THE TEXT BELOW IS THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE VIDEO COMMENTARY BY FR. FERNANDO ARMELLINI

Video Text Download version

A good Sunday to all. 

If there is a topical issue worth reflecting on in light of the Gospel, it is the state of the family institution in our society. We know that the picture sociologists paint today is worrisome, and it is not even necessary to resort to their studies because the reality is obvious: people are marrying less and later, and they have one child, at most two. The percentage of those who don’t even want to talk about getting engaged in a project to start a family is very high. It is a concern for many parents with a 40-year-old still living at home. 

There are even those who speak of a society that is taking shape, a post-family society, that is to say, the traditional family has had its day and is a legacy of the past. Today, families that are in fashion, the ones that are presented to us by the media as normal, or rather, as modern, are not the traditional ones but the extended families, where there are more fathers, mothers, siblings, half-brothers and sisters who live a serene and happy life. 

This image is dangerous and false because it is useless to those who want to hide the divorce. Divorce always fails; it leaves deep wounds in those involved, especially the children. Yet this is the image the media tries to pass off as the reality of the future. 

In this context, those who still believe in the value of unconditional and definitive conjugal love feel a certain discomfort; they feel like those who do not think and live up to date. Still at the level of the media, regarding how sexuality is presented and how it should be lived, I think the most accepted norm is this: everybody has the right to have sex wherever and with whomever they prefer, provided those involved agree. 

This is how a permissive mentality spreads in society, where everything is fine, everything is lawful, the norm is whatever one likes, and inhibitions and guilt are said to be invented by religion. Let’s imagine a television debate in which someone dares to raise reservations about these choices. How would they be labeled? Obscurantist, medieval sexophobic; that’s the perspective we have for the future of society. 

Let’s ask ourselves whether this approach to sexuality is correct or dangerous. Does it humanize or demean us? This question will help believers appreciate the importance of understanding what Jesus thinks about it. We will respect all other ways of thinking or living, but it is essential that believers internalize the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and witness, in his life, that the truth presented in the Gospel yields joy and love. Let’s hear those who open the discourse on the subject: 

The Pharisees approached Jesus and asked, ‘Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?’ 

They were testing him. The question the Pharisees put to Jesus still circulates today: divorce, yes, divorce, no; today it is said: premarital relations, yes, premarital relations, no; cohabitation, yes, cohabitation, no; and a distinction is also made between modern and non-modern priests. To keep up with the times, you must answer “yes” immediately; otherwise, you are retrograde. 

With this argument, people already have their convictions well-defined and, in general, do not want to question them; it is not even worth discussing, because they end up raising their voices to offend. Why? Because if a person is entrenched in this way in their positions, before answering, it is necessary to clarify the understanding one has of the relationship between man and woman and sexuality, that is, to ask why God or nature wanted human beings to be male and female, for what purpose? 

Therefore, the point of reference must be clarified; otherwise, we are talking in different languages, and no one is willing to question the conclusions they have already reached. We see that Jesus does not give a yes-or-no answer; he wants to bring out the truth from within: they are people, they are human, and let the meaning of the relationship between man and woman, the authentic relationship that comes from their human nature, emerge from their deepest nature. And we see that instead of saying yes or no, Jesus poses a counter-question and wants to help his interlocutors discover and accept God’s plan for sexuality. 

Let’s listen to what he asks them: 

He replied to them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ They replied, ‘Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.’ 

Divorce in Israel was allowed at the time of Jesus; we know that. The biblical text cited to justify it is chapter 24 of the book of Deuteronomy, which says that if a husband who has lived with his wife finds something improper (‘ervat devar’ in Hebrew) in her, he should write a document of repudiation for her and send her back. The woman who receives this document may remarry and have legitimate children. 

Therefore, the text of Moses was intended to protect the woman because if she was left without this document, the husband could denounce her as an adulteress, and she could be stoned. To protect the woman, Moses had established that whoever repudiated his wife had to give her this document to free her. In the ‘Mishnah,’ the rabbis’ discussions about that detail are presented, including what reason would allow a man to divorce his wife. Rabbi Shammai taught that one could not divorce his wife unless she had engaged in immoral behavior. Whereas Rabbi Hillel was more open-minded and said that the man could divorce her even if she had spoiled a meal. Then, Rabbi Tiva taught that he could divorce her if he found another prettier than she. 

But all of them also remembered the reprobation of divorce pronounced by the prophet Malachi (we are at the end of the 5th century B.C.). The context is a long accusation by the prophet, who denounces the evil deeds of the priests of Jerusalem. At a certain point, he says: ‘There is another thing that you do; you cover with tears of weeping and sighing the altar of the Lord on which you offer sacrifices, but God does not look upon your offerings. He does not accept them from your hands; why? Because the Lord is a witness between you and the wife of your youth, whom you betrayed while she was your companion, the woman bound to you by a covenant.’ And he concludes by saying: ‘For I detest the divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.’ ‘I hate divorcement,’ everyone knew this text. 

The tractate of the Talmud that discusses repudiation closes by quoting the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that divorce is an extreme measure, an evil to be avoided, because when there is a divorce, even the stones of the temple’s altar weep. 

