The Challenge of Chastity
by Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, Sandro Magister
Since his retirement to the hillside of Bologna, Cardinal Giacomo Biffi has written down his reflections in a new book. The title is "Pecore e pastori [Sheep and shepherds]." Here's how he explains it:
"Everyone in the Church is, before anything else, a member of the flock of Christ. Everyone, from the pope to the most recently baptized, bears the true nature of his greatness not so much in being entrusted with this or that role in the Christian community, as in being part of the 'little flock.' There is, therefore, substantial equality among all believers, as long as they truly believe: only by believing does one enter among Christ's sheep."
As in his previous books, this time as well the cardinal's vivid words are not those of the most popular schools of theology, but draw directly from the language of the Gospel, open to the "little ones" and closed to the "wise."
Cardinal Biffi knows that heresy is in fashion. But for him, this is just one more reason to defend orthodoxy:
"Sometimes, in some areas of the Catholic world, people even come to the point of thinking that divine Revelation must adapts itself to the current mentality in order to be credible, instead of the current mentality converting in the light that comes to us from on high. And yet one must reflect on the fact that it is 'conversion', and not 'adaptation', that is the evangelical term."
Adaptation to current thought, he writes, even arrives at obscuring the divinity of Jesus, who is reduced to an ordinary man, although of extraordinary value:
"As paradoxical as this statement may seem, the Arian question [named after Arius, the arch-heretic condemned by the Council of Nicaea in 321] is always the order of the day in ecclesial life. The pretexts can be many: from the desire to feel that Christ is closer and is more one of us, to the proposal of making it easier to understand him by exalting almost exclusively his social and humanitarian aspects. In the end, the result is always that of stripping the Redeemer of man of his radical uniqueness, and classifying him as someone who can be managed and domesticated. In this regard, it could be said that the Council of Nicaea is much more relevant today than Vatican Council II."
Many of the pages in Biffi's new book go against the tide. The following is the chapter concerning one of the most controversial topics, that of chastity, which the author addresses in a form that appears to be unusual and countercultural precisely because it makes direct reference to the sources of Christian doctrine and morality: the words of Jesus in the Gospels, the letters of Paul, and the other books of Scripture.
The Challenge of Chastity
By Cardinal Giacomo Biffi
Over the centuries of human history — so monotonous and repetitive in its spiritual opacity, in its moral failures, in its enigmatic sufferings — the arrival of the "little flock" of Christ has been, perhaps, the only substantial novelty: something never before seen and positively original finally appeared on the face of the earth.
For the first time, charity was presented as the highest ideal of life: [...] an ideal often admired also [...] by non-Christians, as difficult as it is to imitate; a witness that sometimes has prompted reflection even among those who are not especially eager to make room for God in their thoughts.
What has instead been perceived by the world as something burdensome and repulsive in the Church's mentality and approach is the ideal, the program, the witness of chastity. [...] This has appeared since the beginning as a genuine challenge. And it remains a challenge for the most widespread and prevalent mentality in our day. [...]
A clear incompatibility
When it came onto the stage of history — in the Greco-Roman world, as well as in the land of the ancient kingdom of Israel — Christianity had to come to terms with a culture marked by a conception of eroticism, by a practice of sexuality, by a system of marriage that was immediately perceived as foreign to the character of the Gospel, and even as contrary to the new humanity, born from the Paschal event.
But there was no hesitation: right from the beginning, the universal and consistent persuasion was asserted that no ambiguities or compromises were admissible in this area. The "new people," having emerged from water and the Spirit, had to distinguish itself — apart from the unprecedented phenomenon of its style of fraternal love — also by a demanding and radical form of chastity. All of the evidence in our possession agrees on this. [...] It is demonstrated by the lists of transgressions that are inadmissible in Christian existence, meaning that they make it impossible to enter the Kingdom of God; lists that must be proposed to the communities of believers with pastoral solicitude:
"Do not be deceived; neither the immoral (pornòi) nor idolaters nor adulterers (moichòi) nor the depraved (malakòi) nor sodomites (arsenokòitai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9).
