October 4, 2011, the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, was our (Patricia and Bill) 53rd wedding anniversary. God has blessed us with a happy marriage, giving to us seven loving children, 4 boys and 3 girls, 52 to 40 in age. Six of our children are married, whose spouses are terrific men and women deeply devoted to their husbands and wives and children, 16 of them -our granddaughters (10) and grandsons (6), ranging in age from 22 to 4 months. Our unmarried son enjoys immensely his role as “bachelor” uncle.

Why is our marriage so happy? Here are some of the major reasons.

On July 19th, President Obama declared his support for the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and legalize same-sex marriage on the federal level.  Earlier, on June 24th, New York became the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage.  The law, which allows the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, was approved by a slim 33-29 vote.  The New York law states that it is the legislature’s intent to eradicate “any legal distinction between same-sex couples and different-sex couples with respect to marriage.”  Although the national media highlighted the enactment of the New York same-sex marriage law, it ignored the recent approval of two constitutional marriage amendments – in Indiana and Minnesota – defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  Indeed, the media’s focus on the successes of same-sex marriage advocates has effectively eclipsed the successes made by traditional marriage supporters, creating a false public perception of the acceptance of legal same-sex marriage in America. 

This essay shall: (1) provide a brief summary of the legal battle to define marriage in America; (2) report on progress and setbacks made by both marriage advocates and same-sex marriage advocates this year; and (3) offer recommendations for the challenges that lay ahead.

“If Christ has not been raised, then empty is our preaching, and empty too your faith. Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ” (1 Cor 15: 14-15).

“Whether Jesus merely was or whether he also is depends on the resurrection” (Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 2, Holy Week, p. 242). His resurrection was not the resuscitation of a corpse but was utterly different, “the breaking out into an entirely new and unheard of form of life, one that opens up a new form of existence,” of being a human being. The Risen Christ was and is now a human being, the “first fruits” of the dead (see ibid, 242-244). The Risen Christ is now the human being we are meant ultimately to be.

Four dollars a gallon for gas.  Fourteen trillion dollar debt (increased $100k every five seconds).  Cultural polarization approaching civil war proportions.  Popular uprisings in the Middle East.  Fukushima Japan choking in radiation.  Gaddafi bullying the Libyans.  Drug lords bullying the Mexicans (and Arizonans).  Iran defiant.  China ascendant.  And Donald Trump running for President!

Easter follows Lent.  Resurrection follows death.  Redemption follows the Fall.

Tens of thousands of new Catholics will join the Church at the Easter vigil, including Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director, and six members of her family. Hundreds of thousands of youth are preparing to meet Pope Benedict XVI in Barcelona this August.  Hundreds of millions of Catholic are preparing for Pope John Paul II’s beatification on May 1.  Pro-life legislation is passing all over the U.S.

In light of the Obama Administration’s recent announcement that it will no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts, the following questions and answers have been compiled in order to clarify the position of the Obama Administration and to inform our readers of the basic facts and issues relevant to the current situation.

1.    What is DOMA?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Pub. L. 104-199, 100 Stat. 2419, is a federal law which (1) defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and defines spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” for purposes of federal law; and (2) affirms the authority of the states to deny recognition of any “relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as marriage under the laws” of another State, as granted by the Full Faith and Credit Clause,  Article IV of the Constitution.

Marital infidelity is one of the most traumatic of all life experiences. However, we believe that the identification of the emotional, character and spiritual conflicts that contribute to marital infidelity can be uncovered and resolved. Such healing is not possible unless each spouse has an understanding of and a loyalty to the sacrament of marriage and to the goodness in his/her spouse.

We regularly cite John Paul II's wisdom from Love and Responsibility to couples who are struggling with this issue. "The strength of such a (mature) love emerges most clearly when the beloved stumbles, when his or her weaknesses or sins come into the open. One who truly loves does not then withdraw love, but loves all the more, loves in full consciousness of the other's shortcomings and faults, without in the least approving of them. For the person as such never loses his/her essential value. The emotion which attaches to the value of the person is loyal," Love and Responsibility, n. 135.

Introduction
Men and women are able to have sexual intercourse and to generate new human life by doing so. But non-married men and women are not fit either to have sexual intercourse or to generate new human life, nor do they have a right to have such intercourse and generate new human life. Each human life, no matter how generated—through non-married sexual union, artificial insemination and other new “reproductive technologies,” or through the marital act—is a great gift of God, made in His image, with inviolable rights that must be respected by others and by civil law. But generating this life non-maritally is morally wrong because it violates the child’s right to a stable  home rooted in the life-long commitment of the child’s mother and father where it can take root and grow “in wisdom and in grace before God and man.”(see Luke 2,52). There is, however, one exception to this; it occurs when a child is generated by a married couple not through the marital act or “maitally,” but through in vitro fertilization (IVF). In this case the couple, who are the child’s mother and father, can provide the child with a stable home. A married man, now the woman’s husband, and a married woman, now the husband’s wife, also have the inviolable right to educate their own children, a right that others and, in particular, the civil government is obligated to recognize and protect.

On January 18^th, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision not to hear a same-sex marriage case brought by traditional marriage supporters.   The case challenged the District of Columbia’s refusal to allow a voter referendum on the definition of marriage.  The Supreme Court's rejection of the case has closed the door of judicial appeal for D.C. traditional marriage supporters.  The debate will now shift to the legislative arena.  This essay summarizes the efforts made in the District of Columbia to protect the institution of marriage, and discusses the issue of discrimination in the same-sex marriage context.

Dear Friends,

Merry Christmas to each of you and to your families!  During this time of greatest joy, the Fellows and I would like to offer to you the following greetings, wishes and Christmas reflections.  In this way, we hope to share with you just a bit of the grace found in this greatest gift...

  Jennifer, Pat and Dr. May, Maggie, Christian

Introduction
We have seen already that human husbands and fathers have the sublime mission and honor of “revealing and reliving on earth the very fatherhood of God” (see St. Paul, Ephesians 3:15 and Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, no. 25).  John Paul II continues by identifying  the principal things a father should do in performing “this task.” He will do so “by exercising generous responsibility for the life conceived under the heart of the mother, by a more solicitous commitment to education, a task he shares with his wife (cf. Gaudium et spes, 52), by work which is never a cause of division in the family but promotes its unity and stability, and by means of the witness he gives of an adult Christian life which effectively introduces the children into the living experience of Christ and the Church.”

Introduction
Once the date for the wedding has been set, the engaged couple must prepare spiritually and materially for the wedding, fulfill legal requirements and requirements of their religious communities, and plan for the wedding ceremony. This article centers on these matters.

Introduction
If the marriage for which engaged couples are preparing is to be happy and lasting, their courtship must be a chaste one. Abundant evidence shows that living together and having sex prior to marriage is not advisable if one wants a happy, lasting marriage because after marriage there is frequent divorce, infidelity, and unhappiness. Thus this article focuses on the meaning of love because a chaste courtship must be rooted in a proper understanding of love.

Introduction
Pope John Paul II believes that the immediate preparation for marriage should take place “in the months and weeks immediately preceding the wedding” (Familiaris Consortio 78). [1] It is a period during which an engaged couple should, with the help of others and in particular their own religious communities, deepen their understanding of and commitment to marriage as a reality whose author is God, between one man and one woman, whose one-flesh union in the conjugal act ought to be open to the goods of exclusive conjugal love and children. 

Introduction

In its document, Preparation for the Sacrament of Marriage, no. 32, the Pontifical Council for the Family wrote: “Proximate preparation takes place during the period of engagement. It consists of specific courses and must be distinguished from immediate preparation.”   Unfortunately, because I misread what John Paul II had to say about “immediate preparation” in Familiaris Consortio 66, I had considered the engagement period to be part of the ”immediate preparation” for marriage. Thus, the two earlier essays in this series on the “proximate preparation for marriage” should in fact have been included as part of the “remote preparation for marriage.” I apologize for my error. This is the first piece of three on “proximate preparation.” A final essay will focus on “immediate preparation.”

