Twins, Communion, Civil and Sacramental Marriage and the Theology of the Body

The two infants I saw a couple of weeks ago could scarcely have been more different. One of them was a sturdy 2 year old struggling to get out of the double stroller, and calling angrily for his mother. The other was a pale shadow of his brother. Half normal size, he was propped in a special seat which compensated for his tiny stature, and which featured head supports to keep him upright as he was, as yet, unable to lift his head on his own, let alone speak. The second child, I was informed, was the “donor twin” in a twin-twin fetal transfusion. His brother, the “recipient twin” was also affected, initially having congestive heart failure, but had since recovered. Badly damaged, the “donor twin” may never completely recover.

Twinning is a more complicated matter than many understand. Not only may twins be “conjoined”, sharing limbs or organs, as were the famous “Siamese twins”, but they may have shared blood supplies where one twin receives the lion’s share of placental blood, and the other slowly starves, as occurred with my patient. Further, in some cases, twin “chimeras” may occur, where one twin is completely reabsorbed (“vanishing twin” syndrome) while the other goes on to full (and apparently normal) development with traces of two genomes in their blood stream. Tyler Hamilton, the US cyclist accused of boosting his endurance on the 2004 “Tour of Spain” with a pre-race, red blood cell transfusion, has offered “vanishing twin” syndrome in his defense. Hamilton proposes that a previously unknown “vanished” fraternal twin accounts for the presence of genetically mismatched red cells found in his blood stream last fall.

I have an interest in twins for, as many of my readers know, I am a twin myself. I, and my sister, are identical twins. Further, we share not only 100% of our DNA, and all our earliest memories and experiences, but we also jointly own all bank accounts, retirement portfolios, our home, cars, insurance policies, and the guardianship of two adopted children.

If anybody can claim to be “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” {Gen 2:23} it is my sister and I. In our case, it is literally true. For this reason, while I am opposed to same gender “marriages”, I initially found nothing wrong in the recent Church of England decision that gay clergy in partnered relationships could seek civil same sex marriage without penalty, as long as they promised celibacy. Celibate partnerships seemed to be no different from the relationship my sister and I enjoy, which as far as I’m aware, is not considered “sinful” by the Roman Catholic church we attend, let alone by the far more lenient Episcopal church that baptized our children.

As I commented on Brad Drell’s blog in response to his blog entry on the subject entitled It’s the end of the world” “What is important is that the CoE affirms that sacramental marriage is between a man and a woman; Whatever civil arrangements the CoE’s broken children engage in, the church does not call this marriage.” After all, I pointed out; “What was the CoE to do? Defrock over a thousand priests? Tell folks who had lived together. . . for 20-40 years that they needed to separate? Some of the individuals in these relationships will be ill [and dependent on their partners]. Children may have been adopted into [these] relationships back when the CoE’s thinking was ‘fuzzier’. ’’ Surely, I thought, that while we could agree with the necessity of upholding moral laws regarding the nature of human sexuality, civil recognition of love and commitment could be honored by extending the legal benefits of marriage to such unions without bringing the “whole baggage of sex” into the matter.

Actually, I had assumed that the priest in the latter situation had simply made some sort of error. Who could possibly refuse Holy Matrimony to an unwed Christian man and an unwed Christian woman who wished to commit their lives to one another? What had disability to do with it? Didn’t Christ welcome and even heal the broken? Planning to demolish my correspondent (a good friend who enjoys pushing my buttons) I emailed my pastor for backup, but Monsignor’s reply disappointed me. Apparently, the “whole baggage of sex” matters dreadfully in the Roman Catholic church. My pastor wrote (in part) “When a man and woman marry they exchange the right to the community of life that includes the right to natural heterosexual intercourse. The parties must be capable of sexual intercourse since this is fundamental to the unitive and generative (if fecund) dimensions of marriage. In other words, though people may love one another very much but can only share time, home and budget, they cannot call it marriage. “

One of the advantages of being Roman Catholic is that one is spared the burden of being one’s own pope. Had I still been an Anglican, I would have been forced to agonize over Scripture, Tradition, and Scientific evidence until I came to some understanding as to what moral position I should hold, and after a great deal of careful reading and honest reflection would likely have gotten it wrong anyway. Being a Catholic however, I am both permitted and expected to assume that the position of the Church, (incredible and unfair though it might appear) is actually the correct one, and simply work backward. It is like having an Algebra textbook with the answers in the back. One still needs to do one’s homework if one is ever expected to get on in math; however if you know how the equation is supposed to end, it is easier to work out the solution.

