Work and Motherhood

As Mother’s Day approaches I find myself, as a new mother, reflecting on work and motherhood. When I was pregnant, people frequently advised me on how difficult pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood would be. Occasionally people would end their ominous warnings of sleepless years, loss of personal identity, tantrums, and other trials with a penitent “But it’s all worth it in the end.” I was happily surprised, then, to discover how joyful the transition into parenthood was. I have never been happier or more grateful in my life. Some have said that my disposition is the product of mere luck- luck that my husband and I are blessed to have such an ‘easy’ baby. While there may be some truth to that, our faith and attitude play a role as well.

I read various books on parenting, both old and new, and noticed an interesting shift in attitude. Many of the older books described activities involved in mothering in positive, fun terms. The books have games, songs, and delightful ways to involve children in daily activities. Activities like cooking, cleaning, and teaching children were described with affection. Meanwhile, modern parenting books are concerned with time management, discipline, and how to endure the never ending toil. Many of these books contain persuasive arguments for activities that were once considered de rigueur. Love is present, but almost as an afterthought; a reward you might reap when all the labor is finished. People insist that being a mother is “work.” This is understandable, as there is the continual danger of undervaluing raising a child. Consequently, there is a push to compare parenting to employment. I have seen calculations of the monetary value of a “stay at home” mother. Modern society encourages women to live for themselves, and not for others. Mothers are constantly told to indulge themselves and not to give up their identity as women. However, being a mother does fundamentally change who you are- and, in my opinion, hopefully for the better. As Christian mothers, we are called to care for our children’s minds, bodies, and souls. The problem with defining parenting as “work” is that there is such a negative emphasis now. I was constantly told that being a parent would be the hardest thing I would ever do, but I haven’t found that to be true. It is the most important and valuable thing I have ever done, but I am amazed by how much I enjoy raising my daughter- and that includes the diapers, laundry, teething, and tears that go along with it. I wonder why no one ever spoke to me about the intense joy that a mother can experience every day.
   
When it comes down to it, parenting cannot be compared with employment. People who compare the two seek to define the worth of something that exceeds measurable value. Motherhood can be a joy and a duty of the utmost importance. We should not have to compare it to employment to understand its value. When a child is baptized, the priest says: “God the Father, through his Son, the Virgin Mary’s child, has brought joy to all Christian mothers, as they see the hope of eternal life shine on their children. May he bless the mother of this child. She now thanks God for the gift of her child. May she be one with him in thanking him forever in heaven, in Christ Jesus our Lord.” I pray that this blessing will ring true for all mothers.

By Shannon Fossett 

Shannon is a Canonist for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland

Cohabitation: The Elephant in the Room

In my work as a canonist, I have encountered many engaged and divorced Catholics who cohabitate. I have heard plenty of conversations about cohabitation, and one theme I have noticed is that people want to focus on the practical issues. Church ministers talk about how cohabitation makes for poor preparation for marriage, and cite statistics such as the 85% divorce rate among couples who cohabitate. Finances are another favorite topic as many couples claim that the only reason they are living together is to save money. However, the giant elephant in the room is the one issue involved in cohabitation that few people want to talk about: sex. Among people who cohabitate, sex is commonly viewed as a non-issue, for many think that nearly every dating relationship necessarily involves sex. Church ministers avoid the discussion because they fear being viewed as intolerant and judgmental, and don’t want to scare couples away from the Church.

The problem with this avoidance is that few people get around to talking about the Church’s actual teaching on sexuality. In my experience, the vast majority of couples who cohabitate have not had the opportunity to learn what the Church actually teaches. They may know that the Church prohibits all sexual activity outside of marriage, but they couldn’t tell you why. People view the Church teaching on sexuality as they view speed limit laws: a nice rule meant to keep you safe, but one that you can almost always break without penalty. Much ink has been spilled in the discussion of high divorce rates, but not as much on the correlation of cohabitation and divorce.

This is so unfortunate because, let’s face it, the practical arguments against cohabitation are not all that persuasive. You could learn these arguments from a segment on the morning news. Few couples are going to stop living together because of statistics. What is persuasive is a true understanding of the Church’s beautiful teaching on sexuality, and that’s a segment The Today Show isn’t going to be running any time soon. This teaching is complex and holistic, and takes time to learn. I remember attending a marriage preparation class, where the priest presenter was giving the talk on Blessed John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. He only had about an hour, and was clearly struggling trying to figure out how to cram this exquisite teaching into an hour talk. And who can blame him? It is impossible to do this, as you cannot understand the teaching on sexuality without an understanding of the Church’s teaching on the dignity of the person, the Trinity, and many other concepts.

When it comes to cohabitation, what is needed is honesty. Contrary to public opinion, cohabitation is not a personal choice. Couples who cohabitate are making a public statement that they reject the Church’s teaching on sexuality and marriage. Though practical issues may have been a part of the decision, when it comes down to it, cohabitation would not be an option if sexual activity wasn’t involved. Instead of blithely skimming over the issue of sex, couples should be confronted with the fact that their lifestyle is incompatible with their Catholic faith, and in fact bars them from the sacraments. This confrontation should not be angry and condemnatory. Many people have never learned what the Church actually teaches. As Fulton Sheen famously said, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” Luckily, our Church leaders are recognizing this fact. Our bishop has just written a wonderful pastoral on marriage. The media has mistakenly claimed that this was written only in response to the upcoming referendum issue of redefining marriage. The truth is that the bishop, in his wisdom, has recognized that the Church’s teaching on sexuality and marriage is often lost, dismantled, and confused. We should not simply criticize people who are cohabitating, but we should challenge them to learn why the Church does not accept cohabitation and reconsider their lifestyle.

The pastoral letter can be read here: http://beautyofmarriage.org/

By Shannon Fossett

Shannon is a Canonist for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland

Love and Children

In the 1984 Code of Canon Law, canon 1055 §1 defines the ends of marriage as “the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.” This was a shift from 1917 Code, which considered the good of the spouses to be subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage as the procreation and education of children; called by those of us who endured Latin classes the bonum prolis. The equality of these ends was a result of the reflection on marriage found in Vatican II and enumerated in documents such as Gaudium et Spes. Instead of focusing solely on the bonum prolis, the concept of marriage as a covenant of conjugal love was included to a greater degree than before. This shift was an undoubtedly positive result of a more complete understanding of marriage and the human person. However, the modern trend has been to distort the understanding of these two ends, and to lessen or in some cases completely remove the bonum prolis from our understanding of marriage.

Since the elevation of conjugal love was new, it received a great deal of attention. Indeed, many couples today enter marriage believing that conjugal love is the sole substantive good of marriage, and believe that children are merely an accidental good. This understanding has been bolstered by a modern culture which views children as nice but unnecessary, and a matter of personal choice. In effect, the understanding of children has become something separate from marriage. This separation of the bonum prolis from marriage has been distended by the prevalent contraceptive mentality. Couples who employ contraception no longer make the essential and natural connection between love, sex, and children. Instead of participating in acts that are both unitive and open to the potential of new life, sex becomes something that has nothing to do with children.

In my work as a canonist, I often see cases where couples enter marriage with little or no thought about children. Instead they focus completely on love. Sometimes they assume that somewhere along the line they may have a child or two, but no more thought is given. The woman blithely uses contraceptives, and the couple never quite gets around to discussing children. This is another problem with contraceptives; since the possibility of children has been eradicated, the couple has no need to discuss children in relation to their sexuality. Instead of something natural and intimate, sex becomes something sterile and individualistic.

The Church teaches that marriage involves both spouses giving a total gift of self. This gift is not limited to the spouses only. As John Paul II writes in Familiaris consortio:

                         Conjugal love, while leading the spouses to the reciprocal “knowledge” which makes them “one 
                         flesh,” does not end with the couple, because it makes them capable of the greatest possible gift,
                         the gift by which they become cooperators with God for giving life to a new human person. Thus
                         the couple, while giving themselves to one another, give not just themselves but also the reality of 
                         children.

Of course, there are times when a couple is unable to have children, and this does not affect the validity or good of that marriage. The attainment of the ends of marriage is not what makes a marriage valid or “successful.” Instead it is the intention to cooperate with God and the purposes of marriage that is important.

When the shift was made to include the good of the spouse as equal to the bonum prolis, it was with the understanding that these two ends are inseparable. Marriage is a natural institution, and as such, conjugal love does not exist without the bonum prolis. True marital love necessarily involves the love of children. When the idea of children is removed from the understanding of marriage, what is left is a not a marriage at all. It is a mere relationship between two people, and not a relationship between two people, God, and the reality of children. Christ elevated marriage to a sacrament for precisely this reason, and it is the duty of spouses, with the aid of the Church, to live their marriage with the intention of fulfilling the true purpose of marriage.

By Shannon Fossett

Shannon is a Canonist for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine.

