If we limit our analysis of the decline of traditional marriage and family life to external symptoms we will fail to remedy the problem.
If we inspect a house that is crumbling and fail to notice the structure is built on sand we will fail to understand we must rebuild the foundation or lose the house. Cultural declines are every bit as practical in nature as a collapsing house:
The effects of the decline of marriage and family life are not theoretical or moralistic, but measurable, practical and serious. The decline of marriage, and with it the rise of children raised out of wedlock, contributes to a host of physical, emotional, social, behavioral, educational and economic disadvantages, and those problems become society’s problems.”
The results are dire—to such results we must add a host of additional negative consequences that accrue when we fail to deliver on our primary purpose: spiritual direction.
If we lack a spiritual perspective—the perspective of a soul stewarding the body—there is little hope for positive change. If we omit the spiritually informed free will from the discussion, we face an uphill battle. If we accept the materialist premise of biological determinism in the debate, change will not come.
Success is only possible in a culture steeped in awareness of the primacy of soul over biology. The presence of such revealed knowledge in our lives provides the only effective foundation for social change.
This premise is recognized, but only partially, by Greydanus.
Building a healthier marital culture begins with the Church. We need better catechesis and formation on marriage—from our bishops and priests, in our schools and religious education, and in pre-Cana programs. Catholics need to understand Church teaching better, not just insofar as it reflects divine revelation, but insofar as it is founded upon natural law. Pastors and religious instructors need to speak courageously about the most intimidating topics: cohabitation, contraception, divorce, remarriage.”
The preceding analysis has merit but the most intimidating topic is not among those listed. That topic—which is intimidating in a world steeped in materialism and biological determinism—is our existence as spiritual beings and not solely biological entities. The idea we are more than the physical body is intimidating and difficult to address; addressing the topic demands more courage than is commonly acknowledged.
Greydanus issues a call to action:
We need catechesis and formation that is explicitly countercultural—that awakens Catholics, and especially engaged couples, to the toxic culture in which we live and move and have our being, and the extent to which we must accept the challenge to live in opposition to the values of the larger culture. Ultimately we want to redeem and transform the culture, but this goal starts with valuing and nurturing a distinctive Catholic and Christian presence within the larger culture.”
What could be more counter cultural in an age of materialism and biological determinism than robust spiritual formation leading to certainty that our essence is spiritual, that we are souls that transcend the life of the body? What could be more counter cultural than awareness that this worldly existence, with all its trials and challenges, is but a pilgrimage leading to the heavenly kingdom?
But we often lose these fundamental truths in our haste to impose morals on the culture. Morals do not arise from biology; they arise from our spiritual nature. If we lack certainty regarding our spiritual nature we will have difficulty accessing those morals. If the discussion is restricted by the boundaries of materialism and focuses entirely on biology we will lose sight of the morality that comes from our spiritual rather than biological nature.
Attempts to control cultural outcomes through imposition of morals alone will fail. Rather we must tap into deep and profound spiritual formation. Only when effective formation is widely available will we be able to fulfill our mission. The disturbing cultural outcomes inventoried in the article by Stephen Greydanus are not the consequence of our rhetorical shortcomings. Rather they are the consequence of a more profound failure on our part, a failure to nurture and support spiritual formation that goes beyond high school catechism to the contemplative study of the great mystics.
When two people gain certain knowledge of their true nature as spiritual beings they come to the marriage sacrament with a natural hunger that rejects substitutes and alterations. When they assume the role of spiritual director for their spouses they find purpose that gives marriage true meaning. They discover the purpose that aligns all creative acts large and small. They discover the purpose that infuses their love of children with spiritual fire.
Greydanus gives a nod to the catechism and formation and notes the losses that stack up when we fall short:
Better catechesis and formation, and a more courageous defense of Church teaching, are not merely moralistic agenda items: Same-sex “marriage” is a legal weapon pointed right at the role and mission of the Church in society. Poor catechesis and formation has directly contributed to the social challenges now faced by the Church to her freedom to operate adoption agencies, hospitals and schools in a manner consistent with her moral teaching. Pastors cannot afford the sort of ‘pastoral sensitivity’ (or timidity, or whatever it is) that avoids difficult topics. If we continue to lose ground in the broader cultural discussion, in the end Caesar will be calling all the shots.”
Unfortunately, in many cases, pastors have already capitulated with timid views of spiritual formation. The administrative tasks with which they are saddled preclude putting effort into badly needed formation programs. Bishops, often out of necessity, have been forced to make do with mild religious education and catechism.
In contrast, when we read the lives of the saints, explore the teachings of church fathers, learn the mysticism of the desert fathers, and discover the struggles and wisdom of the great Catholic mystics we glimpse the depth of spiritual formation possible. Most of that work was accomplished by devoted religious living behind the walls of a monastery or in remote hermitage. The lay population was excluded by pragmatic concerns: raising families, running businesses, and managing community affairs.
However, exclusion of the majority from participation in deeply religious life, the contemplative life, places the Church at risk. The depth of realization once reserved for mystics and saints may be the only solution sufficiently powerful to reverse the trend of current events. Thus, we must bring the mystical out of the monastery. We must bring the fruits of the monastic tradition into our lives. We must follow the example of Francis who sent Brothers experienced in hermitage out into the world, two by two, to evangelize and minister.
This differs from the approach Greydanus proposes:
Looking beyond the Church, we need to keep the discussion focused on the nature of marriage itself. Instead of being defensive when challenged, we should challenge those on the other side to explain what it is they think marriage as a social institution is in the first place, and why the state has or ought to have a bureaucratic apparatus for certifying and decertifying sexual partnerships involving two and only two non-related adult partners.”
Perhaps we should not expect success if our first step is to debate the nature of marriage. Absent the deeper conversation regarding our spiritual nature the marriage discussion may not bear fruit. Rather it is the discussion regarding our spiritual nature that puts marriage in the proper context.
The spiritual conversation is the focus that allows us to draw people to the wisdom of seeing the marriage sacrament as a spiritual journey. It is the larger purpose of our spiritual journey that gives life to the mundane. This does not mean we do not talk about marriage but rather that we shift primary focus to more fundamental concerns. If we do not lay a solid foundation we risk collapse.
Greydanus concludes by arguing opponents of traditional marriage cannot answer the question of the purpose of marriage as a social institution:
Marriage revisionists have no coherent answer to this question. The only answer that makes sense of marriage as a social institution is that society has a proper interest in regulating sexual relations between men and women, founded in human reproduction and the needs of children.”
Appealing to the abstraction “society” may be unconvincing. Though I support the cause Greydanus proposes, I find this last argument wanting. The scope of the argument is limited by society’s perspective on reality and thus is limited to the materialistic premises of biological determinism. Only in-depth spiritual formation can break through such limits. And only when such limits are breached can we have a meaningful conversation.
We must become aware of our spiritual nature and understand our true essence with certainty. When we speak about marriage we must speak to the spiritual commitment a couple makes when they agree to assist each other reach the heavenly kingdom. If we ignore or downplay this component of marriage we are doomed to failure—we bring nothing unique or meaningful to the discussion.
This perspective prompts a different view of creative sexuality and the nature of children. When children are viewed as biological entities to be herded for the benefit of society we lose the true essence of marriage. Only when we view our spouses and our children as spiritual beings in need of assistance and nurturing on their pilgrimage toward unity with Christ do we begin to touch on the truth. If we lose sight of this profound truth we will lose the cultural argument regarding marriage.
The challenge we face is primarily one of revitalizing robust spiritual formation. We must bring the Trappist monastery of Merton to the local parish; make study of the desert fathers and church fathers a weekly parish event. We must send forth Franciscan brothers and sisters to greet people with the Face of a Franciscan, a face that gives the gift of seeing the divine in the other.
Marriage preparation must first and foremost be spiritual formation. When we attempt to impose social views before we inspire and nurture basic spiritual understanding in the hearts of those we engage, we set ourselves up for difficulty. We must strive to bring the mystical to the mundane. Anything less will lead to defeat.