"Be sure of this, that no immoral (pòrnos) or impure (akàthartos) or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" (Ephesians 5:5).
"Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality (pornèia), impurity (akatharsìa), licentiousness (asèlgheia) . . . I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-21).
Demands of sanctity
Chaste conduct is one of the necessary and most recognizable signs of the substantial passage that takes place with baptism between the degraded and unworthy way of life typical of paganism and a new state of purity: it is a clear break between old habits and Paschal newness:
"Just as you presented the parts of your bodies as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness for lawless ness, so now present them as slaves to righteousness for sanctification" (Romans 6:19).
"For the time that has passed is sufficient for doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in debauchery (en aselghèiais) (1 Peter 4:3).
It is not an obsessive sexual phobia or an excessive moralism that inspires this behavior. It is, rather, an unprecedented awareness of the demands of sanctification, which comes from having adhered to the thrice-holy God:
"This is the will of God, your holiness: that you refrain from immorality (apò tes pornèias), that each of you know how to acquire a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in lustful passion as do the Gentiles who do not know God" (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5).
"God did not call us to impurity but to holiness. Therefore, whoever disregards this, disregards not a human being but God, who gives his holy Spirit to you" (1 Thessalonians 4:7-8).
Early Christianity felt that it was above all the sexual immorality of the Hellenistic world that deserved the name of impurity (akatharsìa) contrary to God.
The value of the body
This culture, unheard of in Greco-Roman society, did not arise from excessive spiritualism: here there is no mistrust of what is material and corporal, which insinuated itself within the ideologies of Platonic origin (but was unknown to the Hebrew mentality).
On the contrary, it is fostered and expresses itself with respect toward the body, which in the Christian perspective is held to be a sacred reality and an instrument of sanctification:
"Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body" (1 Corinthians 6:18-20).
There is, according to Paul, something like a "liturgical dimension" to chastity:
"I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship" (Romans 12:1).
It can be understood how the Church reacted immediately to the Gnostic disdain toward marriage, a disdain that in Gnosticism arrived at prohibition (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3), and defended its dignity:
"Let marriage be honored among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers" (Hebrews 13:4).
The new humanity of the baptized is also revealed in his speech, which must avoid obscenity or even coarse expressions, because in the "saints" (as Christians are called in the apostolic letters), attention to chastity is all-encompassing, and must shine forth in every manifestation of the "new man," including his general demeanor and his words:
"But now you must put them all away: anger, fury, malice, slander, and obscene language (aischrologhìan) out of your mouths." (Colossians 3:8).
"Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place" (Ephesians 5:3-4).
The question of homosexuality
Regarding today's emerging problem of homosexuality, according to the Christian conception there must be a distinction between the respect that is always due to persons, which involves the rejection of any social and political marginalization (with the exception of the unalterable nature of marriage and the family), and the necessary repudiation of any exalted ideology of homosexuality.
The word of God — as we know it in a page of the letter to the Romans by the apostle Paul — even offers us a theological interpretation of the phenomenon of the rampant ideological and cultural aberration in this area: this aberration, it is affirmed, is at the same time the proof and the result of the exclusion of God from collective attention and social life, and of the refusal to give him due praise.
The exclusion of the Creator leads to the complete derailment of reason:
"They became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21-22).
As a result of this intellectual blindness, both theory and behavior have fallen into complete dissoluteness:
"Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies" (Romans 1:24)
And in order to prevent any misunderstanding or any convenient interpretation, the Apostle continues with a striking analysis, formulated in perfectly explicit terms:
"Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper" (Romans 1:26-28).
In fact, Saint Paul is careful to observe that extreme abjection occurs when "they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:32).
It is a page of the inspired Book that no human authority can force us to censor. Nor are we allowed, if we want to be faithful to the word of God, the pusillanimity of passing over it in silence out of concern of appearing "politically incorrect."
We must instead point out the singular relevance of this teaching of divine Revelation: what St. Paul identified in the culture of the Greco-Roman world prophetically demonstrates its correspondence with what has taken place in Western culture in recent centuries: the exclusion of the Creator — to the point of proclaiming grotesquely that "God is dead" — has had the consequence, almost as an inevitable punishment, of the spread of an aberrant sexual ideology, with an arrogance unknown to previous times.
The mind of Christ
Jesus, generally speaking, touched on these matters only a few times: and always in a sober manner, although at the same time unmistakable and resolute. In the matter of sexual morality, he shows that he disagrees not only with the habits of the pagans, but also with some views that were widespread in Israel.
Nor is it imaginable that the Easter proclamation and the proposition of the Christian community, with their character of novelty and nonconformity, do not attain to full fidelity with the Gospel on this point as well, and are not presented in perfect harmony with the teaching of the Lord, preserved and handed down by the preaching of the Apostles.
Jesus does not hesitate to include violations against chastity among the behaviors that threaten the dignity of man and his interior purity, furthermore specifying that the corruption of the "heart" (meaning the interior world) is the source and measure of the responsibility (and therefore of the guilt) of the actions committed:
"For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy. These are what defile a person" (Matthew 15:19-20)
Jesus even maintains — and this is typical of his anthropology — that chastity is already violated in the hidden depths of the soul when the blameworthy desire is welcomed, before it is consummated in sinful action:
"Everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28).
A rabbinical marriage problem
"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife (gynàica) for any cause whatever?" (Matthew 19:3). The questions that the Pharisees presented to Jesus had a specific reference: this was a question that divided the rabbinical schools of the time.
The Shammai school maintained that the only valid reason for proceeding with repudiation was bad moral behavior, meaning immorality on the part of the woman.
For the Hillel school, however, an inconvenience in married life could be enough: even the habit of oversalting the food, or burning the main course.
Continuing according to this permissive approach, a few decades later Rabbi Aquiba maintained that it was sufficient if the husband had the opportunity to marry a more attractive woman.
Jesus' response
Jesus does not allow himself to get caught up in the arguments among the doctors of the law, nor does he show that he has been influenced by the behaviors that were common among the Jews. His is a stroke of genius: his answer is that one must look back at God's original plan:
"From the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate" (Mark 10:6-9).
"In the beginning": this "beginning" in which creation was planned and set in motion (cf. Genesis 1:1, en archè) already includes the Christological and ecclesiological perspective, according to which marriage is a sign and symbol of the union that binds the Redeemer to renewed humanity, and the very distinction of the sexes is an allusion to the dialectic and communion between Christ and the Church.
It is such a sublime and unexpected vision of marriage that the disciples, overwhelmed, take shelter in sarcasm: "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matthew 19:10).
We should note that Mark's version of the episode supposes the idea of substantial equality between man and woman: an equality that did not appear in the Mosaic dispensation:
"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12).
For its part, the Gospel of Luke has preserved for us another saying of Jesus that offers further clarification:
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18).
As can be seen, the second part of this phrase anticipates and rejects the hypothesis that indissolubility no longer applies after the bond has been broken, as some have thought. And it rejects the hypothesis that the law of indissolubility can be violated in exceptional cases, when it is a matter of a repudiated spouse who was not responsible for the rupture.
Matthew's side note
Matthew's version adds a side note that is not easy to understand:
"Anyone who repudiates his wife (ten ghynàica autoù), except in the case of 'pornèia', and marries another, commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9).
What is this "pornèia"? It can't mean bad moral behavior on the part of the life, because in that case Jesus would align himself with the Shammai school (while the reaction of the disciples can be explained only by the absolute novelty of Christ's declaration). Besides, the perfect agreement between Mark, Luke, and Paul assures us that Jesus maintains that the principle of indissolubility is absolute.