In Pope John Paul II’s series of 129 talks entitled “The Theology of the Body” (TB), he explains the role of human love in God’s plan. Man, after the creation of Woman becomes a “communion” of persons. “Communion” is a “person beside a person”, and a person “for” a person. Man, following the period of his solitude wherein he discovers, after naming the animals that he is different from them, and is alone in his difference, is given Woman, so that he might live in relationship. Although made in God’s image, man becomes even more like God by his communion with the woman as God Himself is a communion of persons {TB Nov. 14, 1979}. This living in relationship is critical to God’s plan for Man’s development, as God is a “radical giver” and “giving” requires someone to receive, “demanding” a relationship. “Although all creatures came from nothingness, only man can understand that it was God who created” them, and only man can respond to the gift. For man to become a giver he too needs someone, to whom he can give. {TB Dec. 19, 1979}. This need is fulfilled in the creation of woman. Their bodies are complimentary, permitting them to mutually give themselves to one another, and to be accepted, thus becoming, in their giving, more truly divine, and therefore more truly human.

Giving between Man and Woman is initially not sexual. Adam does not come to fully “know” his wife until Gen 4. In this sense of full “knowledge”, the first marriage is not immediately consummated. However, the “giving” begins earlier. As JPII notes, the way Man first accepts Woman is his first “giving”. By giving herself, the woman “rediscovers herself,” because she has been accepted and welcomed by the man. She finds herself by giving herself and by being accepted “for her own sake”, in the whole truth of her body, sex and femininity. {TB Feb 6, 1980}. Simultaneously, in giving himself and in being accepted, man discovers himself in the whole truth of his body, sex and masculinity.

Although man and women are designed and destined “to become one flesh”; before becoming man and wife, the two persons were created as “brother and sister”, sharing the same humanity {TB Feb 13, 1980} and living in relationship, without sin. However, by giving themselves to one another in the marital act, they come to “know” one another on a much deeper level {Gen 4:1}, and from this depth comes forth new life, completing the biblical cycle of “knowledge-generation”. The child that is borne when they become one flesh, is also “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” and the couple is possessed of a new humanity, which their mutual “knowledge” conceived {TB Ap. 2, 1980}. In this regard, the marital act is more than a physical act. It is a sacrament, between husband and wife, mirroring Holy Communion. By giving themselves to one another in the physical act of consummation, Man and Woman fulfill their first command, which is to be generative of new life. By so doing, they are led to a deeper “knowledge” of their own humanity within the relationship. In the same way, the Eucharist is a sacrament between Christian and Christ. We offer ourselves to Christ, “lifting up our hearts” in the Eucharistic call. Christ offers Himself to us. In our acceptance of Christ in the physical act of consumption, new life (Christ in us) is generated and we are led to a deeper “knowledge” of our humanity in our relationship with Him.

Following the Fall, lust enters the original relationship. Man, had by his body first confirmed himself as a person, his body witnessing to his original solitude, and his later communion with woman, and with his acceptance of his body, Man accepted his domination over the earth. By sin, Man lost this original certainty. The words “I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself” shows, according to JPII, a collapse of Man’s original acceptance of his body, and the “making of aprons” indicates that mankind’s bodies are no longer subordinated to the spirit, but resists the spirit, threatening his self mastery. Man and Woman made aprons because, feeling lust, they felt shame, shame revealing both a threat to the value of the person, but causing both parties to act to preserve that value, “so that the person is not used as an object of lust” (whether of the eye, or of the body). These lustful desires, which Man and Woman try to suppress with aprons, are what Christ calls “adultery in the heart” {Mt. 5:27-28} creating objects for self gratification, where once there were individuals in communion with one another {TB May 28, 1980}. In this regard, even a husband can “objectify” his wife, committing “adultery of the heart” if he treats his wife as only an object for his sexual instincts. Such “objectification” in the Catholic church includes the use of birth control. With birth control, husband and wife no longer treat the marital act as a sacrament, deepening their relationship and open to new life, but instead treat it as a means of personal gratification to be used for their own pleasure. It is as though the Eucharist were altered to include ice cream, because it tastes better than bread, and purging, to keep the participants from getting fat.

However it is not God’s purpose for mankind that marital communion be confined to being “brother and sister” (with or without the assistance of “aprons”). “A man cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” {Gen 2:24}. Desire for the beloved is part of God’s plan, and part of a mutually giving relationship. If there is no desire, there can be no giving for there is no receiver for the gift. Marital desire is not lust, because marital desire is “noble gratification” based upon mutual desire to give, while lust is based upon acquisition. {TB Sept. 24, 1980}. Thus Christ strengthens marriage when he attacks “adultery in the heart”, forcing His listeners to seek was lost by sin, which is the fullness of the mutual relationship. Christ envisions all relationships between men and women as being free from lust or other sin. Christ’s words, not only subjects men’s hearts to the question “do you sin in your desire?” but invites them to discover the full meaning of human life and conjugal love. Christ teaches that the original power of creation can become for historical man the power of redemption. Man is not “irrevocably accused” by his lust. Instead, Man is “irrevocably called to love”. Human life is to be generated from the marital loom. The complete giving of man and wife to one another, consummated by the marital act, is meant to generate new life. The weave of human society is to be dependant upon the threads established in marriage, and is meant to be “coeducative”, everything depending upon “who she will be for him and he for her”. (TB - Oct. 8, 1980).

What does this mean regarding civil unions and sacramental marriage? It means that sacramental marriage is more than civil unions with a religious ceremony. Just as a Christian patient whose mouth is wired shut, and who is fed entirely by intravenous fluids can be properly “denied” the sacrament of the Eucharist as he/she is incapable of receiving it, a man and woman who love one another, and who wish to support one another in mutual fidelity but who are permanently incapable of consummating their marriage are unable to receive the sacrament of marriage. Marriage is not merely a matter of loving one another and engaging in mutual giving, though these are important. Such actions are part of living in Christian relationship. Marriage is not a matter of being of “one flesh”, which is what I and my twin, and my little twin patients might reasonably be thought to do by the accident of having been born. Marriage is not about “committed domestic partnerships”. At best these can be considered non-marital Christian relationships that prefigure Man and Woman before the fall, when they lived as “brother and sister”. Whether such relationships may be “sinful” depends on whether they cause the participants to commit adultery, whether in the heart, eye or body. For lust, even if only of the eye or the heart distorts relationships. Lust is about acquiring, rather than about mutual giving. And acquisition may cause damage, however innocent those involved might be. My two little patients are as innocent as infants aged two years of age can only be. However the “giving” that one twin provided his brother was not mutual, both were damaged by it, and one may never recover. Other relationships, which may also seem as close and as innocent as these two little twins, may also cause irreparable harm if sin distorts the relationship, and that harm may not always be immediately obvious.

This does not mean that I necessarily oppose the Church of England decision that gay clergy in partnered relationships may form civil same sex partnerships as long as they promise celibacy. Christ teaches us to look at the heart. We are asked, in all our relationships to answer the question “is my desire sinful, or do I desire to be a giver to my beloved?” If it is sin, then Christ is stern. Anything that leads to sin, whether the sin of lust or anything else, even if it is an eye, a hand or the love of one’s life, must be “plucked out” {Mt. 5: 29-30}. But “noble gratification” is not sexual desire. {TB Dec 3, 1980} If lust does not enter into a relationship, then sin does not enter either, though the relationship, if it lacks the necessary generativity may not qualify as sacramental marriage. For as JPII notes: Man is not “irrevocably accused” by his lust. Instead, Man is “irrevocably called” to love. For some, even for our brothers and sisters who identify as being “gay”, that love and mutual giving may be found in celibate unions, and for these individuals, the original power of creation, and the communion Man enjoyed before Gen 3, when he lived as a brother, may become the power of redemption. Broken fingers heal straighter when bound together. Broken tendons can be spliced to become whole, and broken lives may be entwined in holiness to take their place in the tapestry of mankind.

But this is not marriage. Marriage is more than splicing two broken threads together to make a stronger thread. Marriage is what establishes the tapestry of civilization. That insight was brought home to me yesterday as my parish celebrated the 50th anniversary of two of our parishioners. Their marriage not only lasted half a century, and generated some 6 children and 18 grandchildren, but when our pastor asked that all their relatives in the parish stand up, about 70 people must have risen to their feet. Christian marriages are meant to be generative, not merely supportive. By being generative they weave their way throughout human society. In their Christian fecundity, they create the tapestry upon which the rest of us “broken threads” and indeed all mankind, may intertwine and may be brought into communion. For it is for this reason, to form the weave on which human society rests, that a man leaves his mother and his father, and is called to Holy Matrimony.

In the article I was sent, a Roman Catholic man, confined to a wheelchair since a gunshot wound at age 15, wished to marry a Roman Catholic woman despite being unable to physically consummate the marriage, and was denied the sacrament of marriage in the Roman Catholic church.

Rev. Dipsh_t never heard of adoption?

"Make the question fit the answer."? Sounds slightly scary; and a lot like 'Jeopardy' ("I'll take 'sheep-like theosophy' for 200, Alex").

It is like having an Algebra textbook with the answers in the back. One still needs to do one’s homework if one is ever expected to get on in math; however if you know how the equation is supposed to end, it is easier to work out the solution.

You can very easily die, or go broke, with a philosophy like that.

Not really. Incest requires sex. Siblings have been living together in chaste fashion in all societies since time immemorial. This is known as "family". I admit that in today's sexually charged atmosphere, the idea that two people could manage to live together without copulating does seem quaint. But the old maid sisters are a staple of fiction, and by no means unusual.

As to the adoption, my sister adopted a young child from a third world country who had already failed two previous attempted adoptions (because of obvious kwashiorkor that the other prospective US parents balked at) and I later coadopted her (legal in Maryland) both because as her aunt we lived in the same home, and I had come to love her, and was generally funtioning as a parent, and because my job offered superior medical benefits, and her care was expensive.

The second adoption, (also of a malnourished third world orphan, though one with fewer medical problems) was done jointly.

As for "infant", I am a physician, and I use the word in customary medical usage. There is no "medical term" for "toddler" because sick children do not necessarily "toddle". The word "infant" is used for children at the youngest of ages, especially those who cannot walk, and after that it is "child". Thus we tend to talk about "neonates" (usually around time of birth, but up to age 3 months) "infants" (usually under one year of age, but up to 3 years) and "child" (usually 3-6, but up to 12 or so). The distinction is important because 2month olds tend to be very similar to 1 month olds in terms of medical illnesses, and much less like 11 month olds, while 1 year olds and 3 year olds are much more alike medically than are 3 year olds and 5 year olds).

If anybody requires further information regarding me, they can find it on my faith journey given below.

http://www.faithwriters.com/websites/my_website.php?id=4100

Peace
Shari

Of course. However the church of England merely recognized _celebate partnerships_ and did not call these "marriage". Clergy (or others) living in celebacy has a two thousand year tradition in nunneries, monasteries, as well as ordinary lay communities.

The problem is not with folks (gay or otherwise) who wish to support each other in celebacy, but with those (both gay and heterosexual) who wish sexual freedom without consequences.

The "bad theology" is the first one, which says that marriage is simply a political or social construct that gives "rights" to two folks (a man and woman currently) who wish to live together. It is not. Marriage is the foundation of human society, results in an indisoluable and eternal communion of two people and is integrally linked to the genesis of children (who are also indissoluably, and eternally in communion with their progenitors).

This initial decoupling of marriage from its theological roots initially manifested in the use of birth control, and later was extended to divorce and abortion, and this (heterosexual) perversion was then coopted by gays, (and may well be coopted in the future by polygamists, the incestuous or whatever.

However, the way to deal with this is not by saying that the unmarried should live alone and away from family, and should not be permitted to care for the ill or for orphans, but to agree that marriage is in fact fundamentally linked to procreation, and to make divorce more difficult.

Frankly, my solution would be to limit marriage (and any benefits thereof) to the first marriage between a previously unmarried man and unmarried woman, and to refuse to recognize later "marriages" after divorce. Oddly enough, this is the position of the Catholic church.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.