On Being Judgemental

Recently I was having a conversation with a friend who was questioning my belief in moral absolutes. I quickly realized that he was confusing the judgment of a person with the judgment of an action. Upon further reaction, I thought of the many times I’ve been accused of being judgmental for my moral beliefs. However, people often fail to realize that a person can view certain actions to be wrong while still having compassion for people who choose these actions. As a canon lawyer, I frequently take calls from people angry about the Church because they feel the Church has no right to make moral judgments.

For example, the Church’s position against abortion is well known. What is unknown is the Church’s compassion and care for women who have undergone abortion. Think about it: Abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood do not offer support services for women who are struggling with the often devastating after effects of an abortion, which are extremely common (see this recent study: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180.abstract). Yet the Catholic Church offers caring and compassionate services to women who have had abortions such as counseling, retreats, and the Project Rachel program, not to mention the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Why? Because the Church recognizes the difference between the objective wrong that is abortion and the women who undergo abortions, and realizes the need to help women who have been through such an ordeal. Instead of punishing people who have taken an action we judge as wrong, the Church strives to help these women heal.

The same is true for another controversial issue: same-sex marriage. Recently Governor Cuomo of New York said that the only argument opponents of same-sex marriage have is “I want to discriminate against gay people,” and called opponents “anti-American.” This represents the same line of thinking: people who are opposed to same-sex marriage must judge and hate people who are gay. It completely overlooks the repeated message of the Catholic Church (along with many other faiths) that all people are made in the image of God, and as such, have an inestimable worth and dignity.

We live in a society where no one wants to be labeled “judgmental” and people are afraid of pushing their morality on another. I believe the only way to proceed in this culture is to hold fast to our beliefs, and let our actions toward people speak the truth of our deep respect for all people. For all the angry calls I receive in my work for the Tribunal, I occasionally am blessed to receive one from someone crying with gratitude at the healing, reconciliation, and grace they have received as a result of our work. These people were able to realize that the Church was not looking to place judgment or blame on them, but rather seeking to heal them of past wounds and move forward secure in the knowledge that the Church is merciful.

By Shannon Fossett, J.C.L.

Shannon is a Canonist for the Diocese of Portland.

Rules, Regulations, and Weddings: Why the Church Cares

During wedding season, one of the common questions I am asked by engaged couples is why they cannot have a non-traditional Catholic wedding. In an age where the average cost of an American wedding is $30,000, and numerous television shows highlight extravagant, personalized weddings, people are often bewildered by the Church placing restrictions and requirements on “their special day.”

When at least one of the spouses is Catholic, the Church has certain requirements for weddings. These requirements constitute what is called the canonical form of marriage. Canonical form includes elements such as who may witness a marriage, when a marriage may take place, what must be included in the ceremony, and where the ceremony is to take place. Canonical form has a long and colorful history in the Church. In the Middle Ages, weddings often involved only the couple exchanging their consent privately. However, these weddings produced disastrous results as the spouses, usually the wife, could not prove that they were really married. This led to social problems such as abandoned spouses, children, and confused property and inheritance rights.

While clandestine marriages may have been the catalyst for the introduction of canonical form, there are more pastoral and theological reasons underlying these requirements. At a practical and pastoral level, engaged couples must meet with a priest at some point before their wedding. This ensures that they are given the opportunity to receive assistance and preparation prior to marrying. Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota on January 23, 2011, spoke at length about the necessity of better marriage preparation as a means to counter the prevalence of divorce. This requirement affords ministers the opportunity to reach out to engaged couples. The second, more theological reason for canonical form is to ensure that the wedding ceremony corresponds to the liturgical and ecclesial components of a sacramental celebration in the Church.

Most people would never imagine requesting that any other sacrament take place outdoors, or to a form of their choosing. Marriages are not private events, but public ecclesial ones. The spouses are declaring their commitment publicly, and so it is fitting that the celebration takes place in a church, where the focus is on the Eucharist. Couples are sometimes upset that their wedding cannot take place on a tropical beach, with a friend who was recently “ordained” on the Internet presiding. Yet it is important for these couples to decide if what they truly desire is a marriage centered on Christ, and, if so, whether their wedding ceremony will be consistent with the true significance of the marriage covenant. The requirements of canonical form are not present to restrict the spouses. On the contrary, they exist to enable the couple to have the opportunity to receive assistance from the Church’s ministers, and to have a fruitful celebration worthy of the dignity of marriage.

By Shannon Fossett, Canonist, Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland