My marriage is not what saints are made of. I concluded this after reading Pope John Paul II’s homily on the occasion of the first-ever beatification of a married couple, Luigi and Maria Beltrame Quattrocchi. Maria and Luigi, an Italian couple who lived in early to mid-20th century, led holy lives. They attended daily Mass, prayed a nightly rosary and raised two priests, a consecrated lay woman and a nun. They devoted their lives to various Catholic organizations. Because the cause for canonization treated the two together, a single miracle attributed to their intercession cleared the way for beatification in October 2001. The prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints considered them together because of their experience of sanctity, lived together so intimately. In other words, their marriage made it impossible to separate them.
The part that remains off the record is that, after giving birth to their children, Maria and Luigi stopped having sex.
On a typical evening at our house, one might observe a table strewn with algebra homework; a basket of unfolded laundry; a frantic search for an important permission slip that is due the next morning (or else); a very full dish rack; the sounds of a phone, a stereo, a shower, cello practice, two dogs who want to play and perhaps a sisterly squabble; and two parents who, though tired, entertain at least a random thought about having sex. Where is the holy in all of that?
May I gently suggest: everywhere?
I don’t mean to be snide about the shining example of the Blessed Beltrames. Their faith and accomplishments are surely to be emulated. As the pope noted, they kept the lamp of faith burning. The pope beatified them on the 20th anniversary of the apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, a document that highlights the centrality of marriage and the mission of the family. The Beltrames as a married couple are a milestone along the path of the communion of saints.
But if marriage is a source of sacramental grace, why are we as a church so uncomfortable about sex?
When two people who chose celibacy as a way of becoming closer to God are beatified as a married couple, the message to us married people is mixed. Because we are the ones who are supposed to be having sex! We are allowed and encouraged to have sex. We are the celebration of sex. All of those shoes and backpacks in a pile in my front hall belong to the embodiments of sex. I’m taking a Catholic stand when I say that sex is good.
Of course I am not talking about casual, sporting, movie sex. I’m talking about married sex: user-friendly, loving, unitive, procreativeand also, to be honest, hot, satisfying and the most fun of all earthly pleasures. Married sex may not always be glamorous and candle-lit. But intercourse is the closest one can be to another human being. It is a bond, a sharing, a trust, a deeply intimate human encounter. It is no wonder that the relationship of Christ to the church is modeled on that of a groom and bride: we are to be that connected.
The pope sees the Beltrames as confirmation that the path of holiness lived together as a couple is possible, beautiful, extraordinarily fruitful, and fundamental for the good of the family, the church and society. As my children say: totally. We married people are on the path of holiness as surely as anyone else who is following the call of a vocation. While I respect the choice the Beltrames made on their journey to God, I do not believe post-children celibacy is necessary for a marriage to become holier. God can also be in the tangled sheets and tangy sweat on skin.
Is this shocking? It should not be. We are designed for this perfect fit. For biblical proof, I offer the glowing embers from the Song of Songs.
Says the bride:
Awake, north wind, and come,
south wind;
blow upon my garden that its
perfumes may pour forth,
that my beloved may come to his
garden and enjoy its rare fruits. (4:16)
Says the bridegroom:
May I find your breasts like
clusters of grapes on the vine, the
scent of your breath like apricots,
and your whispers like spiced
wine flowing smoothly to we
come my caresses, gliding
down through lips and teeth. (7:8-9)
The bride and bridegroom sing a delicious, teasing ode to sex, full of juicy and physical imagery, with which any happily married couple would agree. Sex is that good, and we thank God for this gift. Too often we Catholics treat sex as an impediment to the mission of marriage rather than a glorious manifestation and integral piece of that mission. We view sex as a necessary evil, prone to abuse and scandal, rather than a transcendent joy.
The Beltrames bore a sadness of which I must make note: they were never grandparents. All four of their children chose lives of celibacy. While I encourage my four daughters in vocational discernment, I’m afraid that if they all someday choose childlessness, I will mourn my unborn grandchildren. My father often watches my children at play and then says to me, It’s what makes the world go round. I never tire of hearing him say that: the continuing generations not only spin the globe; they are a gift from heaven too. Perhaps the Beltrames’ example of celibacy contributed to their children’s choices.
