An initiative of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops


Love and Responsibility Series: Introduction

Posted Aug. 14, 2017 by DOM No comments yet

His Book – Love and Responsibility (1960):
First published in 1960, Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla (St. John Paul II) has never ceased to be relevant as an analysis of the metaphysical and ethical dimensions of love. Wojtyla presented the themes of this work in his university lectures in Lublin. They are the fruit, he tells us, of conversations with and pastoral care of many couples over his years as a priest. “It is… the result above all of an incessant confrontation of doctrine with life (which is just what the work of a spiritual advisor consists of).”[i]


Philosophical Approach to Sexual Morality:
Explaining his philosophical approach to sexual morality, Wojtyla states that his aim is to “justify, interpret, and explain” the norms of Catholic sexual morality on the basis of personhood.[ii] He writes, “Sexual morality is within the domain of the person. It is impossible to understand anything about it without understanding what the person is, its mode of existence, its functioning, its powers.”[iii]

The Human Person – Personalism:
In other words, to understand Catholic sexual morality, you have to understand what
(who) the human person is.[iv] The approach Wojtyla takes in Love and Responsibility is called personalism.

For the next few weeks, MUR will look at Love and Responsibility and its contributions to understanding the dynamic relationship between man and woman.

[i] Wojtyla, Karol. Love and Responsibility (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), p. 15.

[ii] Ibid, p. 16.

[iii] Ibid, p. 18.

[iv] When we speak of persons, “who” is usually the correct pronoun. But in philosophy we often ask what something is in order to get to the core of it, and it is in this sense that we ask “What is the human person?” We are basically asking, what is the nature of humanity? What is the thing that we all share, that makes us all human persons?

Read More


Interracial Marriage Comparison

Posted Aug. 11, 2017 by DOM No comments yet

Continuing to debunk the erroneous comparison of marriage redefinition to interracial marriage, Ryan Anderson and Gloria Purvis talk about what marriage is.

This is the question that has been continuously ignored or set aside in the “marriage debate,” even before the Supreme Court. The state’s version of marriage is necessarily a weak one, and open to manipulation and more changes, because it appears to be solely based on the emotional desires of adults.

Interracial marriage is simply marriage. It is not any different from the definition of marriage that held steady from the ancients until the modern era of one man and one woman, for life, who (often) have children together. The redefinition of marriage in the law to include same-sex couples is completely different; two persons of the same sex, who– by definition, not accident– cannot unite completely or conceive children with one another in a sexual act.

Gloria talks about the distinction between actions and being. The rhetoric today is that a person “is” a “gay man”—but this is an entirely new category in history and the construction of an identity that is based on a feeling or attraction [which can change] and/or actions related to it, not the being or the core of the person. The person remains a man or a woman, whose body is objectively ordered, sexually, toward the other.

Read More
Tags: Tags: