Shared Vision in Marriage

A Transcript of a Talk Given By
Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M.

PART I
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Lord, you
have been our refuge, age after age. Before the mountains were born, before
the earth or the world came to birth, you were God from all eternity and
forever. Teach us to count how few days we have, and so gain wisdom of
heart, Holy Mother of God. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit.

Our title for these four lectures, I want to explain just very briefly
"Shared Vision in Marriage", and what I want to say is that this applies
also to other communities. It applies to convents, monasteries, dioceses,
parishes, groups of priests, groups of bishops. If we have a gospel
community, it had better have a shared vision as we shall be seeing, and it
is just way beyond any other community. Nobody else ever taught this before
that I know of, but the Lord himself, and therefore we are dealing with
really all states in life, but since most of you here, are married, or have
been, or will be, we are going to stress with examples the marriage
situation
.

Preliminary Observations.


1. We are all of us hurting in different ways from a number of sources,
reasons, namely, our own mistakes and sins. They always carry a penalty in
them. As Saint Augustine said, he knew from experience, as well as his
brilliant mind, that every sin diminishes a person, and it diminishes a
community too, and it diminishes marriage, a religious life, and parishes.
Okay, we are hurting, all of us, in different ways, of course, from others
in unkindnesses, betrayals, perhaps verbal abuse. Some cases, I hope none
here, physical abuse. We are hurting thirdly from wounds of lasting scars.
We differ in the precise reasons we are hurting, I mean the specifics, but
we are hurting in different ways, and in differing degrees. Some more, some
less, some in this way, some in another. Fourthly, a little remark here,
about our hurtings. We should offer and accept healing compassion from
others, because we all need it, and therefore should give it to others, and
gladly receive it. And the last remark is the most basic of all, the deepest
healing of human wounds is intimacy with the Trinity. We need other helps,
yes, I just said that as a matter of fact with the point before this one,
but the deepest wounding, ah, pardon me, the deepest healing of wounds is
from a intimate, deep, contemplative prayer life. And the deep conversion
that brings it about.

2. Our second preliminary remark is that problems and hurts are not caused
by states in life. Marriage is not a problem. It is husbands and wives who
are the problems. The priesthood and celibacy are not problems. Celibacy is
a great gift. It gets a bum rap from the scandals that are going on, but it
is a most fulfilling life. The problem is people who are living celibate
life and not living it, that is the problem. Same kind of thing in marriage.
Okay. Problems in dioceses are not that the church has problems with its
structure, it’s the people in the structures and the people who are not
going to follow the teachings and the discipline of the church. That is the
problem. Every state of life is of divine origin. It is good, it is
beautiful, and it fulfills people, if the people live the state in life
according to the owner's manual. The owner here is the Lord Himself. Now,
what I am saying doesn't come from my head. It comes from the Lord Himself.
Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 10, verse 36. As a teenager, I used to hear this
every year, once a year, the liturgy, and I really couldn't connect with it,
and I know now why I couldn't and didn't connect. The Lord says, I quote "A
man's enemies will be those of his own household." And I'd say to myself,
"Where is the enemy in our house?" and I couldn't find an enemy there. We
had our little kiddie squabbles you know "I did the dishes last night" and
yeah, but our parents never argued, never fight, at least I never heard
them argue and fight, so I didn't know where the enemies were. Boy, I know
where they are now. I've learned a few things

3. Now, the third little preliminary remark: Psychology and counseling can
be somewhat helpful. They can do good, on occasion at least, certainly with
people who are deeply wounded psychologically. They need psychiatric help,
but psychology can't solve the deepest problems, the root problems. It can't
get to root causes. What we need is deep conversion and living the Gospel
well. That is the root problem about hurts in human life. No doubt about it.
I had in my hand here a little article from Time Magazine, rather recent,
January 19, 2004, talking about marriage problems and so on, and counseling,
psychologists, and all kinds of theories that they have, what's wrong with
marriages, and all that sort of thing. Very common theme in the press, the
secular press even. And they have all kinds of models of what, how troubled
marriages should be handled and healed and so on. All kinds of theories. Let
me just quote you a little bit from this article.

The therapy model, namely the model of what to do about troubled marriages.
They need therapy. The therapy model is quote "I'll treat you and 'voila'
your marriage will work". Then there is another model, the education model,
its not the therapeutic model. People don't need therapy according to this
model, they need to just be educated. And when they get educated then
they'll have a happy marriage. So, the education model is much more
respectful, it assumes there is nothing wrong with you. You are not sick.
You just need better information and assumes you can apply it to your
situation. See, those are two models. Every system sounds great until you
ask other marriage specialists about it. When experts start comparing claims
and statistics you hear the cacophony of rival used car salesmen. I find
this exciting this year, its really funny in a way. Is it the therapists who
need educating or is it the married folks who need therapy? At a time when
America's married people, and soon to be married, are eager for mediation,
the bickering between the two sides is unhelpful.

There are four main roots: roots of hurts and conflicts, suffering in
various states in life, and human relationships. The four main reasons we
suffer so much in our human relationships, including marriage, including
religious life, including priesthood, including everybody. We are all human
and wounded. Four main roots: the first one is egocentric selfishness in
plain English, and its expressed in many ways, minor and major. For example,
I am quoting concrete illustration here of egocentric selfishness and there
are dozens of examples possible. I am sure that everyone of you could add
your own. For instance "I won't be patient with your ways of doing things,
and your faults, but you must be patient with mine". Expressed in
actions...they don't word it so nicely. You must accommodate my desires and
preferences, but I need not accommodate yours. When we disagree, I need not
be gentle, and amiable, and open minded, but you must be all of these
things. See it is all egocentric. I am this, and this, and this and too bad
about you, you see. You are not that, that, and that. Okay. So that is the
first source of all kinds of woundednesses and states in life.

The second source, a little bit technical, at least many people don't know
about it, some of you do I am sure, maybe many of you. Illuminism.
Illuminism is an age old malady, by which a person is convinced that he, and
that means she too, that he has light and other people don't. There are two
forms of illuminism. There is a natural illuminism by which one person is
just convinced that "I just know better. And the reason I know better than
you is, well, I am I, after all, and you are you". I'll give you an
illustration in just a moment. The second kind of illuminism, is kind of a
pseudo supernatural sort. Name me the person who is convinced that he has
got a special pipeline to the Holy Spirit, and he has divine light and you
don't. Its a real malady. If you hadn't ever met it, you would think I am
exaggerating, making it up, but it is true. There are people who are
convinced that they are listening to the Holy Spirit. And just too bad you
know, the Pope isn't. And the Pope is the one that has got the promise. He
who hears you hears me, and the Bishops with him, you see. And the Lord made
it as clear as day, that their the ones that have the light of the Holy
Spirit, when they teach with full authority, etc., etc., okay? But there are
people convinced there is no doubt that they have light of the Holy Spirit.
“Too bad about you, dear, but you don't.”

Let me give you a fast little story. I was coming back from a trip on the
road. I was taking the metro system in Washington. Got on the train, on the
car. And there were very few in that particular coach, or that subway train,
ah coach. There was a man, and the seats face each other because they go in
both directions, you know, so I was sitting here, and there was another man
faced toward us, and he saw this priest there, so he came over, he had a
little son with him, a little boy eight or nine years old. So he wanted to
talk about religion, so we did, and we had an amiable talk, there is no
nastiness at all, but he said something, and I pointed out that really is
not so, you know, and I gave reasons why it is not so. Didn't have any
affect on him at all. No answer to the reasons I gave at all, but just sure
of it, just like I had said nothing at all. No effect. That looks very much
like illuminism. I have got light, I am sure of it. I don't have to give any
reasons for it, any evidence for it, you're just wrong pal. I know that
sounds kookie...it is kookie. You see, it is, I call it a malady, its an
illness, but its a reality through the centuries. If you want a long study
of it read Ronald Knotses book "Enthusiasm" six hundred pages about of the
whole history of this illuminism. That's the second source of conflicts in
community, including marriage, including religious life, including parishes.

The third source of conflict hurts, and suffering. The third source is a
lack of perspective, proportion. I may have said to some of you in a homily,
in past years, but let me give you a concrete story to illustrate the lack
of perspective. It’s very hard, especially when one is angry to see big
things as big, and little things as little. It is very hard.

Little story, real life. There is a particular place I go, Metropolitan
area. I've been there over twenty times. A monastery. For about eight or
nine years, one layman would pick me up and bring me to the monastery. And
so, about the eighth or ninth year, he wasn't at the airport, and I found
out later that he was ill. I go to that place two weeks, each time, so I
gave him a call just to check in. We were friends, and to say "Hi" to him,
and how are you doing and all that sort of thing. And his wife answered the
phone. I didn't know her well, just met her once, and she knew I wanted to
talk to him. After just a few words she put the receiver down and went off
to fetch him, and I heard, I think as clearly as you are hearing me now, I
heard clearly a nasty little fight between the two of them. I don't remember
what it was about. I think if it were a big deal I would certainly remember
it. I am quite sure of that. It was some petty little nonsense and it was
mean. It doesn't matter for our purpose who started it and all the rest, but
the one would just say something not simply ‘disagree darling with that’,
but a mean little remark, every back and forth, and I was treated to the
whole thing. And that's the end of the story.