I have to hope that when a husband and wife demonstrate physical affection, that too is a positive example of divine intimacy to their children. I must credit my wise and learned friend, Dr. Greer Gordon, with the reflection that healthy examples of sexuality in the context of marriage are essential to form sexually healthy future adults, which is a painfully lively concern for Catholics right now. Dr. Gordon, speaking at the 2002 Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, challenged married theologians to write about their sacrament and vocation, about what it means to be married and to be in relationship with God. While I claim no theological credentials, I offer this beginning advice: the sublime Song of Songs needs to be lived in the rush and routine of the everyday.
In our house on a typical night, one may not find a rosary in use. But there are bedtime prayers and blessings, hugs and kisses, a spirit of love, the quiet world turning and maybe even the lovemaking of two searching, aging, journeying, married souls. In our house can be found the reach for what is holyeven though there are no resident saints.
Editor's note: This article won the Catholic Press Association second place award for best essay.
I pray the "church" will listen to your lived reflections on the holiness of an ordinary marriage.
Thanks for writing, and thanks to AMERICA for publishing what you wrote.
Here is further evidence of the mixed message: The Liturgy of the Hours for Friday of the twenty-fourth week in ordinary time quotes Ezekiel 16. Quoted in full, this passage provides vivid, even graphic, sexual imagery to demonstrate God's love for Jerusalem. The text, however, omits the second half of verse 7 (shown in parenthesis). "Then I passed by and saw you weltering in your blood. I said to you: Live in your blood and grow like a plant in the field. You grew and developed and came to the age of puberty; (your breasts had formed, your hair had grown, but you were still stark naked). Again I passed by and saw that you were now old enough for love. So I spread the corner of by cloak over you to cover your nakedness; I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you: you became mine, says the Lord God." (Ezekiel 16:5-9).
This omission provides a clue to the clerical culture. The answer to Valerie Schultz?s question of "why are we as a church so uncomfortable about sex?" lies in this culture. The publishers of liturgy of the hours, part of this culture, deliberately misquote scripture, obscureing its message about the sacredness of sexuality in marriage. The current scandal of priestly pedophilia and its cover-up by the hierarchy is a visible symptom of that culture. This culture needs to be prophetically challenged and healed. As a remedy, Mrs. Schultz quotes a call for married theologians to write about marriage and its relationship to God. Her article is a good start.
I pray the "church" will listen to your lived reflections on the holiness of an ordinary marriage.
Thanks for writing, and thanks to AMERICA for publishing what you wrote.
Here is further evidence of the mixed message: The Liturgy of the Hours for Friday of the twenty-fourth week in ordinary time quotes Ezekiel 16. Quoted in full, this passage provides vivid, even graphic, sexual imagery to demonstrate God's love for Jerusalem. The text, however, omits the second half of verse 7 (shown in parenthesis). "Then I passed by and saw you weltering in your blood. I said to you: Live in your blood and grow like a plant in the field. You grew and developed and came to the age of puberty; (your breasts had formed, your hair had grown, but you were still stark naked). Again I passed by and saw that you were now old enough for love. So I spread the corner of by cloak over you to cover your nakedness; I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you: you became mine, says the Lord God." (Ezekiel 16:5-9).
This omission provides a clue to the clerical culture. The answer to Valerie Schultz?s question of "why are we as a church so uncomfortable about sex?" lies in this culture. The publishers of liturgy of the hours, part of this culture, deliberately misquote scripture, obscureing its message about the sacredness of sexuality in marriage. The current scandal of priestly pedophilia and its cover-up by the hierarchy is a visible symptom of that culture. This culture needs to be prophetically challenged and healed. As a remedy, Mrs. Schultz quotes a call for married theologians to write about marriage and its relationship to God. Her article is a good start.
Thanks for writing, and thanks to America for publishing what you wrote.
Here is further evidence of the mixed message: The Liturgy of the Hours for Friday of the 24th Week in Ordinary Time quotes Ezekiel 16, which provides vivid, even graphic, sexual imagery to demonstrate God’s love for Jerusalem. The text, however, omits the second half of verse seven (in italics): “Then I passed by and saw you weltering in your blood. I said to you: Live in your blood and grow like a plant in the field. You grew and developed and came to the age of puberty; your breasts had formed, your hair had grown, but you were still stark naked. Again I passed by and saw that you were now old enough for love. So I spread the corner of by cloak over you to cover your nakedness; I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you: you became mine, says the Lord God” (Ez. 16:5-9).
This omission provides a clue to clerical culture. The answer to Valerie Schultz’s question, “Why are we as a church so uncomfortable about sex?” lies in this culture. Those who prepared the Liturgy of the Hours, part of this culture, deliberately misquote Scripture, obscuring its message about the sacredness of sexuality in marriage. The current scandal of priestly pedophilia and its coverup by the hierarchy is a visible symptom of that culture, which needs to be prophetically challenged and healed. As a remedy, Mrs. Schultz calls for married theologians to write about marriage and its relationship to God. Her article is a good start.
Pope John Paul II had a political agenda. When he canonized the married Quattrocchis, he wanted the world to know that no longer having sex in marriage is saintly, and here is the proof: all four of their children chose chastity for their vocation. God so loved... those who did not have sex. That is not Jn.3:16; that is the pope’s agenda.
Therefore John W. Donohue, S.J., (Of Many Things, 7/1) should understand something and write about it. When he says that “not many married men have been canonized, partly because there have been no lobbyists to promote their causes,” he really means that nobody has put up the money to get them canonized. Of course, if the pope wanted to canonize a married, sexually active couple he would find the money. It is simply not his political agenda. He emphasizes transcendental values to the harm of incarnational ones. (And almost all his money comes from married people! I smell disrespect.)
There was another item in the same issue about vocations by James VanOosting. His thinking is schizophrenic—not the paranoid kind, but simply romantic. One example: Mary had a vocation as mother of God; but professional thinking is needed for economic success, while vocational thinking brings personal fulfillment—so VanOosting distinguishes. He is blind to the fact that mother Mary received economic success first of all by marrying; second, by marrying a carpenter. She was fulfilled by being a mother and a wife.
Our church is clerical and patriarchal. Clericalism is imbedded in America. Thank God the editors printed one article with a normal attitude toward sex.
Our second quibble comes from the last line of the meditation, which seems to imply that the Schultz household has no resident saints. We beg to differ, and suggest she look more carefully in her photo album, where we are sure she will find saints aplenty.
When I was editor of The Brooklyn Tablet (1968-85), we believed that when the Catholic press doesn’t talk about what the Catholic people are talking about, it becomes irrelevant. Why contribute to a bishop’s appeal to support a journal that is presented under false pretenses as a “newspaper” in the common understanding of the word?
Readers are comfortable with a periodical that challenges them, if sometimes it also courageously speaks for them. America has powerfully articulated the concern that the bishops are not being held responsible. I am envious of the gentleness with which Camille D’Arienzo, R.S.M., (“An Echo of Bagpipes,” 7/29) and Valerie Schultz (“God in the Tangled Sheets,” 7/1) disagree with official statements.
Sister Camille’s question about zero tolerance (“100 percent intolerance”?) echoes in my soul: “Does the goodness, the generous self-sacrifice of the intervening years count for nothing?” Ms. Schultz discusses the confusing canonization of a celibate couple as a model for Christian marriage. Perhaps they were forgiven for the indiscretions that produced four children, if they and the kids promised to avoid them in the future.
The Second Vatican Council said laypeople have the right and sometimes the duty to speak up. The late Bishop Francis Mugavero of Brooklyn recommended the letters column of The Tablet as one appropriate way to do that. I am pleased to note that policy continues in Brooklyn, although not in neighboring dioceses. Amid the calls for more openness, more transparency, more trust, more listening, more dialogue and more accountability, we have more expunction and more censorship, more hugger-muggery and more Fifth Amendment silence. As the columnist Westbrook Pegler said, “No one ever proved he was innocent by changing the subject.”
At a time when the media is full of negative stories about priests, it was good to read about the truly good priests who strive to follow Christ and show him to the world, for he is our only hope.
Valerie Schultz’s article needed to be written and, I would add, needs to be heralded. The church should celebrate marriages and affirm couples living this path with Christ on the road to heaven. The church seems to take one step forward and two steps backward. It beatifies a married couple—but one that discontinued their sex lives. The world today needs family. We preach that all the time, but sometimes our words resonate as if they have been spoken in a vacuum.
1. According to the Church, artifical birth control is morally wrong and intrinsically evil. Every act of marital intercourse must be open to the procreation of life. It does not matter if you have 2 children or 5, and wish not to have further children. It is a mortal sin. Yet an overwhelming majority of sexually active Catholic couples take the pill and receive holy communion. A mortal sin and sacriledge? Try getting an answer from your local priest and bishop on that question. If you do, you will find a different answer from other priests and bishops. Have you ever heard the subject of sin, confession and abolution regarding artifical birth control from the Pulpit? From a Catholic Magazine or Newspaper? Deliberate silence and the allowance of two different teachings on this subject is morally wrong and irresponsible. Yet, no one will hold the Church accountable. The Beltrame example seems to support the Church's teachings on this subject. The Church tells us that the mastery and requirement of abstinence, during periods of fertility, is obviously necessary for the full expression of marital love. Most people find this reasoning absurb as a rationale for natural versus artifical birth control, disguised as a basis for marital love and sex. The Beltrame's went further and remained celibate. God bless them.
2. The Catholic Church tells us Mary was a perpetual virgin and that Jesus's brothers and sisters, as the New Testament called them, were really Joseph's children from a prior marriage. This Beltrame example of a blessed married couple seems to follow from Mary's perpetual virginity and Joseph's celibacy after the birth of Jesus. Abstinence seems to be the ultimate form of love of God in marriage. Sex is God's gift to all married couples. You don't have to deny yourself this gift to be a saint. Bravo to Valerie Schlutz for pointing that out.
If celibates are chaste, are married people then unchaste?
If celibates make a great sacrifice, do married people not make a sacrifice living day to day on the front lines of life bringing children into the world, supporting them and trying to help them to grow up to be good people?
Sex is the right and privilege of every married couple who have taken the vows and are living them out - as much as they want, whenever they want, in whatever way they want. The Church, including the beloved JPII, blunders spectacularly when it tries to paint married sexual love as something less than celibacy. No wonder no one takes the Church seriously on matters related to the issue.
Re: #3 Herbert Ely's comment:
"Valerie Schultz (God in the Tangled Sheets, July 1-8) writes about the canonization of the married couple Luigi and Maria Beltrame Quattorocihchi. The Vatican, she suggests gives a mixed message because the Beltrames practiced celibacy after the birth of their last child."
I don't think the Beltrames practiced celibacy. Maybe they lived a life of continency together. There's celibacy, chastity,continency ...I'm sure I'm missing a couple more.
I Just finished reading "The Primacy of Love" by August Adam; because I read recently that Pope Benedict stated that it had a great influence on him when he was young. Mr. Adam discusses sex and morality and chastity in the book. He's all for sex. He was dismayed that the world became so prudent that the word "immorality" (and maybe "chastity") refers only to sins against the 6th Commandment. Sins against any of the 10 may be immoral.
I may be putting to fine a point on it, but, "celibacy" is not a virtue. Chastity is a virtue. One tries to grow in the virtue.
Mrs. Schultz's essay makes the right point. What was it about the Beltrames' marriage that deserves sainthood? Were they just very pious as a couple?
They chose to live a continent life; they did not chose a chaste life, we're all called to live chastly; they did not promise to be celibate.
They are not a model for Catholics, married or discerning marriage.
Or, am I missing something?
Don't get me wrong, I'd never demand that anyone live life like Fred and Wilma, or whatever the heck those two celibate Italian saints are called. I'd just beg them to save the sultry details for Cosmo, or maybe Facebook status updates.
"...it is necessary to insist that sexual intercourse must not serve merely as a means of allowing sexual excitement to reach its climax in one of the partners, i.e. the man alone, but that climax must be reached in harmony, not at the expense of one partner, but with both partners fully involved." (Love and Responsibility)
Does this sound like a man who was against married couples enjoying sex? Despite the rather technical tone this quote, it is one of many that reveals that JPII knew what sex is about and that he wanted everyone to see it as it really is.
The essay makes the important point that sex within marriage is holy. Unfortunately it does so by playing to those wishing to criticize the late pope and the Church. If the editors of America wish to continually make this point they should do so giving full and accurate consideration to JPII's writings.
It is irresponsible for a Catholic magazine to continually misrepresent JPII and the teachings of the Church regarding sexuality.
Accordingly, sex is a commandment and expectation of God. Ms. Schultz shows us how that can be lived honoring an image of God.