The simplest solution is that this refers to the situation of living with a woman outside of marriage; a cohabitation than not only can be, but must be broken off. This is the interpretation in the Bible of the Italian bishops' conference, which translates: "except in the case of illegitimate union."
The ideal and mercy
Jesus proclaims, without qualifications and without allowances, the resplendent original plan of the Father for man and woman; and for this very reason, he warns everyone not to distort that ideal of a chaste and holy life that has been presented to us by God. But he always looks with affection and understanding on those men who in fact have denigrated this ideal by their transgressions.
He treats sinners with affectionate kindness. He does not see them as rejects or outsiders; instead, he considers them the reason why he came into the world, and the natural recipients of his mission: "I did not come to call the righteous but sinners" (Matthew 9; Mark 2; Luke 5:32).
With this benevolent attitude, he is able to save the adulterous woman from stoning (John 8:1-11). He chivalrously defends a woman who is described in the story as "a sinful woman in the city" (Luke 7:37). With the Samaritan woman who has had many relationships, he begins a respectful but frank conversation that wins her heart (John 4:5-42).
His is not the apparent mercy of permissiveness: it is the saving mercy that, without disdain or humiliation, urges interior reflection and renewal.
The "great mystery"
The transcendent Christian vision of the male-female relationship — and in this, the precise and demanding proposal of a chaste life according each one's individual condition — finds its foundation and inspiration in the conviction that this relationship is the image of the spousal connection that binds Christ to the Church.
It is a lesson in "anagogical theology" (meaning that it allows itself to be illuminated from above) imparted to us by St. Paul in the letter to the Ephesians. In the reciprocal donation of the spouses, there lives a "great mystery" [...] which the Father planned before all the ages: "This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the Church" (Ephesians 5:32). In the eyes of the Apostle, the husband's love for his wife evokes Christ's love for the Church: a love that saves, that purifies and sanctifies.
The later teaching of the Church would speak of marriage as a "sacrament": a sacrament that, being an allusion and figure of a bond that makes the Redeemer and redeemed humanity "one flesh," makes the spouses participate in a special way in that event, [...] within which the mutual acts of personal donation become the occasion and vehicle of continual grace.
No philosophy and no religion has ever succeeded in lifting sexual life so high; naturally, sexual life conducted according to the original plan of God.
A challenge that is always relevant
The chastity proclaimed and proposed by apostolic preaching was, without a doubt, a challenge to the mentality and behavior of humanity at the time. And it is a challenge that still keeps its relevance intact today. In a certain respect, it has even become more necessary and more urgent.
Our age is dominated and afflicted by a sort of pansexualsim. Sex is constantly brought up: not only in social and psychological statements, not only in the many expressions of art and culture, not only in performances and entertainment; even in advertising messages, it is impossible not to evoke it and allude to it.
We sometimes get the impression that we have been influenced and taken in by a mysterious cabal of maniacs who are imposing their own degenerate mentality on everyone else. They are the same ones who never fail to call bigots and prudes those who are not convinced by their lofty arguments. And with their tenacity and their industriousness, they unintentionally reach the sad goal of an objective comicalness.
Evangelical realism
Without a doubt, in the eyes of the world the Christian vision appears fatally abstract and utopian: it is noble and beautiful — one will say — but it is too far from actual reality.
To tell the truth, this idea of chastity is truly impossible and vain for those who do not live baptismal life to the full, with its sacramental practices, with assiduous contemplation of the Paschal event, with making sufficient room for prayer, with committed and joyous participation in ecclesial experience.
The reason lies in the fact that chastity is not a virtue that can be pursued and acquired on one's own, outside of the context of a comprehensive following of Christ. But instead, in the context of a comprehensive following of Christ, everything becomes possible, easy, joyous: "I can do all things in him who gives me strength" (Philippians 4:13).
This item 8546 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
