Life, Crisis Magazine, The Civilized Reader, The Standard Bearers, The Imaginative Conservative and Catholic Exchange.

Leave a Replay

22 thoughts on “What’s Love Got to Do with It?”

  1. Any sexual liaison outside of the bonds of marriage is not an act of self-donating love but an act of objectification.

    This is a gross false assumption based om an ultra subjective viewpoint.

    1. Please explain James? In Catholic Theology it is clearly understood that to commit to a sexual act outside of the bond of marriage is not self-emptying, it is self-interested, it is not about self-donating, but about self-gratifying- demonstrate a case where this is not true. I suspect your suspicion that the assertion in the article is a “gross false assumption based om an ultra subjective viewpoint” is itself a “gross false assumption based om an ultra subjective viewpoint.” Are you claiming that to commit a sexual act outside of marriage is morally licit?

      1. It is not clearly understood between two consenting adults who love each other. Two self interested (as you put it) people may equal
        one totally invested relationship no less so than those who marry.
        It is morally neutral (Catholic doctrine withstanding) based on the intentions of the two consenting adults. The love a couple shows each other whether married or not remains to be tested in the arena of life. Marriage, Catholic or not, does not guarantee success. If a relationship is not “licit” the consequences and entanglement that are associated with it will be “ Sufficient for a day is its own evil. Matthew 6:34

      2. I am not sure exactly what you are talking about James, but it is by no means Catholic Teaching on sexual morality, nor is it Biblical that two adults are free to engage in sexual congress by virtue of mutual consent, that is the morality of the sexual revolution a thing wholly opposed by Holy Mother Church. There is no moral neutrality to any sex act committed by a human person. You may posit that any love a couple shows one another is to be tested in the arena of life, but that is an irrelevant consideration concerning the Church’s stance on sexual morality and the Theology of the Body- The success of a relationship is also irrelevant concerning Church teaching. Your Bible quote seems to support the arguments I put forth here more than yours. I am still not sure what you are getting at. I hope you are not trying to express the teaching of the Catholic Church because according to Her two adults are not free to do whatever they want sexually.

      3. ” … wholly opposed by Holy Mother Church. ”

        But of course, Steven. I was positing that it is less condemned than in yesteryear due to the moderating effects of the second condition for sin, as I said in my opening statement. Francis’ pastoral mission re:cohabitation is a challenge as fornication is much less serious a
        sin than breaking that 6th and 9th commandments. Thus, the points
        I was making have credibility on a theological plane.

      4. Fair enough James, thank you for clarifying your point. I must admit though I still don’t see how the points I wrote about constitute a “gross false assumption based om an ultra subjective viewpoint.”

      5. It had to do with the word objectification. Two persons who would
        engage in intimacy should be presumed to be in love, as far as
        imperfect Eros allows for all couples either married or not.

      6. The presumption of love does not in any way mitigate the moral culpability of one who commits sexual acts outside of the marital bond. This is not a subjective opinion but the teaching of Holy Mother Church as the expression of the absolute and objective Truth revealed by Christ. The woman caught in adultry was told to “go and sin no more.” Imperfect eros allows of no sexual license if one wants to remain inside the boundaries of the moral law. You are just going to have to come out and say it James, either you are in accord with Church Teaching or you are not, but please don’t say that this position is subjective in any way because it is not. Church teaching does not allow for sexual activity outside of marriage.

      7. Yes of course I am, but I may not be the only one- you object to my use of the word “objectification” ok, it means that when people commit sexual acts outside of marriage they are basically using one another. The reason is because one cannot properly love another and lead them into sin. There is nothing subjective about this truth.

        P.S. Sorry about the confusion James, my impression is that you are sincere and of good faith, it is just as you say, I am hard of reading.

      8. Let’s take the parable of the two sons – one said ‘yes’ but did not the
        other said ‘no’ but changed his mind. Now, let’s say you have two : Catholic couples, one pair is cohabiting the other licitly married in the
        church. After many years the licit couple get divorced while the other
        remain together and eventually get married in the church. Which
        couple was left holding the bag with sin ?