What answer do the Pharisees give to Jesus in this social context? They answer him: ‘Moses permitted the writing of the act of divorcement.’ Jesus had asked them what Moses commanded them, not what he permitted. Moses never allowed anything. Divorce existed, and Moses wanted to protect the woman by establishing the rule that if you divorce, you must give her a document of repudiation. You see at my back the ‘ketubot,’ the document read at the time of marriage, which the spouses and witnesses then sign. It sets out the commitments they take. 

Note how these ketubot are presented: they are an invitation to life, with bunches of flowers and grapes. The artist Marc Chagall also painted some of these scenes. In these ‘ketubot,’ everything speaks of joy and conjugal love blessed by the Lord. Now notice a ketubah and a ‘seper karitut’ (סֵ֤פֶר = sê-p̄er = ballot – כְּרִיתֻת֙ = kə-rî-ṯuṯ = of divorce), the document of separation and rupture, as the Hebrew term says, the breaking of a covenant of love. While the ‘ketubot’ are hymns to joy and life, the ‘seper karitut’ is a cold form to be filled out when filing for divorce, and it is written in cursive Hebrew, not the Hebrew spelling we find in the Torah codes, because the sacred spelling cannot be used to write a ‘seper karitut.’ 

So, will it be enough to observe the commandments of Moses to feel in tune with the Torah and with God’s plan for sexuality? Let’s listen to the answer given by Jesus: 

But Jesus told them, ‘Because of the hardness of your hearts, he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 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.’ 

Jesus made it clear that Moses did not give permission to divorce but established a rule to protect women’s rights. Here, Jesus adds the reason for this provision: ‘Because of the hardness of your hearts. You divorce, you are hardhearted, you forget the rights of women, and Moses wanted to protect them.’ But now, says Jesus, let’s try together to find out what the Creator’s design is about sexuality, and then we will evaluate, from this design, which behaviors are part of it and which are not. Specifically, we will see whether divorce is part of this Creator’s design. 

There is a biological reality, and we must try to discover its meaning: there are two ways of incarnating the human being, as male or female, and this is the great diversity we find among human beings. In front of this, all other diversities are marginal: being beautiful or less beautiful, intelligent or less intelligent, white or black, Chinese or European. 

Why did God want human beings to be male and female? We can see it immediately in nature. He made us need each other. He made us complementary. Each complements the other; they need to be fully themselves. The Genesis text calls this condition: nakedness; they were both naked and felt no shame. Nakedness is the condition in which one is born, and one is not self-sufficient. This is our nature. We need the other to become fulfilled; we are not complete without the other. 

It is beautiful what the text says: the man does not feel ashamed of this lack. In the Bible, ‘shame’ means defeat and failure. Here, the man faces his condition; he feels no shame and therefore does not consider it a defeat or a failure. The balanced person is glad to need the other, not self-sufficient, whereas the one who wants to be a Superman believes he can be self-sufficient and doesn’t need anybody. This is the ‘Superman.’ 

God made us well; he wanted us incomplete to force us to come out of ourselves to meet the other, exchange gifts with the other, and thus to love; he made us for love. This is the nature of man and the reason for all our differences, because we need what the other has and the other needs our gifts. This is our nature, of which we should not be ashamed; it is our nakedness, our condition. 

And note well the sacred text: after it is said that he saw that all was good, that all was beautiful, this refrain is repeated seven times in the Bible at the beginning. The first thing God sees that is not good is the loneliness of man; it is not good for man to be alone, because if he is alone, he does not become human; he does not realize himself as a man. 

This is the meaning of sexuality, the reason for this diversity, which is the image of all the diversities with which God has enriched us, precisely so that we may exchange our gifts. Sexuality is not to be identified with genitality; it is much broader; it permeates all aspects of our personality. It is the impulse that pushes us out of solitude and toward those who are different from us, so that we may get involved in the dynamics of love, in the exchange of gifts that each of us possesses and that must be given to those who need them. Thus, if a teacher has the gift of science and finds himself before students in need of this gift, and he generously distributes his knowledge, he realizes the meaning of sexuality, that is, the impulse that arises from this diversity. 

We must remember that genitality is only one aspect, a very important one, of sexuality. This genitality, this way of realizing sexuality, is recognized in God’s plan within a specific context, namely married love, which presupposes an unconditional, definitive, and exclusive commitment between two persons. Yet genitality is not indispensable to sexuality. Jesus fully realized sexuality because everything in him was a gift, but he did not exercise genitality. This is the conclusion Jesus draws from the nature of married love, and therefore man must not divide what God has joined together. Divorce, then, does not fit into this design. 

At my back, I have placed two ‘ketubot.’ Notice that in this ‘ketubah,’ there are two Hebrew letters, gimel and tet. The word ‘tet’ means repudiation. The rabbis noticed that the word ‘repudiation’ – ‘tet’ does not exist in the Bible. Not only that, but these two letters, gimel and tet in Hebrew, are never found one after the other. And not only that, but the rabbis also realized that no word in the Hebrew Bible ends with gim if the next one begins with tet. They concluded that God wanted to avoid even the shadow of repudiation in the Bible. Therefore, it is not a question of indissolubility because if it is placed as a rule that fetters the people, it is meaningless; it is the reality of love, which by its nature is unconditional, definitive, unreserved, without ulterior motives. A couple can count on each other’s love without fear or uncertainty because they know it will be definitive. 

This is the design of the Creator, and therefore that formula of love we hear repeated among lovers, ‘I love you and want you for me,’ ‘I need you,’ ‘I love you absolutely, and woe to anyone who touches you, because you are exclusively mine; I take only pleasure in being with you’… but the day you no longer give me this satisfaction, I’ll change you and find someone else. This is not the love that enters into God’s design. This reasoning only impoverishes. The formula of love designed by God is different: ‘I love you means that I am willing to do anything, even to give my life so that you will be pleased, and my will to take care of your happiness will never diminish; you can fully count on the gift of my whole being.’ This is the love planned by the Creator. 

After understanding this plan for sexuality, we can evaluate whether certain ways of living genitality are part of this plan. It is not a question of whether it is forbidden or lawful, but whether a certain behavior is humanizing or whether it degrades you. And so, starting from this plan of the Creator, we can say that sexual adventures and disorderly behavior are certainly outside of God’s plan. The media are pleased to present and justify these behaviors, but these behaviors always provoke inner drama; even if those involved try to hide them, they create untenable situations, even if they try to show apparent happiness. 

Let us keep this in mind: sexuality is not a game; building the love willed by God is an arduous commitment; therefore, impatience and haste must be avoided. Is the extramarital affair part of this creation project? Certainly not; it is a betrayal of love; it impoverishes the protagonists; it does not enrich them. Are simple cohabitation, while it lasts, and premarital relationships part of this plan of the Creator, or not? We do not want to judge and condemn, but we just want to understand what is fully humanizing and what is not. Although there are manifestations of love (there is always a spark of love), we must aim at the full design of the Creator. And it must be said that these behaviors of cohabitation and premarital relations lack the full and definite involvement presupposed in the Creator’s design. 

Jesus says: “A man shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” The passive form of the verb used by Jesus is beautiful, ‘proscolaumai’ in Greek. This union is expressed in the passive voice: ‘The man shall be joined to his wife.’ This ‘shall be joined’ is called by biblical scholars a divine passive, i.e., the subject is God, who joins the man to his wife, and the two become one flesh. It is in this context that human sexuality is realized, which is also expressed in genitality. 

Is it easy or difficult to accept this design for life, namely unconditional love willed by God? It is certainly difficult to understand; it was also difficult for the apostles who were with Jesus. Let us listen to their objection: 

When they were in the house, the disciples again questioned him about this. He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’ 

In the face of Jesus’s precise position on divorce, not only the Pharisees but also the disciples were perplexed, because in their catechesis they had learned that a man not only has the right but sometimes also the duty to divorce his wife. For example, if she does not give him offspring, that is, if God’s first commandment, “be fruitful and multiply,” cannot be fulfilled with this woman, he must change her. Now that the kingdom of God has come with Jesus, the time has come to say enough to everything not in harmony with the Creator’s plan. No more compromises, no more pettiness or subterfuge; we must aim at the ideal proposed to us in creation. 

So, Jesus did not introduce a new law more severe than that of Moses; no, he recalled God’s original project, in which repudiation is not contemplated. And now the evangelist Mark brings the children into the scene. We wonder whether they have anything to do with the subject Jesus is addressing. Yes, they do; let’s listen: 

People were bringing children to him so he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he became indignant and said to them, ‘Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.’ Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them. 

The evangelists Matthew and Luke also recount this scene, but only Mark says that Jesus took these children into his arms, to the great joy of the mothers, while the disciples began to cast them out because they were making their Master lose face. This is the only time in the Gospels that the verb ‘aganakteo’ is used to express Jesus’ anger; he was very indignant with his disciples. In fact, he gives an essential message by saying that only the one who adopts the attitude of a child can welcome the kingdom of God. 

The child has nothing of his own; he receives everything from the father and the mother, and he receives it with full confidence; he trusts in his parents’ love. Here, Jesus says that the child is a model for the one who welcomes the kingdom of God, trusting in the love of the Father in heaven. In the context of today’s gospel passage, this means we are called to accept with full confidence what the Father says to us, which is very timely. Human reasoning about sexuality can lead to justifying many behaviors that are outside the design of God’s kingdom, because human common sense, our judgment, can justify many things. Face the proposal God makes to you with the trust of a child; trust him because he wants your life. 

The goal proposed to us is very high, but we know that people’s steps are always uncertain and that God understands our fragility. At this point, pastoral care must enter, that is, to know how to accompany the concrete situations in which each of our brothers and sisters finds themselves; a brother or a sister whom no one can judge, whatever choice he or she has made. One must always approach the brother and the sister, trying to understand them, to accompany them, and to make the best of the situation in which they find themselves. 

Showing understanding and patience does not mean we are softening the requirements and demands of the Gospel or adapting to current morality; rather, it is an expression of wisdom and, above all, love for people going through difficult, often very painful situations. I wish you all a good Sunday and a good week.