341 CHRONICLESneighth-century definition of incest (finallynabandoned in the 13 th century)noutlawed marriage even between thosen”spiritually related” through godparentsnand between very distant bloodnrelatives who shared a great-greatgrandfather.nGreedy clergymen alsonweakened the family through their frequentnpractice of promising salvationnto dying fathers who would will theirnpossessions to the Church, thus impoverishingntheir heirs. Understandably,nMartin Luther took the defense ofnmarriage and the family as one of hisnkey themes when he launched thenProtestant Reformation at the close ofnthe medieval era.nToday, though, a deep crisis in familynlife confronts both Protestant andnCatholic religious leaders (as well asnJews and Mormons). The Gieses indeednconcede that medieval changes innfamily and marriage appear slight comparednto “the changes that have shapednand shaken them since.” Divorce ratesnhave skyrocketed in our century, whilenmarriage and birthrates have declinednto perilously low levels. More than 40nyears ago. Harvard sociologist PitirimnSorokin extrapolated current trends tonpredict a progressive degeneration ofnAmerican domestic life, “until thenfamily becomes a mere incidental cohabitationnof male and female whilenthe home will become a mere overnightnparking place.” The consequencesnhe foresaw were “suicide,nmental disease, and crime. . . .nWeariness will spread over larger andnlarger numbers of the population.”nOnly a spiritual renewal effected byn”new Saint Pauls, Saint Augustines,nand great religious and ethical leaders”ncould defeat the forces underminingnthe family. At least until the spiritualnrenascence that Sorokin hoped for occurs,npraise for the superiority of contemporarynfamily life will serve only tonhide our predicament.nBryce Christensen is editor of ThenFamily in America.nSexual Habitsnby Thomas FlemingnLove Is for Life: A Pastoral LetternIssued on Behalf of the Irish Hierarchynby Thomas CardinalnO’Fiaich, Archbishop of Armagh;nKevin McNamara, Archbishop ofnDublin; Joseph Connane, Archbishopnof Tuam; and ThomasnMorris, Archbishop of Cashel,nDublin: Mount Salus Press, Lentn1985.nIn writing of sensual pleasures, ThomasnHobbes observed that “the greatest” isn”that by which we are invited to givencontinuance to our species, and thennext by which a man is invited to meat,nfor the preservation of his individualnperson.” From more than one perspective,nHobbes had his priorities straight.nParents, on more than one occasion,nhave given their last bite of food to theirnoffspring, and laboratory rats have beennknown to starve to death while stimulatingntheir erotic “pleasure centers.” Sexntrumps eating every time.nFor many pagans—modern as wellnas ancient—sexual desire is a straightforwardnaffair summed up by Wilde’snmaxim that the only way to get rid ofntemptation is to yield to it. The Greeksnwere candidly pragmatic in their approachesnto sex. Solon, the austerenAthenian lawgiver and moralist, wasnonly one among many who alluded tonthe delights of pederasty. Erotic passionnwas, for most of the ancients, a temporaryninsanity to indulge and then be ridnof. Sophocles, a terrible rake even bynmodern standards, confessed that oldnage had freed him from a terrible master.nThe most compelling image of sexualitynwas the Roman poet Lucretius’ndescription of dogs locked in an unbreakablencoitus. Ancient philosophers,nhowever badly they might have behaved,ngenerally agreed that sex was andistraction from a career of serious studynand virtuous living. Since many philosophicalnsects, e.g.. Epicureans andnPythagoreans, functioned as religiousncommunities, the urgent demands ofnsexual desire could seriously disrupt thenharmony of the brotherhood. (In morenrecent times, the leaders of variousnsects, like Oneida perfectionists, Shali;ers,nand the Unification Church, havenused sexual control as an important toolnnnin controlling their communities.) It wasnin such a context that the early ChristiannChurch began to shape its own notnquite peculiar teachings on sex.nThe most astonishing thing tonmoderns about the New Testament’snstatements on sex and marriage is thenapparent hostility to eras in all its forms.nTo the ancients, however, such statementsnwould have seemed like Stoicncommonplaces. What is actually surprisingnis the Scriptures’ openness tonmarriage and the family. While a life ofncelibate devotion is viewed as the spiritualnpinnacle, marriage is not only confirmednby Jesus but it is also strengthenednby his explicit condemnation ofndivorce as an indulgence granted temporarilynto fallen man. The family ofnthe New Testament was not, it shouldnbe added, some new institution. It was,nin fact, the boilerplate patriarchal familynthat endured until recent times.nWives and children are to obey husbandsnand fathers who are, in turn,ninstructed to cherish and provide forntheir dependents. The status of womannis, however, implicitly improved, sincenthe mother of Christ, in some sense,ncounterbalances the degradation ofnEve. Sex, so far from being takennlightly, is revealed as possessing a spiritualndimension. Fornication is notnmerely impure or morally wrong, but,nin the view of St. Paul, it creates anspiritual bond between the sinners.nChastity outside of marriage andnfidelity within, submission of wives tonhusbands, and reverence for the mysteriousngift of life — how strange thesennotions sometimes seem in the nonagenof our world. But when we tally up thenconsequences of our sexual innovations—nfamily dissolution, adolescentnsuicide, and venereal diseases sonterrible that the plagues of Egypt seemnlike hay fever — when we considernsuch consequences, the sexual teachingsnof the Christian Church begin tonsound like common sense. Nowhere,noutside of Catholic Poland and thenSouthern Baptist Convention, has thenchurch spoken more plainly than innIreland, and it is with high hopes that anChristian picks up Love Is for Life, anpastoral letter issued by the Irish bishopsnfor Lent 1985. Those high hopesnare dashed by the very first sentencesnof the very first page.nThere are few things in lifen