Introduction
Earlier I offered suggestions about the “remote” preparation for marriage that begins during infancy—even in the womb—and lasts until the onset of puberty or early adolescence. This article and two others will present ideas about the “proximate” preparation for marriage: this one identifies what the term “proximate preparation” means and focuses on the some of the major elements that ought to make up this proximate preparation. A second will continue the consideration of major elements in this preparation and also consider more briefly important but in my judgment some less pressing matters that should be taken up, such as the need for stable work, sufficient financial resources, making the home a peaceful environment. A third will consider the matter of a chaste courtship. I will then, in later articles, make suggestions for the “immediate” preparation for marriage.

Background and introduction
Today many persons soon to be married are far more occupied with and interested in their wedding than they are with their marriage.  Moreover, today there are competing and contradictory views about marriage. Some feminists claim that a heterosexual, misogynist patriarchy invented marriage as a way of enslaving women. Advocates of a secularist, atheistic (or at most nontheistic) understanding of human “persons” judge marriage a legal contract between persons, whether of opposite sexes or of the same sex, presently required to obtain certain benefits. They claim that marriage is a human invention, a cultural construct subject to radical change, and morally irrelevant to sexual behavior or to decisions whether or not to have children, who are viewed more frequently as burdens than as blessings. There are also those whose understanding of human existence is shaped by our Judeo-Christian heritage and “natural law” (on this see Marguerite A. Peeters’ “Current Proposals and the State of the Question,” in Men and Women: Diversity and Mutual Complemenarity: Study Seminar Vatican City, 30-31 January 2004.  Pontificium Concilium Pro Laicis. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2006, pp. 73-98). They affirm that God is the author of marriage, which they celebrate as the lifelong union of one man and one woman who pledge to be faithful to one another until death and who welcome children as gifts crowning their one flesh union, as blessings and not as burdens.

One of the finest discussions of this question is given by Germain Grisez in his book, Living a Christian Life, Vol. 2 of his The Way of the Lord Jesus, pp. 721-737.  In Love and Responsibility (1960) Karol Wojtyla has some helpful things to say, particularly in the final chapter on sexology. I will first summarize material from Grisez, then from Wojtyla, and finally offer some practical suggestions.

Every presidential administration in Washington DC does some things that appear stupid in hindsight.  It gets caught up in the moment, pandering to this or that political constituency, or reacting too precipitously to some big or newsworthy event.  In our 24-hour-news-cycle world, and especially if we’re sophisticated news consumers, we simply discount the importance of poor presidential decisions and move on, even as we might grow incrementally more cynical over time about government in general.

Men and Women: Diversity and Mutual Complementarity is the title of an important and helpful book published by Libreria Vaticana Editrice in 2006 containing papers given at the Study Seminar held in Vatican City 30-31 January 2004. It contains 12 essays divided into 4 major parts. I will try to summarize the thought of some of the major papers in two articles.

Here I will take up the following essays: (1) Lucetta Scaraffia’s “Socio-cultural changes in women’s lives”[1] ; (2) Vincente Aucante’s, “Fatherhood”[2] ; (3) Maria Teresa Garutti Bellenzier’s “The identity of women and men according to the teaching of the Church”[3] ; and Carlo Caffarra’s “Benchmarks, problem areas and issues for debate.”[4]  In another article I will consider the contributions of Karna Swanson, Manfred Lutz, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, and Marguerite Peeters.

Occasionally, there is a flurry of media attention to the issue of “responsible fatherhood.”   Promise Keepers will gather thousands of men at a rally or Bill Cosby will call on Black men to get more involved. But there’s much more to the modern “fatherhood” issue than these discrete news items.  The federal government has its own fatherhood initiative, which sponsors studies and projects intended to encourage men to be stable, involved fathers. States, cities, and churches too, are participating in these efforts. Sociological and other scientific journals – including the journals Fatherhood  and Sex Roles – are monthly publishing the results of empirical studies about the role of the father, or about the relationships between fathering and child outcomes. Chances are, too, that the sociology or psychology department at your local university is participating in one or more of these.

I recall sitting at a breakfast table at a large pro-life banquet years ago with Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago. Ten to fifteen times over the course of the meal, guests came over, with the same introduction: “Don’t want to disturb your breakfast, Your Eminence, just wanted to thank you for being here and tell you …..”  Near the end of the “meal,” I noticed the Cardinal hadn’t even picked up his fork and I mentioned this. “I always eat before I come,” he replied, (and here, I’m paraphrasing, but accurately) because it’s so important to every person who comes to speak to me that I give them my full attention, and reply personally and kindly. If I don’t, they’ll leave this banquet --  this may be one  opportunity to speak to a bishop directly -- believing that ‘the Church’ doesn’t care about them.”

In your recent book “The Temperament God gave your Spouse” you review the four classic temperaments as a way of understanding how people naturally react; could you explain these and tell us how you came to be interested in this age-old concept in the present day?

 
We were introduced to the classic four temperaments (originally proposed by Hippocrates) by a priest who shared with us how temperament (the way we naturally tend to react to our environment) influences our spiritual lives; subsequently, we discovered that understanding temperament is not only a great way to get to know ourselves better (and therefore improve ourselves) but also it has a great bearing on our relationships—with God, with our spouse and with our children. Art discovered in his marriage counseling that many couples who came in for counseling were often arguing or fighting about a temperament issue!

Part II Interview with Psychologist  P. Alex Mabe, Ph.D.

1.    Dr. Mabe, thank you for agreeing to provide a follow-up interview regarding your publication on the treatment of childhood conduct disorder. In the first interview, you described the essential features of Conduct Disorder as repetitive and persistent patterns of behavior in which the basic rights of others and major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated. Further you noted that a variety of factors represent risk factors, discussing the impact of biological, socio-cultural, and early life experiences. I would be interested in hearing what the research shows about the other factors you presented: peer experiences, social experiences in various institutions; and early exposure to violence on television or videogames?

July 25 1968 is the date of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which he affirmed: “there is an inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning” (no.12).  This meaning is severed by contraception and also by the new modes of generating human life in the laboratory: artificial insemination by a donor (better expressed as “artificial insemination by a vendor”),  in vitro fertilization, cloning, and other artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs).

Denise M. Burke is the Vice President & Legal Director, Americans United for Life

Over the last few decades, abortion advocates and others have launched a concerted campaign to force hospitals, healthcare institutions, health insurers, and individual healthcare providers to provide, refer for, or pay for elective abortions, abortifacient drugs, contraceptives, assisted reproductive procedures such as in vitro fertilization, and sterilizations.  Their determined effort to eviscerate the concept of individual conscience and the freedom to follow one’s religious, moral or ethical beliefs from the medical profession has resulted in the following:

The on-going court battle in Illinois over the state’s permanently-enjoined parental notification law has once again brought parental involvement laws to the forefront of the cultural and legal fight against abortion.

Interview with Art A. Bennett, M.A., Director of Alpha Omega Clinic and Consultation Services and founder of its Unity Restored website for those seeking freedom from sex based addictions, compulsions and pornography.

Culture of Life speaks with Dr. Paul Vitz, Professor and Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences in Arlington, VA and author of the recent book, “Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism” on the role of fatherhood in faith, family and culture. 

If you have ever found yourself up late at night staring at the television, you’ll likely be familiar with Joe Francis’s work. Joe Francis is the brains (?) behind “Girls Gone Wild,” that lovely, $40 million a year series of videotapes or DVDs that provide a historical record of the varieties of undergarments worn and removed by mostly drunken old girls and young women of the early twenty-first century.