      9. both, of course. The sin has nothing to do whatsoever with the appearances of success or failure- in fact, both are in need of reconciliation. If the couple that ends up getting married in the Church they will have of course gone to reconciliation for their illicit relationship and if the ones who got divorced go to reconciliation and don’t remarry all can be repaired, but this ignores the real question of what constitutes sin concerning sexual morality. What the couple did before getting legitimately married was sinful. The couple who originally got married in the Church were not sinning until the divorce and then it depends on what they do after that. There are no sexual relations outside of marriage that are not sinful.

      10. There are no sexual relations outside of marriage that are not sinful.

        But in the end if the divorced couple fall into cohabitation the sin
        of the divorce was graver than the sin of the cohabiters in the first place which is … poetically odd, as is the fact that wrong turned into
        right and right became wrong. Another observation is the couple
        who cohabited did not presume that they could fulfill the solemn promise of matrimony and so waited while the others presumed
        and found presumptuous. Something to think about, n’est ce pas ?

      11. And one more irony, Steven while I still have the jump on you,
        If the cohabiting couple check out the checkout girl or boy it’s
        no sin at all while the marrieds commit adultery and in the end if the cohabiting couple meet the requirements of the second condition of sin on both counts they would not need to confess it at all..

      12. Actually James, it is a sin to “check out” the checkout boy or girl, to look at another with lust in your heart is a sin whether or not one is married, but I will agree with you if you say “to be attracted to the check out boy or girl is not sin, as long as one does not consent to lustful thoughts on said person.

        You are a good sport James, thanks for hanging in there with me with my hardness of reading, I think I understand you now. Blessings to you!

      13. Tricky …but it is IMPOSSIBLE to be attracted to someone without the hypothalamus translating that observation, however brief, into
        a sexual synapse – so, no sin for the cohabits while the marrieds must fully avert the eyes (think full blown burqa) not to commit adultery.

      14. This isn’t a scientific issue, but a moral one, of course the attraction (which you describe in empirical terms) leads to the temptation in which there is no sin, but it is by the degree to which we give consent to the attraction as we begin to act on it, not the attraction or the temptation itself that constitutes sin. We are all called to chastity, married and cohabit alike, so it is no more licit to “check out” anyone whether or not we are married. But I assume we mean the same thing by “check out” which is not the same thing as to notice beauty or to be attracted to someone, but to indulge in something beyond the initial attraction.

      15. My point is and has been the sin constituted, by degrees, is mortally
        fatal to a married person than single ones. You haven’t given me
        credit for pointing out the relative spiritual safety in these threads.
        Your starting point in all areas is perfection and you know that is not
        a given. When the slide starts the single person has less to fear in
        between mortal and venial than someone under solemn promise.
        You need to recognize this without pontificating. Is that fair ?

      16. James, when it comes to Church Teaching the standard is perfection, Jesus said “be perfect as my Father is perfect.” I don’t know that the sin of acting on attraction by consent is less grave for the couple co-habitating, because they are already giving into grave matter by their cohabitation- so it just might be worse to be shacked up with someone and still lust after others but Jesus said “but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Adultery is grave matter. A single man who is not cohabitating is also forbidden from lusting after a woman. However if you are just trying to make the distinction between mortal and venial consider “the understanding that lustfully looking at a woman, in a manner that is fully willed and desired, and clearly understood to be mortally sinful is mortal sin, while a mere glance at an attractive woman, not willed or fully understood to be sinful by our will or intellect may be venial or not sin at all.

        Mortal sin is such a solemn and grave crime, that to be fully culpable of it is to known it is a grave crime against God and do it willing knowing the consequence of the action. Many men objectively lust after women in a mortally grave manner, but unless the individual’s consent is complete and fully knows that their actions is of a grave nature, the sin probably is venial, until the will is informed of the gravity of the crime, and then wills it regardless of their knowledge of the severity of the crime.”

        The quote is from Fr. Echert and hopefully he spells out our common ground.

    1. Great to hear from you Deacon! Yes things are going well, I am hoping the same for you guys up in FR. I will catch up with you shortly.

      I have taken a couple forays into Strange Notions, this conversation is a joy by comparison. The world has been sorely confused about human sexuality for some time now- and now with empirical science growing unduly in influence, the confusion becomes more intractable.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up for our Newsletter

Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit