The Natural Law In The Role Of The Christian Family In The Modern World

by Gary L. Morella

The family is the cradle of civil society. By raising marriage to the dignity of a sacrament Christ sanctified the family, making it the Christian Family.

The will of God is the reason for our creation, to know, love and serve Him in this life, and to spend an eternity with Him in the next. If we do God’s will, we shall attain life’s purpose – eternal happiness with Him. But how do we know what is the will of God, and how is it manifested to us? God provided a safe and certain way to direct man’s actions toward their last end through a rule called the moral law. The will of God can be considered as a rule, norm, or standard of our actions and, as such, is called a law. God has revealed Himself as our lawgiver in two ways: by the Natural Law and by the Divine Law. The Natural Law is that law which God has written in the heart of man, i.e., it is the light of reason by which we discern what is good and what is evil; what is to be done and what is to be left undone; what leads to our last end, and what draws us away from it; what is in accordance with the will of God, and what is contrary to it.

We will look at how the Natural Law governs the role of the Christian Family in the Modern World by examining parts of the apostolic exhortation of Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, which have a basis in the Natural Law.

The Natural Law is the foundation of all other laws. Every law that contradicts the Natural Law is unjust and not binding in conscience. Since the Natural Law flows from the Eternal Law, i.e., from the Divine Reason and Will, it is binding on all men independently of time or place or circumstances; it cannot be abrogated, not can any part of it be changed, nor can anyone be dispensed from it. There is no double standard of morality, one for he strong and another for the weak, one for the rich and another for the poor, one for the learned and another for the unlearned. Some may argue that may not God, the Author of the Natural Law, change it if He so desires, e.g., give a special dispensation to those whose "natural" tendencies are homosexual. Aquinas addressed just this question in the Summa Theologica where he referred to homosexuality as the "unnatural vice". In short, the answer to this question is a resounding No since to say that God could change the Natural Law or dispense from it, would imply that God, as the author of the Law, could contradict Himself, implying that certain actions were good or bad simply because He commanded or forbade them, and not that He commanded or forbade them because they were intrinsically (in themselves), of their very nature, good or bad. [See Catholic Morality, John Laux.]

Professor Janet Smith of the University of Dallas observes that when we see the heartbreak and social dysfunction associated with out-of-wedlock births, don’t our immediate and natural moral perceptions and judgments say, "Something is wrong here?" When we learn that a woman has had an abortion, regardless of what our view is of the morality of abortion, don’t we say, "Something has gone wrong here?" When we hear of a divorce and all the surrounding heartbreak and dysfuntionality, don’t we think, "Something has gone wrong here?" When we see young people dying of AIDS, don’t we think, "Something has gone wrong here?" These observations lead to a Natural Law principle that will seem perfectly obvious to some and completely ridiculous to others. The latter reaction is predictable given the moral corruption of our times per Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue. We have become so corrupt that we cannot discern what is obvious. We have lost our moral "sense" as a result of being subjected to too much corruption; we have lost our ability to ascertain what is right and wrong. Is it any wonder when the gospel proclaimed to our children in the public and sadly, some private and parochial schools, is that "there isn’t anything such as right or wrong anymore!"

What is the obvious Natural Law principle being referred to? It is a reasoned principle which states that man certainly has a natural inclination to engage in sexual intercourse and that that natural inclination is good for man – in the same manner that exercise is good for a sheep dog. For all animals sexual intercourse leads to the perpetuation of the species and that is good. Because man is rational, he can naturally and readily see that his natural sexual inclinations differ from those of animals who copulate and reproduce in a happenstance fashion. Human sexual intercourse is far beyond mere reproduction of the species. It is conducive to the well being of human beings by expanding the opportunities for love – not only for their sexual partner but also to love the offspring they may have. Most importantly, it allows spouses to build a family together and to have a meaningful life.

Dr. Smith asks us to consider how human sexual behavior does and should differ from animal sexual behavior. Pleasure is a common factor but for humans we’re not talking about an uncomplicated pleasure. There are ramifications that must be addressed. The power of the act dictates to us that we’re dealing with something fraught with emotional risks and serious responsibilities. We have an intellectual part of the soul that distinguishes us from the animals. These responsibilities come with the babies that naturally result from sexual intercourse and with the bonding between the partners that naturally comes with sexual intercourse. The key for Natural Law ethics becomes self-evident. Since sexual intercourse has this two-fold natural purpose that must be respected – the purpose of bringing forth new lives and the purpose of uniting men and women together, whoever participates in sexual activity must do so in a way that protects these natural goods of sexual intercourse. In this manner Natural Law principles govern human sexuality.

As rational beings we do things in a distinctive human way. The Natural Law is our guide to human flourishing, i.e., the determination of how and what activities contribute to our good or bad. The telos or end of human sexuality is three-fold, pleasure, intimacy or bonding (union), and babies (procreation). We also must consider the nuptial meaning of the body in regard to human sexuality, an absolute requirement else we’re left with moral anarchy and a civilization in ruins. Animal sex is a willy-nilly occurrence with raw physical action the principle characteristic. A human being is much more than just a body in an animalistic sense; a human being is a body and a soul with an intellect – the soul being the form of the body, the life giving essence to the body without which the body is reduced to matter at death. Before and after death bodies still exist. So humans have to be much more than just bodies. At death something has left. That something is the soul. Thus the physical pleasure of animal sex is differentiated from human sex with the soul coming into play on the part of human sexual activity, which facilitates a caring bonding, resulting in a human life coming from human life, not animal instincts.

Humans, then, are multidimensional (body and soul) rational creatures ordering things to the good. They are made in the image and likeness of God and act out of thinking and choice, not just instinct. This choice is in accord with what is good. We can think of an analogy with the Triune God, having a relationship with three Divine Persons in One God. We’re also relational since humans are not nourished by being sufficient only unto themselves, totally divorced from the world about them. We are not disembodied minds ala Descartes unable to know the universe via sensory perception. Our bodies show us that we are directed toward someone of the opposite sex, our natural tendencies verified by our physical plumbing albeit there are those who confuse rectal waste function with reproduction. According to the Natural Law, which is God’s plan, two become one – another trinity, male, female, and baby. This trinity becomes a community of love, which is what human sexuality is directed or ordered to.

It is impossible to be a human being and engage in sex without some kind of bonding going on. Sex brings a special closeness as we’re not just talking about two bodies uniting but also two spirits. The soul that makes humans human is directly involved. Bodies may be able to walk away from a sexual experience but spirits don’t, which makes sexual intercourse – the total giving of yourself to another person not easy to take back. You are affected radically for all time.

We arrive at a fundamental principle of the Natural Law. Since sex brings with it babies, the rational responsible good human being will not have sex unless that human being is prepared for babies and bonding. The conclusion drawn from this is that you’re not prepared for sexual intercourse unless you are married. To do so outside of marriage is to hold back, not totally giving yourselves to each other. Babies require a lifetime of care. If you are not prepared for this then you should not be having sexual intercourse. This obligation to your child for its lifetime demands the best possible environment for its upbringing. Just as certain foods are good for you while others are not, certain sexual activity is good for you while others are not. This begs the question "What kind of sex is good for you in that it promotes intimacy and bonding?" The only common sense answer, which is what the Natural Law is all about, is sex within marriage since premarital intercourse only wants pleasure, nothing else. The inevitable result of ignoring this Natural Law principle is babies born out of wedlock with the concomitant chaotic consequences for all involved including not just the immediate parties but also their children and the culture as a whole.

The power of sex makes you overlook other values that you should be taking into account. The Natural Law teaching on sexuality is that you must respect the goods of sexuality, pleasure, intimacy, and bonding. You should not be engaging in sexual intercourse unless you can assume the full responsibilities of the consequences that naturally result from it. The wisdom of the Catholic Church has always taught that the proper place, moreover the only place, to protect the goods of sexuality in a Natural Law sense is marriage.

Dr. Smith observes that most individuals can agree on common sense Natural Law tenets. They want to be good parents. They see that being a good parent is part of being a good human being and living a full and good human life. They recognize that children need parents with at least some degree of maturity. They agree that those who are not ready for babies ought not to have them. They even agree, for the most part, that being ready to be parents means being married for only those who are willing to marry have the kind of commitment needed for those who are going to be parents. However today, in spite of this consensus and plain common sense, these insights do not translate into seeing that one ought not to have sexual intercourse until one is ready for babies. We think that it is perfectly all right for those who aren’t prepared to have babies to have sexual intercourse because we rely on contraception to sever the natural connection between having sexual intercourse and having babies. And, the lie of lies, we think that we are being responsible if we contracept, which is what responsible sex has become in our age. This becomes a contradiction of a Natural Law that demands adherence to the goods of human sexuality, a prominent one being "babies".

One has to only look at the debris resulting from the violation of the aforementioned fundamental principle of the Natural Law regarding sexuality. The evidence is overwhelming that a nourishing environment for all involved can only be attained by parents through marriage. Premature and promiscuous sexuality prevent many from establishing good marriages and a good family life. Few would deny that a healthy sexuality and a strong family life are among the most necessary elements for human happiness and well-being. It is a fact that strong and secure families are more likely to produce strong and secure individuals who are less likely to have problems with alcohol, sex, and drugs; they produce individuals more likely to be free from crippling neuroses and psychoses. In turn these healthy individuals, not being preoccupied with their own problems, are better able to be strong leaders to tackle the problems of society instead of contributing to them. This is not to take away from the many valiant efforts made by single parents in raising their children but rather to observe that the evidence is clear that children from broken homes grow up to be adults with a greater propensity for crime, a greater tendency to engage in alcohol and drug abuse, and a greater susceptibility to psychological disorders.

Let us go back to the topic of contraception and ask "What has been the effect of contraception in contributing to the creation and furtherance of a culture-of-death that pervades the world today?" Young people need to be chaste before marriage not only because of the love they hope to share with their future spouses, but also because of the responsibilities they have to their future children. In the past the chief reason for refraining from sexual activity before marriage was the fear of pregnancy. Pregnancy was feared both because young people were not prepared to take care of children and also because there was considerable societal disapproval of sexual intercourse before marriage. The societal disapproval is gone and contraceptives have largely removed the fear, though not the reality, of unwanted pregnancies. As such, contraceptives have become one of the chief reasons for much of the sexual misconduct of our times. There were fewer teenage pregnancies, many fewer abortions, a lesser incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, etc., before contraception became widely available. An enterprising psychologist might ask, "Why are we seeing these results such as documented by the well known October 1994 issue of Atlantic Monthly which totally debunked the Planned Parenthood version of sex education, which is prominent in most of our schools, i.e., the "safe sex" myth via contraceptives?" The answer is simple. All one has to do is look at the ignorance of the goods of the Natural Law in regard to human sexuality. Contraception makes people feel secure that they can have sexual union apart from the obligations of marriage and child rearing. However, contraception does not remove the responsibilities that come with the child-making possibilities of sexual intercourse. Young people, being notoriously irresponsible about almost everything, are roughly as responsible about using contraceptives as they are about doing their homework, hanging up their clothes, and doing their chores. Those using contraceptives are not out of the woods because contraceptives are not really safe; they do not always work, in particular in an age when the size of a deadly virus is measured in microns causing no difficulty whatsoever in its going through porous contraceptive materials. It must be emphasized to our young people that they are not ready for sexual intercourse until they are ready to be parents, for sexual intercourse always brings with it the possibility of being a parent.

The "disconnect" in this message to young people is that it is not forthcoming from those whose primary authority it is to give it, i.e., their parents with constant reinforcement from the pulpits of our Churches, and in our schools. (I am referring here primarily to private or parochial schools since the public schools have long sensed conceded the playing field to the devil in regard to their unabashed promotion of any and all types of hedonism.) Getting young people to associate sex with child bearing is not easy but necessary. It is important for adults to encourage young people to try and think like a parent. Similarly, it is wise for parents to talk about parenting with their children. It is good to get them thinking about what they would do with their children; to get them thinking about what they would like to provide for their children. Especially, parents must convey to their children that they are not a burden to them, that they consider their children a gift from God. Today society selfishly looks upon children as a burden; they are expensive, noisy, and troublesome; they stand in the way of careers and adventuresome travel. This view has not stopped people from having babies but one gets the uncomfortable feeling that many children are just another possession of their parents like the car in the garage or just another experience that adults wish to have. Many adults seem to want to have a few "designer children" as adornments to their lives, not as the reasons for their lives.

We look to Scripture for this Natural Law teaching. God has a preference for children in that one of His first commandments was "be fruitful and multiply." Throughout the Old Testament having many children is listed among the signs of prosperity that indicate God’s favor. Psalm 127 states "Behold, sons are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the son’s of one’s youth. Happy is the man whose quiver is filled with them." Psalm 128 states "Happy are you who fear the Lord, who walk in his ways! For you shall eat the fruit of your handiwork; happy shall you be, and favored. Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine in the recesses of your home; Your children like olive plants around your table. Behold, thus is the man blessed who fears the Lord."

Getting back to the contraceptive mentality of the age, specifically, how contraception has contravened what God intended via the Natural Law good of children, one might ask "How does contraception fit in with God’s clear arrangement that parents and children need each other"? The answer is self-evident; it doesn’t. Contraception makes man his own god in that God is not allowed to be God Who said in Jeremiah, "I knew you before you were in the womb." The necessary cooperation with God in the process of creation is totally circumvented for the most selfish of reasons. The experience of parenting like the experience of marriage both requires and fosters many virtues. Having children generally does adults a lot of good; most find themselves becoming more selfless, more patient, kind, loving, and tender when they have children. Learning to live with children has many of the same advantages of living with a spouse; it forces one to accommodate one’s self to others; it forces one to acknowledge that one has constant tendencies to be selfish. Staying awake at night with children, dealing with their daily joys and sorrows, learning to be a good example for them, contributes to the maturity of adults. How can parents be a good example for children, enkindling in them a knowledge of the goods of the Natural Law in regard to human sexuality, when they totally ignore these goods through their own contracepting as opposed to using Natural Family Planning (NFP)? The only message possible is "Do what I say, not what I do", which is a phoniness crystal clear to teens, in particular. It doesn’t take a child long to map what their parents are doing within marriage to their own marital or extra-marital plans making any messages to the contrary futile. The axiom "An example is worth a thousand words" was never truer than in regard to human sexuality.

How are some of these Natural Law principles among others encouraged by Holy Mother Church? We go to the apostolic exhortation of Pope John Paul II, The Role Of The Christian Family In The Modern World (Familiaris Consortio) for the answers.

Familiaris Consortio addresses the problem of contraception, the inhibiting of the Natural Law principle of the total giving of each other to one’s spouse by emphasizing that it is degrading to the persons who practice it and to the integrity of the spousal relationship. "When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as ‘arbiters’ of the divine plan and they ‘manipulate’ and degrade human sexuality and with it themselves and their married partner by altering its value of ‘total’ self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality."

Contraception transforms the sexual act from an act of total self-donation to a mutual pursuit of self-centered gratification. It becomes, in effect, mutual assisted masturbation. [See The Winning Side, Questions on Living the Culture of Life, Charles Rice.]

What about Natural Family Planning? At the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast, Mother Teresa of Calcutta said: "We are fighting abortion by . . . care of the mother and adoption for her baby . . . [B]ut I never give a child to a couple who have done something not to have a child . . . The way to plan the family is Natural Family Planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life through contraception a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention on each other, as happens in Natural Family Planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily. I also know that there are great problems in the world – that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice Natural Family Planning. We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, that is to destroy love. And this is what happens when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion." [See Ibid.]

Is Natural Family Planning merely another form of contraception? We turn to Familiaris Consortio for the answer. In the words of Pope John Paul II, NFP and contraception involve "two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is, the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility, and self-control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual (soul) and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity." Archbishop Chaput of Denver in Of Human Life (1998), Catholic World Report Oct. 1998, observes that with NFP, "[t]he wife preserves herself from intrusive chemicals or devices and remains true to her natural cycle. The husband shares in the planning and responsibility for NFP. Both learn a greater degree of self-mastery and a deeper respect for each other. They are open to life and do nothing to impede the life-giving potential of that conjugal act." [See Ibid.] It is to be emphasized that NFP, however, is "not and end in itself." Marriage and married love are by nature ordered to the procreation and education of children. It is only for grave, serious, and just motives that married couples may rightly choose to avoid pregnancies by partial abstinence, else it is simply reduced to another form of contraception for the most selfish of reasons.

Why does contraception determine so many other issues? Events have verified the analysis of an Irish cardinal, Cahal Daly, over three decades ago. "Birth control mores," he wrote, "create a mentality of ‘unwanting’ babies. Furthermore, it is not a practice only but a new philosophy of man and sex, a new ‘way of life.’ It means the abandonment of self-control over sexual urges; it implicitly authorizes sexual promiscuity. The real problem of our time is that society tolerates a continuous and ubiquitous display, by every medium of mass communication, of artificial libidinous solicitation, which makes it unnaturally difficult for people, particularly young people, to be continent; and then offers a remedy, contraceptives, which merely increases the incontinence. Promiscuity is the logic of birth control; but to have promiscuity with impunity there must also be abortion and infanticide, sterilization and euthanasia. The logical contraceptionist must insist that if these cannot be generalized by persuasion, they must be imposed by law. It has long been recognized that there is a connection between eroticism and totalitarianism." [See Ibid.]

What Cardinal Daly is saying here is that man is reduced to being nothing more than an animal by the contraceptive mentality of the age. Charles Rice [see Ibid] observes that through secularism we deny the subjection of human conduct to the law of God; through relativism we deny objective morality and our ability to know right from wrong; through individualism, each of us makes himself his own god, so that whatever he wills to do is "right" for him. All three are symptoms of a loss of faith in the reality, love and providence of God. The contraceptive mentality is the leading manifestation of that loss. Any "pro-life" effort that temporizes on contraception will be futile because the trajectory is a straight line from the approval of contraception to the acceptance of the following evils:

Abortion. If man makes himself, through contraception, the arbiter of when life begins, he will predictably make himself the arbiter of when life ends. Contraception prevents life while abortion kills existing life. Both involve the deliberate separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, which we have seen cannot be separated according to Natural Law principles. A contraceptive society requires, moreover, demands abortion to the point of insuring that a dead baby always occurs as a result of the intrusion of the abortionist into what should be the safest place in the universe for a baby, its mothers womb, regardless of whether the abortion is "botched" and the baby somehow is delivered alive in the manner God intended. Man needs the insanity of a "born-alive infants act" to combat the heinous evil of infanticide, insanity in the sense that we have digressed as a society to the point of being unable to recognize First Degree Murder for what it is. The availability of abortion is also a factor in the decision of some to engage in sexual relations without using contraception. Many contraceptives are abortificient in that they cause the destruction of the developing human being, RU-486 being the prime example.

Euthanasia. More than three decades of contraception and abortion have left the United States with a diminished pool of workers to support the elderly, sick, and disabled. Contraception and abortion accustomed people to the idea that some lives are not worth bringing into existence or continuing in existence. This clears the way for euthanasia of those whose lives are considered "useless." Pete Singer of Princeton has made a career of determining "whose lives are useless." The fact that he has been given such a prestigious forum should be a red-flag that something is very wrong in society; we are headed for moral anarchy. If, through contraception, man makes himself the arbiter of when life begins, he will predictably make himself the arbiter, through suicide and euthanasia, as well as abortion, of when it ends. All are based on a utilitarian approach.

Pornography. Pornography reduces sex to an exercise in self-gratification, as contraception reduces it to an exercise in mutual masturbation. Both involve the separation of sex from life. Pope Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae, warned that contraception would cause women to be viewed as sex objects, that "man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion." Initially, this brought laughter from the critics. No one is laughing anymore given the addictive qualities of pornography and its geometrically growing media to include the Internet.

Promiscuity. According to the Natural Law and the Commandments, sex is reserved for marriage because sex in inherently connected with procreation and the natural way to raise children is in a marriage. But if, through contraception, we claim the power to decide whether sex will have anything to do with procreation, why should we reserve sex for marriage?

Divorce. One reason, in the nature of things, i.e., the observation of the Natural Law, why marriage should be permanent is that sex is inherently related to procreation and it is good for children to be raised in a home with parents permanently married to each other. But if sex is not intrinsically related to procreation, marriage loses its reason for permanence. It tends to become a temporary alliance for individual gratification.

Homosexual Activity. In any sane society, if George and Harry apply for a license to "marry" each other, the response would be some variant of "Get lost." But if it is entirely up to man to decide whether sex will have any relation to procreation, why should marriage be limited to male-female combinations? The contraceptive society cannot deny legitimacy to the homosexual lifestyle without denying its own basic premise. Its only objections to homosexual activity and homosexual "marriage" will be pragmatic or aesthetic. "Homosexual activity, like contraception, also frustrates the interpersonal communion that is intrinsic to the conjugal act. And where that act should be open to life, homosexual activity is a dead end. It rejects life and focuses instead on excrement, which is dead." [See 50 Questions On The Natural Law, Charles Rice.] This is why you invariably see Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, NGTF, PFLAG, and national homosexual rights organizations all on the same side, the unholy alliance between the two most prominent components of the culture-of-death, Big Abortion, and Big Homosexuality. It is ironic that those, whose constitutions destroy forever the concept of marriage as a holy sacrament, are married eternally in the culture-of-death. Barring repentance, their wedding reception will occur in a "very hot place."

In vitro fertilization (IVF). This is the flip side of contraception. IVF engineers procreation without sexual union, while contraception seeks to take the unitive without the procreative. Another good of the Natural Law pertaining to human sexuality is destroyed. As a by-product of IVF, spare embryos are frozen and used for later implantation in the mother or in other women. And they are used for experimentation, as objects of utility. Or they are flushed down the drain. It would be wise to recall the presentation of a pro-choice professor who started putting up slides of human development from a zygote on his projector, asking his class sarcastically with each successive slide, "Do you see a human here?" One could have asked the professor to start will an adult human, and show slides of his development in the reverse order from which the professor intended. The professor could then have been reminded that, but for the Grace from God to his mother, he might not have been here to make a fool of himself.

Cloning. No sooner had the guarantees been made by the initial developers of the cloned sheep Dolly that it would be inhuman to clone human beings, i.e., it would never happen, a New York Times report indicated a tremendous change in attitude with a "full speed ahead" approach to anything and everything regarding cloning to include human beings. The Catholic Church condemns human cloning, which shares the basic premises of contraception. Cloning shares with contraception the treatment of woman as an object of utility. Human cloning would confirm the status of woman as an object, an impersonal egg bank. It is futile to try to put the brakes on human cloning, as on abortion or euthanasia, without restoring the conviction that God, and not man, is the arbiter of when life begins and ends. This requires a reassessment and rejection of contraception.

Relating the problem of contraception, which must be avoided and the necessity for marriage in accord with Natural Law principles of human sexuality, Familiaris Consortio says "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is by no means something purely biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such . . . This totality which is required for conjugal love also corresponds to the demands of responsible fertility. This fertility is directed to the generation of a human being, and so by its nature it surpasses the purely biological order and involves a whole series of personal values . . . The only "place" in which this self-giving in its whole truth is made possible is marriage, the covenant of conjugal love freely and consciously chosen, whereby man and woman accept the intimate community of life and love willed by God Himself, which only in this light manifests its true meaning. The institution of marriage is not an undue interference by society or authority, nor the extrinsic imposition of a form. Rather it is an interior requirement of the covenant of conjugal love which is publicly affirmed as unique and exclusive in order to live in the complete fidelity to the plan of God, the Creator."

Familiaris Consortio recognizes that if the Christian family is to have any role in the Modern World, it must of necessity be stable and in adherence to Natural Law principles that are rooted in common sense. A poor family example is worse than no example at all. It promotes true conjugal love as an eminently human love. A love that ultimately arises in the love of God Himself, and a love that is enriched, are ruled by the redemptive power of Christ and the salvific action of the Church. It becomes a love that consists in the mutual interior conformation of husband and wife with their perseverance to perfect each other through the trials of life. It is a love that is ultimately ordered to the sanctification of the spouses due to the sacramental covenantal nature of marriage. This is the will of God. The spouses are called upon not only to sanctify each other but also their children. This truth is developed in Part Three of Familiaris Consortio. William May describes this truth as "rooted in the Scriptures, in the teaching of Saint Paul that spouses and their children be made holy by the love and faith of one of the spouses. Marriage and marital love are truly sacramental in character and inwardly participate in the saving love and grace of God made visible for us in Christ, indissolubly wedded to us in and through His bride, the Church." [See Sex And The Sanctity Of Human Life, William May.]

Familiaris Consortio makes us readily aware of the conflicts in the raging culture wars for our souls and the souls of our children by telling us "History is not simply a fixed progression towards what is better, but rather an event of freedom, and even a struggle between freedoms that are in mutual conflict, that is . . . a conflict between two loves; the love of God to the point of disregarding self, and the love of self to the point of disregarding God." Augustine called this classic struggle the "City of God" vs. the "City of Man." It emphasizes the need to "set ourselves in opposition to the injustice originating from sin, which has profoundly penetrated the structures of the world today through a conversion of mind and heart." It tells us that "marriage is a community of persons, brought to life by love and at the service of life, and that marriage was raised to a sacrament by Christ Who established it as a way of holiness" to include every act consummated within Marriage. In particular, "marriage comes to be in the ‘covenant of conjugal love freely and consciously chosen, whereby man and woman accept the intimate community of life and love willed by God Himself’ for the transmission and increase of human life." No ambiguities here as we’re told explicitly the importance of Genesis in regard to God’s plan for creation. It constantly reinforces the indissolubility of marriage as an absolute requirement to achieve the goods of the Natural Law of sexual morality with education of primary importance since it says that "service to life includes the education of children, since, by cooperating with God in generating a new human person, the parents take on the task of helping that person effectively to live a fully human life." It is to be emphasized that in this and other Church documents, the parents are clearly distinguished as the primary educators of their children with everything else serving in a subsidiary capacity. More to the point, the state does not have the right to destroy the innocence of children by exposing them to teaching that is held in anathema by their Faith.

The main message of the exhortation Familiaris Consortio is the reaffirmation that the future of humanity passes by way of the family, inviting all to collaborate cordially and courageously with the family, and reminding all that the Holy Family is the "prototype and example for all Christian families."