Exodus 90 and Catholic Lay Ministry's Marriage Problem

 

Note: In this post I focus very heavily on Exodus 90, only briefly mentioning the broader problem. Nevertheless, I hope you'll take my thoughts here as a more general commentary on the state of Catholic lay ministry in general, as much of what I highlight about Exodus 90 can apply to a far broader range of lay ministry for spouses!

___________________________

Today, New Years’ Day 2023, marks the opening date for this year’s Exodus 90. For those who have somehow never heard of the program – quite a feat as Exodus 90 really has been remarkably successful and widely spoken of over the past few years – it is a 90 day Catholic spiritual exercise for men which aims to help them to grow stronger in their faith and religious practice. Described by its creators as well as just about everyone else as “intense,” Exodus 90 is built on the three pillars of prayer, asceticism, and fraternity. It wouldn’t be wrong to describe this as a sort of “super-Lent” which lasts more than twice as long and calls for even more extraordinary and wide-ranging sacrifices, but in truth it’s a lot more than that. In spite of the very much old-school self-denial and sacrifices involved, Exodus 90 really has enjoyed tremendous and growing popularity among both single and married men since it first came on the scene in the 2010s – and it’s also totally contrary to the Catholic theology and spirituality of marriage.

Central to the Catholic understanding of marriage is a total union of man and woman in which nothing is held back. The Catechism of the Catholic Church introduces the Sacrament of Matrimony by saying, “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life…” (CCC 1601) In the Scriptures Jesus, quoting Genesis, describes marriage in particularly striking terms, speaking of it as a union of such intimacy that, “a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:5)  Pope St. John Paul II, commenting on this passage (something he did extensively) notes that in speaking of a one-flesh union the Lord didn’t intend to refer only to the physical union of the conjugal act, but rather that the message here was of a total and complete union of two people, who, moving from the original solitude which characterized their lives up to that point, were now in marriage united so intimately and so totally in every way that they could be described as being of one flesh. “They are no longer two,” Jesus says (Matt. 19:6) While I think that there is a lot of good in Exodus 90 for single men, there are at least three ways in which it contradicts the theoretical (i.e., theological) and practical (i.e., spirituality) aspects of Catholic marriage.

First, Exodus 90 tries to establish an area of a man’s life which his spouse is separate from but which contains some of his most important, most vulnerable, and most intimate thoughts and practices. It calls men to make a wide range of sacrifices, including fasting, abstinence from meat, alcohol, sweets, snacking, television, sports, listening to most music, and (apart from what is necessary for work, paying bills, etc.) all technology use. These sacrifices are aimed at deepening a man’s relationship with Jesus Christ; alongside these, men are supposed to participate in daily prayer including making a holy hour (at a church) every day, but since even with a prayerful attitude it would be extremely difficult to go at this sort of stuff alone they are meant to be undertaken in a fraternal community of other men who are also participating in Exodus 90. One might naturally think that a man’s one-flesh partner, his bride with whom he has the most intimate earthly relationship, would also be a part of all of this – except that Exodus 90 actively discourages wives from being so.

For example, on the Exodus 90 landing page for wives are three main points, one of which is “It’s His Exodus, Not Yours.” This is a message that is found over and over throughout the materials related to wives that the Exodus 90 creators have produced. The idea is, on the surface, a good one: Exodus 90 calls men to a lot of sacrifices, but these sacrifices shouldn’t be impositions on a wife.

What does this mean for wives? Ultimately one of two things: either live different lives from their husbands – something that is obviously contrary to the one-flesh union – or try to join in with their husbands. The problem is that Exodus 90 sends what can only be described as mixed messages on the latter. While some materials encourage wives to try to join with their husbands in their sacrifices, others encourage them not to or even outright warn against this. The reason? After the success of Exodus 90 prompted many calls for a version geared towards women, the creators commissioned an order of women religious to create just that — only to hear back after several months that the sisters had prayerfully discerned that the model is not one which supports a woman’s spirituality.

Thus, having read through as many of their materials which I can without getting out my credit card (the 2023 version has really stepped up the level of paywalling behind a subscription compared to past years) I would say that on balance Exodus 90 actively discourages wives from trying to participate. Husbands are therefore being encouraged to deepen their spiritual lives by establishing whole patterns of life which they are encouraged to keep separate from their families and to share mostly with other men in their fraternities.  I want to be sure that I’m being fair here to Exodus 90 and its creators, because I think they’d respond here by saying that men are encouraged to try to incorporate their families into their new ways of life – for instance, by finding things to replace their TV time with which can incorporate the entire family. The problem is that there is, again, some pretty conflicting messaging here which makes this sort of suggestion feel more like an afterthought because the strongest emphasis, which repeats over and over throughout their materials, is absolutely on the idea that a man’s family shouldn’t have to participate in his sacrifices or have their lives significantly impacted by his participation in Exodus 90 – and because of another, even more important point that I’ll get to shortly.  

The second problem is that Exodus 90 introduces significant friction points into marriages and asks men to do things which make them less present to their families. This might be one of the more controversial points I raise, because I can imagine people jumping up here to shout out that Exodus 90 is very clear that it should make men more present to their families, not less. These are nice sentiments, but I just don’t think they are going to hold true in practice. First, the sacrifices that men are called to in this exercise are so wide-ranging that they can’t help but impact a wife and family – and this is something that in 2023 the Exodus 90 website and other materials acknowledge and emphasize.  Having followed this program for several years, it’s been interesting to see how their messaging has evolved and developed. I say this largely in praise of the people behind Exodus 90: it’s clear that rather than resting on their laurels and insisting that what they had was fine the way it was that they’ve put in efforts to improve things and try to address shortcomings, the most glaring of which has always been with married men (this makes sense because the exercise was originally developed for seminarians).  In past years their materials didn’t go as far in acknowledging that sacrificing meat, television, and many other things were inevitably going to impact a man’s family. This year they actually do get pretty explicit about this. I don’t know what’s been going on behind the scenes, but interestingly enough this is the first year when they have explicitly had wives of past participants working to try to improve the program and I wonder if this is a consequence. In any event, even if they’re to be lauded for doing a better job here it doesn’t change the reality: Exodus 90 is by its nature going to make things a lot more challenging in many homes.

The problem runs deeper than this, though, because Exodus 90 doesn’t only call men to eliminate things from their lives, but also to add things. In particular, they are called to add time for a daily holy hour and for fraternity. Now to be clear, these things are not bad – on the contrary, they’re laudable! - but they certainly take a husband out of the home, and for men who are fathers (especially fathers of young children) this is a big deal. Already one of the most common blind spots for fathers is recognizing how much their physical presence matters to their wives, even at the expense of doing other work that matters, including other work for the family. I was recently watching a video of a woman trying to explain how she feels abandoned when her husband comes home and starts doing work around the house like mowing the lawn. Even though in his mind he is doing something for his family, she has been alone taking care of three or four young kids all day long, without help or even just the opportunity to socialize with an adult, and so when her husband walks in the door and immediately leaves again even to do something important it hurts. An Exodus 90 man leaving his wife at home with the kids to go spend time with the guys is for Christian fraternity rather than to watch the game might make it technically better, but it isn’t going to change the way it impacts his wife – and there are still other problems. For instance, in my research into this topic I’ve read criticisms from wives of participants and one of the most common sore spots is that Exodus 90 encourages men to make all major purchases subject to “approval” from his fraternity. “I’m not going to ask permission to replace our oven if I need to,” one woman wrote. Again, ask yourself: does a norm like this help to foster unity in a marriage?

New to 2023, Exodus 90 has tried to address these sorts of issues by producing a companion book written by wives for wives and intended to help “with the spiritual challenges of this journey” (p. vi), and the very first section is about “Family Unity.” On the one hand this is good and demonstrates that the people behind the Exodus 90 have recognized some of the potential pitfalls of the exercise and have made efforts to address them. On the other hand, much of the advice in the book amounts to telling wives to suck it up because trust them, all of these hardships will be worth it in the end. If that sounds like it might not be a fair characterization, consider a few quotes from the book:

“Although the disciplines of the journey are just for men, the actions of our husbands and fathers do affect the whole family and will be an adjustment for everyone.” (p.vi)

“While it does cost the whole family something, it also pays back in much greater returns.” (p. vii)

 “You may soon begin to wonder—is this all really worth it? Whatever your husband’s goal for this journey is, it ultimately boils down to overcoming the chains of sin. Whatever his particular struggle, rooting out attachments will be good for your family. You need to believe in this truth.” (p. 1)

“Accept that this is hard, and annoying, and frustrating all at the same time. Realize that no matter how annoying this may be for you, this is the good work of rooting out sin and cultivating virtue. It’s the hard work of change, but it is so worth it.” (p.7)

It’s important to be clear about something here: sometimes some act of suffering or some hardship is helpful or important and worth it in the end. Taken on their own, the statements above (and the many others like it throughout the booklet) are true. The problem is, remember, that these are being offered as reassurances to wives whose husbands are being asked to undergo extraordinary spiritual exercises without them and which will nevertheless impact them significantly. These are generally speaking good exercises in a vacuum and for a single man, but for a married man this is all being handled in a way that is not in keeping with the one-flesh union of marriage, and that is the problem here.

The third, and probably the most significant problem, is that Exodus 90 specifically excludes wives from participating in some aspects of their husbands’ deepening spiritual lives. Reiterating a point that has appeared in past years, the wives write in their companion booklet, “both husbands and wives need to realize that you cannot be his accountability partner. You are a support, but you are not in charge. He needs his team of other men—on the same journey—to keep him accountable. Also, he is an adult. Allow yourself to trust both your husband and the group, and don’t nag or criticize.” (p. viii) As their husbands get closer to Christ, Exodus 90 tells their wives to… butt out. That’s harsh, and taken as a whole it’s not entirely accurate because there are ways in which Exodus 90 encourages spouses to develop their spirituality together. The problem – the significant problem – is that there are also ways in which they’re told that the men need to do things without (not merely separately from, as in point one above) their wives. The booklet reiterates this:

“During your husband’s journey through Exodus, this humble though courageous and actively supportive role modeled for you here, is the very role you are called to play. Though it can be tempting to try to either participate in his journey in the same way, or in a parallel way (i.e., a women’s version of Exodus 90), your role during this time is much simpler. You are there to support, to enable, and to help.” (p. 14)

What’s more, this model of spirituality as Exodus 90 envisions it doesn’t stop with the conclusion of the exercises on Easter, but continues beyond: “Does this mean that the role of one who supports, enables, and helps is always your role in your relationship? The answer is complicated—in some ways yes, and in some ways no.” (p. 15) Reading through more of the text, it seems that the people behind Exodus 90 see this through the lens of traditional gender roles, as though this idea flows from embracing a more traditional view of marriage – but while I’d laud that attitude, the reality of things seems a lot more like an embrace of more traditional secular views of gender roles than of traditional Christian views of gender roles. Sure, the 1950s man who spends his evenings at the corner bar and his Saturday mornings on the golf course with his buddies might not respond well to his wife trying to hold him accountable and live a more moral life – but far from being something a spouse can’t do, in the theology of marriage of St. John Paul II this is one of the primary roles of a wife (or husband).

I realize that this is already a very long post, but I want to dig into this just a little bit more because the fact that Exodus 90 says that women cannot be their husband’s “accountability partners” is not only incredible in light of Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching, but also reveals in a particular way the fundamental problem with the whole thing. One must ask: why can’t wives act as their husbands’ accountability partners? I can think of at least three responses. First is that some of the things a man needs to be held accountable for include the way he treats his wife, and so she can’t hold him accountable for these things. This is true, but it’s of course going to apply to everyone as far as their own treatment is concerned, and in any case it’s no reason that a wife can’t help a husband be accountable for things other than the way he treats her. Second is that there may be something related to the proper gender role of a wife which would make it unfitting or improper for her to correct her husband. This seems to be closest to what the Exodus 90 materials suggest, but I’ll simply say that I will take St. John Paul II’s theology as definitive here. Third would be that a man would not be very responsive to his wife’s efforts to hold him accountable – that he wouldn’t take it well.

Of the three, this third is the only one that holds up to any kind of scrutiny, but it is also the most contrary to the concept of the one-flesh union. In marriage, husband and wife form a union that is so close and so intimate that they are no longer two but are one flesh. A man who can’t take feedback from his wife well is living, not the Catholic concept of marriage and the one-flesh union, but a secular vision of manhood which in its pride can’t admit to a wife having anything over oneself.  Certainly we are not all perfect and we do not always live out the reality of this perfect matrimonial union as we ought, but when the spiritual exercise which is calling us and helping us to live out Christ’s call to a greater degree seems to embrace that fallen attitude, there’s a problem. For all of its talk about promoting better marriages and helping men to grow to be better husbands and better fathers, is at the core of Exodus 90’s understanding of marriage an erroneous, secular concept of marriage as an adversarial relationship? Often reading through the companion guidebook and other materials I very much get the impression that there is this view of marriage that really does not fully grasp the depth of union which it consists of.  

In fact, there is an important statement near the beginning of the companion booklet which further hints at this problem. That statement comes as part of the introduction which tells wives why this companion booklet exists at all:

“While some men are great at communicating with their wives about what they are doing and why, we have found that many men and their wives have struggled to communicate details and expectations for the journey they are both about to begin. In order to help with this problem…”

Notice that the creators see the problem they are addressing not as the way the Exodus 90 exercise itself engages with married life, but rather with the way men have communicated with their wives about Exodus 90. They don’t see the problem as having anything to do with Exodus 90 itself, but with the fact that wives don’t understand it. The creators do ultimately blame this on men rather than their wives, but nevertheless I hope it isn’t putting too fine a point on it to say that this all feels very familiar when thinking about the way that Adam and Eve try to pass the blame around when confronted with their first sin in Genesis, a sin that was also a consequence of the spouses’ failure to act in union with one another. It’s not that the dynamics are all exactly the same, but nevertheless we do see one key similarity in that rather than leaning into the unity of the spouses, what we see here is a case of the individuality of the spouses being cited to try to dismiss a problem which at its core concerns a question of a lack of union. 

While the Exodus 90 organization has apparently and mercifully thought better of it this year, some of their promotional and "how to talk to your wife" content of years past really reinforced this for me. One series of graphics depicted a grown man, hands clasped together and eyes looking up in petition reminiscent of a child asking a parent if they can please go to that party/trip/sleepover/whatever that they really, really, really want to. I wish I could provide an image, but somehow these seems to have been entirely removed from the internet. Suffice it to say that they did not engender the idea of a mature man in a mature relationship with a woman having a mature discussion about a spiritual exercise he would like to do. In fact it very much came across as an example of that same paradigm of an adversarial relationship between husband and wife - or at least of one where the two spouses are not of one mind. Again, I really do wonder how much influence the women who have come on board to help have had on refining the image that is put forward. In past years much of what could be found about Exodus 90 had a "by single men for single men" vibe to it, whereas anything I can find now has much more of a sense of maturity and professionalism to it. 

To be fair, Exodus 90 is not the only example of Catholic lay ministry that has had this problem. For most of its long history even as venerable an organization as the Knights of Columbus required men to take an oath not to tell anybody what takes place at some of its ceremonies – including, explicitly, spouses. I’ve heard all of the justifications before: nothing that is covered by the oath is contrary to the Catholic faith, or anything that would ever concern a spouse or anything that would cause any kind of problem. The only reason for this oath, people would insist, was to avoid spoiling things for men who might join the organization in the future. Forgive me if I find all of these arguments to miss the point, which is that the one-flesh Union of man and woman in marriage is complete and radical. Man and wife are “no longer two,” as Christ says, but “one flesh.” It is a total self-giving, holding nothing back. As I’ve noted – to very positive reactions – to Confirmation classes, one doesn’t append a “but” or an “except” to the marriage vows. No great story ends with the hero saying to his beloved, “You are mine and I am yours, but…”

Nevertheless and to their credit Exodus 90 and the Knights of Columbus do attempt to fulfill a role which is sorely lacking in the Church: ministry to and for the married, family demographic. There are all sorts of things for children, teens, young adults, and the elderly. There are even an increasing number of options for young married couples – but for those who have been married for a few years, especially if they have children? There’s almost nothing. Unfortunately, I think that in practice, Exodus 90 also fits into the standard paradigm of lay ministry: it’s great for young singles, but for middle aged men with families, it is just too compromised. To their credit, its creators do at least seem to be trying to improve matters, and it would be altogether wrong to fail to acknowledge that there has been a lot of good fruit from Exodus 90. For all of the wives who have had bad experiences with their husbands participating, there are also many who have seen very positive changes in their spouses. We do need to acknowledge that, even as we recognize what issues there may be.  We should certainly pray for their success as they try to make their exercises better – just as we should work to establish stronger lay ministries for this neglected married/family demographic. We should also work hard to promote a better understanding of the true depth of the union of, well, everything that matrimony calls us to. This is, after all, a big part of the problem:  far too many people, even those faithfully dedicated to serving married couples, simply don’t see the radical nature of marriage for all that it is.

Pharisaism and the New Pro-Lifers

It’s become quite common over the past year or two to see articles, social media posts and comments, and other forms of expression declaring that “You can’t be pro-life and…” Exclusions include everything from “pro-death penalty,” “pro-torture,” “anti-immigration,” or “anti-welfare” to “pro-gun,” “pro-war,” and “alt-right.” When it’s not phrased according to the “you can’t be…” formula, the sentiment comes as an admonition or call out of those who claim to be pro-life but scandalously advocate some farther right view of one of these issues. There’s no question that opposing torture, taking care of the poor, etc. are important to the support of life, especially for someone coming from a Christian background.

It’s also common see the terms “pharisee” or “pharisaism” come up in commentary or discussions of this topic. Make no mistake: this is always a serious charge to throw around. After all, the Pharisees were on the receiving end of Jesus’ strongest criticism and serve as some of the chief antagonists of Christ in the Gospels. Their crime? “Hypocrites!” Jesus declared, for the Pharisees did not always practice what they preached. They were also known for getting into people’s business, harshly demanding the strictest adherence to the rules and to the law. “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger” (Mat. 23:4). The Pharisees’ merciless approach was particularly hard on the poor, who often lacked the resources to fulfill the last letter of the law, the vulnerable, and those whose past mistakes had put them in difficult positions.

It makes perfect sense, then, to see accusations of pharisaism in this debate. So many of the items at hand here involve the same kinds of people that the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. Torture and the death penalty have as their focus the vulnerable (and indeed, law enforcement and peace keeping too often perpetrate injustices against vulnerable populations). Immigration and welfare policies impact the poor and the vulnerable. Those who rightly stand up for the lives of the unborn, one vulnerable group, but callously discount concern for the lives of other vulnerable groups are certainly being inconsistent. These new pro-lifers, as we might call them, have a point in admonishing and calling out inconsistencies and hypocrisy on these points.  

But there’s something important that these new pro-lifers (and many others) miss about the Pharisees. Most people know that the Pharisees were merciless taskmasters who enforced a very strict adherence to the rules and the law, but far fewer know why they did this. The Pharisees emerged in a time when Judea was only a tiny province within the Roman Empire, making both imperial law and pagan culture obstacles to the practice of the Jewish faith. Their raison d'être was to find a way for the Jews to remain faithful to God under these living conditions and ultimately to be free of the Romans and have their independence once again. Unlike the Sadducees, who favored compromise with the Romans, the Essenes, who practiced total withdrawal from worldly affairs, and the zealots, who saw violent rebellion as the only answer, the Pharisees believed that God Himself would deliver them to freedom once more as He had done in the past – but with one critical caveat: the Jewish people needed to be pure – all of them (or at least almost all).

This belief is the reason that the Pharisees were so strict and so unwilling to show mercy or compassion. In their understanding, the Jewish people were suffering under the Romans as a punishment for their unfaithfulness and only when they had returned to faithfulness would God relent. This did make sense, after all: it was a pattern and theme which repeated over and over throughout the entire history of the Hebrew people, notably in the books of Judges, Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings. The Pharisees were so demanding and unyielding not because they were just callous or for whatever reason instinctively authoritarian, but because they saw every failure to keep even the smallest point of the Mosaic law as one more weight on the scale of judgment angering God and keeping him from freeing them of oppression. They insisted on separating themselves from the rest of the culture (indeed, this is precisely where we get the word “Pharisee” from) and rejected any imperfection or compromise not just as a personal sin, but as something which would be imputed to their entire people. This isn’t to attempt to rehabilitate the Pharisees or to defend their failure to grasp the spirit of the law, something for which Jesus strongly rebuked them. The point is that the Pharisees were severe in demanding total purity of their fellow Jews because they viewed anything less as contributing to keeping the intolerable status quo in place – which brings us back to the new pro-lifers.

While any pro-lifer is to be lauded for standing up for the rights of the poor or the displaced or for rejecting torture, it is a trend of late to see the new pro-lifers go further than this. To many, not only are those who have imperfect views on the broader spectrum of issues to be corrected, but they are to be denied the pro-life name, to be excluded, and to have even their positive contributions be disavowed. Like the Pharisees, the new pro-lifers demand purity from anyone who would bear the name with any shortcomings viewed as mortally harmful to the movement. Those who oppose abortion and may even hold consistent views on most other issues are often demonized as the reason that the pro-life movement has not been more successful. Lest we dismiss the comparison to the Pharisees is too tenuous, bear in mind that it is common to hear or to read these new pro-lifers warn that God will not grant success to the movement so long as such persons are welcome in their ranks.

One need look no further for an example of this than Donald Trump and his supporters. While Trump is far from the perfect example of a consistent pro-life ethic, he nevertheless received strong support from large percentages of the pro-life electorate for whatever he would be able to offer. He may not have been perfect, but to many he was better than the alternative. To some pro-lifers, this was viewed as very questionable. It was unclear just how trustworthy he’d be, for one thing, and even if he followed through his inconsistencies may harm the public image of the pro-life movement. These were reasonable concerns.  Far less reasonable and more in line with the thinking of the Pharisees were those new pro-lifers who went further, condemning any who would vote for Trump as “not pro-life,” as putting party over principle, and as drawing the ire of the Almighty onto the country by electing such a man. 

Trump is one example, but the stakes need not be so grand: this kind of truly pharisaical thinking has become common to see in all sorts of contexts. Worst of all is when this kind of exclusion and condemnation concerns not black and white matters of objective morality but prudential judgments about methods. A person might believe in the need to provide for the poor but reject a particular legislative proposal as a good or effective way to do it. Like the Pharisees who were so focused on the letter of the law that they could not see the spirit, too many new pro-lifers cannot see the good faith of such a person or try to understand their view, but see them only through the jots and tittles of the policy that they have questioned.

In his encyclical Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI made clear that Catholics should work together with people of other faiths where improving the temporal world is concerned. A Catholic and a Protestant can work together to feed the hungry, while a Jewish person is a good an ally in fighting a worldly injustice despite theological differences. That doesn’t mean these differences don’t matter or even that they may not in some ways impact mutual work in the temporal sphere. Such differences need to be acknowledged and taken into consideration, but the ultimate goal is still to be pursued. In a similar way, pro-lifers who recognize weaknesses and imperfections in the views of others should acknowledge them and try to address them, but they must also recognize these persons as the allies that they can be in the ways that they can be.

Too many Christian pro-lifers today have come to regard imperfect allies as bitter enemies. Like the Pharisees, they view them as traitors, as repellants to Divine aid, and even as greater obstacles than the worldly powers which have us under their power. This is a tragic trend which must stop.

Saint Maria Goretti - the Real Story

Today, the Church remembers Saint Maria Goretti, the young 12 year old girl who was martyred when she refused to submit to the sexual advances of Alessandro Serenelli.  The young man, on whose family's property Maria and her mother lived, had propositioned her for sexual favors on several occasions.  She had denied him each time until finally, he set his mind to have his way with or without her cooperation.  When she said no to him even after having been threatened at the end of a dagger, Alessandro stabbed her over a dozen times.

Typically, Saint Maria is remembered for purity and chastity.  Her most well known patronage is that of rape victims.  There is on occasion discussion as to whether or not she presents an ordered image of purity, with some expressing concern that her story would seem to place a burden of impurity on rape victims, who are of course victims rather than moral agents themselves.  This is certainly an understandable concern.

 On this subject, it is important to note several things.  First, when she was attacked, Maria expressed as much concern for Alessandro's purity as for her own, and certainly the act of rape would constitute an offense against his purity. Second, whether Maria had the right understanding of purity or not - recall that she was in fact only twelve years old at the time and can hardly be blamed for having an imperfect concept of it - there is certainly a great deal we can learn from considering just how greatly she valued purity. Even if she erroneously thought to impute to herself that affront against purity which would be found in a rape, the point is that she understood that her purity was more important than her physical life.  This is a tremendous lesson which we  must take to heart.  Now, could there ever arise a scenario in which one would need to sacrifice his life to preserve his purity?  I cannot conceive of one myself.  However, the concept itself is true: ultimately, our purity does have more value than our lives, for our earthly lives will cease while our souls - in which is found purity - will subsist forever.

All of this said, I do not think that purity is the real message of Maria Goretti.  Rather, it is forgiveness and compassion, and respect for the dignity of every person that Saint Maria and her story teach us more than anything, and in my opinion the single most important message she can give to those of us who are already dedicated Catholics.  While her lessons of purity are sorely needed by most of our current culture, for the dedicated, practicing Catholic purity is a given - a struggle, perhaps, but not something about which we need a great deal of convincing.

Forgiveness and compassion, on the other hand, seem to be sorely lacking amongst even the most sincere of Catholics.  To forgive was perhaps Christ's most frequently spoken teaching, and yet it is something we so frequently fail to do.  All the worse is this as we have been taught that we would be forgiven based on how we forgive others!

The photograph at the top of this post may seem rather out of place for a post on the subject of a twelve year old girl, but it is in fact at the very core of all that Maria can teach us.  It is the photo of an aged Alessandro Serenelli, kneeling in prayer before an image of Maria Goretti, whom years before he had sought to rape and ultimately brutally murdered.  After Maria appeared to him in prison, he had a conversion of heart which led him to be one of the most sincere of Christ's followers.  He spent the last 33 years of his life in a Franciscan monastery as a lay brother.

There is so much that we can learn from Maria and Alessandro.  While dying in the hospital of her wounds, Maria is said to have spent the last 20 hours of her life praying for her attacker and asking the Lord to forgive him.  As has already been said, she appeared to him after her death to bring about his conversion.  That she would wish to do this was not only a matter of her heavenly perfection, for during those hours in the hospital she also told people that she wanted to have Alessandro in Heaven with her.  How many times have we been angry at others - so often for things which are morbidly insignificant compared to rape and murder - and not been able to consider being with them in Heaven?  Consider the person the person who has done the most evil to you and caused you the most pain.  Indeed, as a follower of Christ, you are called not only to be willing to spend eternity with him or her, but indeed to desire it and even - yes and even this! - to work for it.  Oh, how terrible this can seem - yet Maria Goretti provides us with a tremendous example to follow.

Even Maria's mother forgave Alessandro - and attended Mass with him.  There are no limits to forgiveness.  How many of us could grudgingly - or even easily - forgive an offense against us yet could not approach forgiving something done to one we love?  Yet we must, and with the grace of God, we can.

I leave you with the testimony of Alessandro Serenelli, written about 9 years before his death and ultimately born from the compassion and forgiveness of that person whom he had hurt the most:

"I'm nearly 80 years old. I'm about to depart. 

"Looking back at my past, I can see that in my early youth, I chose a bad path which led me to ruin myself. 

"My behavior was influenced by print, mass-media and bad examples which are followed by the majority of young people without even thinking. And I did the same. I was not worried. 

"There were a lot of generous and devoted people who surrounded me, but I paid no attention to them because a violent force blinded me and pushed me toward a wrong way of life. 

"When I was 20 years-old, I committed a crime of passion. Now, that memory represents something horrible for me. Maria Goretti, now a Saint, was my good Angel, sent to me through Providence to guide and save me. I still have impressed upon my heart her words of rebuke and of pardon. She prayed for me, she interceded for her murderer. Thirty years of prison followed. 

"If I had been of age, I would have spent all my life in prison. I accepted to be condemned because it was my own fault. 

"Little Maria was really my light, my protectress; with her help, I behaved well during the 27 years of prison and tried to live honestly when I was again accepted among the members of society. The Brothers of St. Francis, Capuchins from Marche, welcomed me with angelic charity into their monastery as a brother, not as a servant. I've been living with their community for 24 years, and now I am serenely waiting to witness the vision of God, to hug my loved ones again, and to be next to my Guardian Angel and her dear mother, Assunta. 

"I hope this letter that I wrote can teach others the happy lesson of avoiding evil and of always following the right path, like little children. I feel that religion with its precepts is not something we can live without, but rather it is the real comfort, the real strength in life and the only safe way in every circumstance, even the most painful ones of life."

Women's Ordination

Why did Christ set up the Church?

The Church is set up in the way it is for a very specific reason. Did you ever wonder why we have Sacraments and all that? I mean, in some ways, the Protestant system actually makes more sense. As Catholics we believe in a God who essentially has invited us to become His children; we believe in a God who wants Love, not adherence to some checklist like a strict boss or professor. Even though the Scriptures never use the terminology, we agree with the Protestants that what God desires is a personal relationship with us. He wants us to know Him and Love Him. So if what God wants is Love and Faith - a relationship - well then Sacraments seem to be completely unnecessary.

Our conception of the Church as an authority to speak on matters of truth would still be important; having a personal relationship with someone requires that one know the truth about them. Imagine trying to have a relationship with your earthly father without any certainty concerning the facts about him. Do you get him golf clubs for his birthday, or a violin? Does he like it when you make lawyer jokes, or should you refrain. Is he a lawyer? In fact, when is his birthday, anyways? It wouldn't work. The situation is even more difficult with our Heavenly Father, whom is present not only when we are in the same room as Him but always. Is X a sin - does it offend Him - or not? When the Scripture says we should fast in one place but says we shouldn't in another, what does God really want? When half the Christians interpret a verse one way and the other half another, what's correct? What did God really intend to say?

But not Sacraments. For a God who simply wants a relationship they don't seem to fit. Once we know the truth about Him, what is the purpose of having to go through these rituals? Going back to fathers, if I offend my earthly father, the way to repair that relationship is to ask Him for forgiveness - not to go to someone else, like mom, and ask her to offer his forgiveness, as Catholics do in confession. So the Sacraments seem sortof, well, superfluous at best.

But the reality is that by Christ's own choice He set it up that way. The Sacraments aren't some superfluous thing that the Church came up with for some reason - Christ Himself instituted them Himself. Why? Why, if what He really wants is a relationship?

The reason is that Christ is compassionate. God loves us even if we don't always love Him. He wants those who aren't going to have a relationship with Him to have a chance. He wants as few people as possible to reject Him. He wants us in Heaven, so He didn't simply give us some authority to tell us what is true and then leave us to, if we can get ourselves to, have a relationship on our own. Different Christian groups, and even different schools among Catholics, have many different ideas of how Grace works exactly, so it's impossible to give some blanket statement about the technicalities of it, but suffice it to say that basic human experience shows that however Grace works, the vast majority of people in the world don't seem motivated to have a relationship with God even with the help and promptings of Grace. The truth is that left to out own, most people simply don't take advantage of the Grace God has for them and have a relationship with Him. Few Christians from any group ever really do. So Christ gave us Sacraments - things that work ex opera operandi, as that Latin calls it: "in and of themselves."

The Sacrament of Reconcilliation really does reconcile usto God. If someone is an absolutely miserable Christian and the very most they can muster is being sorry because they are afraid of hell, then the Sacrament will save them from it and - even as what may be a completely unintended side effect from their perspective - reunite them to God.

Christ made the Church in the exact way He did specifically so that poor Christians can make it to Heaven. He gave us last rights so that even the greatest sinner can, on his deathbed, at least say he's afraid of Hell and make it to Heaven, even if that person can't bring Himself to actually Love God or to be sorry for His sins in any real way. He wants us there, and so He gave us a Church with Sacraments exactly as He did so that those with the bare minimum can make it. He'll Give us Love when we get to Him.

Of course, He wants so much more, and so we have the fantastic saints who actually gave all they possibly could, and then people like you and me who hopefully do our best even if we're not quite ready for canonization. But He wants those folks who are just sitting in the pews each week and that's really all they're doing in Heaven, too. And that's at least one of the reasons that He did it they way He did.

What Christianity Isn't

I want to address something that I've noticed quite a bit recently. It's something I've come across in many different places in my life. Unfortunately, it is the sort of thing that might make some people feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I just want to say that this isn't directed towards anyone in particular. No one person is the inspiration for this. I've seen this amongst friends, family, acquaintances, and all throughout the blogosphere and other Internet forums.

What I am talking about is, essentially, a false form of Christianity. It is, as the title suggests, what Christianity isn't.

Christianity isn't going to Mass. It's not believing all the right things. It's not standing up for the rights of the unborn, or opposing homosexual marriage, or believing that the Ten Commandments ought to be allowed in public space. It's not living morally - abstaining from sex outside of marriage, being polite, staying sober, and so forth. It's not praying frequently, fervently, or with dedication. Christianity isn't feeding the hungry, helping the poor, and in other ways helping the less fortunate. It isn't reading spiritual books. It isn't standing up against those who are hijacking the Christianity for their own causes, or being the lone voice in the wilderness in opposition to some un-Christian practice or idea. Christianity isn't hating sin or cultivating virtue. It isn't standing up for legitimate "modern innovations" in the Church, nor is it defending the "traditional Church." It isn't opposing heresy, preaching truth, admonishing sinners, or imitating saints.

If you think that Christianity is any of those things, you are worshipping an idol. Your idol may be orthodoxy. It may be Ignatian spirituality. It may be sexual purity. You may worship tradition, the prayer, or even the Mass. In fact, you may have a polytheism in which you worship virtue, prayer, morality, orthodoxy, the corporal works of mercy, and all of the other things that are associated with Christianity. The fact is, Christianity is none of these things. We don't worship the Mass - we go to the Mass to worship God. And God, as St. John tells us, is Love (1 John 4:10).

Christianity is Love. It is nothing else. It is singularly, completely, and unreservedly Love. Indeed, all of the things listed above are a part of Love. One who loves his child will admonish her when she does wrong. One who loves God will believe all the right things. One who loves the unborn will defend their lives against the abortion mill that is western civilization. Yet none of these things, apart from Love, has any place in Christianity. Apart from Love, they are simply idols for us to worship instead of God.

Indeed, many people do worship these things. It is very common to worship virtue. The ancient Greeks were quite good at it. Today, many Christians worship these things. Purity apart from Love is not directed toward God, and yet time after time Christians will practice purity, even look to it as a great virtue, while failing to have Love in their lives.

It's a great thing to defend the faith; the Scriptures command us to be ready to (see 1 Peter 3:15). It's a great thing to oppose some terrible sin that our government is committing. It's absolutely necessary to admonish the sinner (such as pro-abortion politicians), but any of this done apart from Love falls far short of being Christian. Apart from Love, it is simply ideology.

Love is what separates orthodoxy from ideology. Love is what separates purity from prudishness. Love is what separates prayer from babbling, virtue from habit, saints from good citizens, righteous anger from sin. Love is what separates Heaven from Hell.

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy
gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all
mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains,
but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up
my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and
kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not
insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at
wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all
things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for
prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for
knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but
when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke
like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a
man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to
face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully
known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of
these is love." (1Co 13:1-13)

Love makes Christians Christians. Unfortunately, as I go through life, I see so little of it.

I have to be clear, here. I am a sinner. We are all sinners. I am not talking about sin. Not everybody is Saint Thérèse. I and most other people will certainly fall short of Love in our lives. We will on occasion practice a virtue without Love. We will abstain from sin for selfish reasons. We will do each and every thing on my list apart from Love sometimes. That's not what I am talking about.

What I am talking about is a general attitude that I see wherein these things are so often taken to be all that there is to Christianity. Love is seen as being Christian, but simply as another item on the list rather than the only thing that makes one Christian. In reality, all of those other things are supposed to be subordinate to love. They are supposed to be part of Love - things that we do to Love. They are supposed to be means, rather than ends. Our only end is to be God - Who is Love.

So I encourage you - as humbly as I can - to examine yourself. Examine your motives. Examine why you do all the things you do. If you pray, why do you? If you live a moral sexuality, what is causing you to? How often do you do things - good, Holy, virtuous, pious things - without Love? I can only promise to do the same examination myself, and I will. I think that it's something our world is in such need of right now. If every Christian who is fighting abortion, defending the faith, or trying to restore Christ to our world in every other way would simply stop for a moment and start to Love first and do these things second, our world would turn around in a matter of weeks.

Is Mortal Sin Too Harsh?

The reason that people have a problem with mortal sin is because they look at things from the standpoint of God punishing the sinner. That's not really the best way to look at it, and it’s not entirely theologically correct either.

To make it really simple, let me explain it this way. God is infinite. Men are not. Men are not compatible with God. For a man to live in the realm of God would be like for a man to live in the ocean - we just aren't born with what we need to do that. Now man has devised a piece of equipment to let him survive under water - scuba gear. God has also devised a sort of "equipment" to allow man to survive in Heaven - sanctifying grace. When a person is baptized, he is given the sanctifying grace, which is a bit like "God's scuba gear." Much like the Protestant understanding of things, God gives us this "scuba gear" totally free based on faith. Through Jesus Christ, our sins are forgiven, so He does not take away the gear every time we sin. That's a good thing, because as we go through life we commit sins all the time.

But the thing is, this divine scuba gear really is pretty bulky, and it takes up all the room there is on the soul. Just like a scuba diver can't fit a football uniform on over his gear, we can't fit anything else on over God's sanctifying grace - His eternal scuba gear. But sometimes in life, some, or most, people see something they want to put on their souls. Maybe it is the overcoat of fornication, or the three piece suit of murder, or even the casual dress of missing Mass on Sunday. When we want to put these things on our soul, we have to take that scuba gear off, first.

That may sound a bit silly, and it sort of is, the way I explained it. But it makes the point. Mortal sins don't send us to Hell so much because God is punishing us. They send us because in committing them we reject the sanctifying grace that lets us exist in Heaven. We can't do them without rejecting that grace. People don't understand mortal sin because they see it as God rejecting us for one act, whereas in reality, it is us rejecting God. As everyone knows, it only takes rejecting God once to reject Him.

This is where Catholic theology is far closer to mainline Protestantism without Protestants really realizing it. They say that God gives us justification completely free, regardless of if we sin or not, by the merits of Jesus Christ. The thing is, Catholics say that too, we just recognize that we can still reject God. You can reject Him by literally saying it, or by doing something that conveys the same meaning. Does a husband have to actually tell his wife he is mad at her, or would, say, punching her do the same thing? Obviously our actions can convey messages. The mortal sin isn't just in the sin - it’s that the sinner is rejecting God and His offer of salvation. It's the act of saying, "I want this more than I want God."

That's another good way to look at it. Part of the problem is the term salvation. It's a correct term, but it tends to make us look at things the wrong way by our own faults, not the fault of the word. Even St. Paul used the word, after all. But remember that Jesus didn't really talk about salvation. He talked about inheriting eternal life, or inheriting the kingdom of God, or attaining eternal life. St. Paul did, too. This is a much better way to talk about things. Salvation carries the notion of a person being rescued from something, in this case sin and hell. This is truly what Christ does, but its more than that. God created us as free creatures. He deeply wants us to come and live with Him, but He won't force us. He offers us heaven, and we then have to make the choice. That's what life is all about - making that choice. As we start our Christian life, we are on the 'yes' side.

This may be a little off color, but it’s the best thing I can come up with now. When two people are starting to engage in the marital act, the woman may at any time decide she doesn't want to do it and she may ask to stop, even though she already made the major choice to start in the first place. Now some men won't listen to this, and it becomes rape. God doesn't do this. If we decide we don't want to be with Him, even after we've made the choice to at first, He stops. He doesn't force us. He respects us. If we decide, after accepting His invitation, that we'd rather go live somewhere else, He will accept that. That is mortal sin. It is turning down God's invitation after we have accepted it. The thing is, as we walk away from His house, God is always begging us to come back. "Please," He says, "come in - I will really make you feel at home!" But He never forces us. If we reaccept His invitation, this is confession. It is all about our choices, not God simply punishing us.