Now, the point of the story is pretty plain. Notice I am not judging their
consciences, I don't know, I am just saying it is very hard to see things in
perspective. The big things is big and the little ones is little, especially
when you’re angry, and even when your not angry its hard, for me. Unless you
’re a saint. The saints do see things, the big ones as big, and the little
ones as little, which is one reason they’re saints. But anyhow, in this
instance, what was big, in that encounter, was that they should love each
other, and be gentle in manner and in speech, and listen to each other.
“Maybe I've got something to learn from her...or him.” That's the big thing.
It’s the second greatest commandment 'that we love one another' but that
apparently wasn't on their radar at all. Now, that's the big thing. What was
little was whatever they disagreed about, that was tiny, and doesn't begin
to compare with the big thing. But they had it jug backwards. I repeat, it
is very hard, unless you are a saint, you don't have to raise your hands on
that, whether you are or not. It's very hard to see things in perspective,
as they really are.

Now the fourth reason for conflicts and hurts in human societies: marriage,
religious life, priesthood, etc., parishes, dioceses, countries, is a lack
of shared vision. And that is our subject. One mind about basic things;
agreement about important things. Two people have a shared vision and that
is when they both see something important. We're not talking about little
petty things. If somebody likes vanilla ice cream more and the other one
likes chocolate, that is not a lack of shared vision.

In important things the gospel requires that we have one mind about them.
And that is our subject. What does that mean? How does it come about? It's
not going to be forced, it can't be forced, and nobody should try to force
it. It can't be done.

And, therefore, with a shared vision, two people or more are in touch with
reality together. Because that's what truth is. Truth is a conformity of
ones mind with reality. And in marriage a couple have a shared vision about
something which they both have. They are both in touch with some important
reality about marriage, and about human life, and about human destiny.
Immensely important! For example, that husband and wife, and this goes for
members of a monastic community, again I am talking about all states of life
really. That they have a common vision in touch together about God, and they
agree that there is nothing that compares with it in importance. Okay? They
agree about the purpose of life. That it is not found in this life. The
purpose is hereafter. We are only pilgrims here for a very short time. They
agree about the nature of marriage, or religious vows. It might surprise you
but there are religious that disagree with one another and with the teaching
church about what the three vows mean, poverty, chastity, and obedience. You
would think we would have one mind about it. We don't. At least a lot of
them don't. So, it means that the members of the community then are out of
the very vows they took, and they are out of touch with each other, about
the very nature of their life. The same with husband and wife, if they don't
agree about marriage and what it is, its privileges, obligations and so on,
they are out of touch with what they are living. How could they have a
successful marriage? They agree about the place of religion and especially
the one religion that the Lord founded. There is only one that He founded,
and they have to agree about that. Have to in the sense that if they want to
be in touch with reality, the basics of reality together, they have to have
a shared vision about it. The raising of children, the first purpose of
marriage. the begetting, and nourishing children, educating them for eternal
life...they need to agree about what real love is. And certainly a Hollywood
vision of love is very different from the real definition of love, vastly
different, not just rather a little bit. You have to have a shared vision
about these things. Now all of that is introductory to our theme. The next
thing I want to say. I'm just gonna kind of wave something at you. I have
in my hand here a sheaf of papers, and they are newspaper clippings and
magazine clippings about the tragic lack of unity in states in life. Most of
the clippings deal with marriage, and I'd love to just give them to all the
conflicts that are in marriage. By the way there are excellent and beautiful
marriages. I happen to have first hand experience with happy marriages in
our family, beginning with Mom and Dad. I know what that is like from
experience (and brothers and sisters, siblings) so I do know there are happy
marriages, and not only in our family, but there are happy marriages
elsewhere. So I am not generalizing and saying that they are all
catastrophic. But I can tell you the press...I got all kinds of ...yipe..it
would curl your hair, some of these examples of what goes on pretty
commonly...its not simply the exception, all these little articles I've got.
Eighty percent of all marriages are troubled says the professor. That's just
one of the clippings. Eighty percent of them are troubled. Okay. But to save
time I am not going to share these with you, because we have a lot of other
things we have to get to. But just let’s realize that. If you have been
attentive to the press for the last ten, fifteen or twenty years, you know,
you've read the same kinds of things there are all kinds of examples.

Now, what I want to do next is to take up the question of shared vision, and
the first thing that I want to explain, let's call this little next section
here, Sharpening up the Concepts. We have to know what we are talking about,
when we talk about something that is important. And I want us to get the
concepts right. One of the reasons that people disagree so much is they
don't know what the word means. They know how it is used to some extent in
society, but often they are talking about things that they hardly have a
clue about the thing. That is some people, I'm not saying its all.

Let's talk about shared vision. What does that mean? What does vision mean
in these titles of these lectures? Vision here does not refer to sense
vision, obviously. It refers to intellectual knowing. A being in touch with
reality, so that husband and wife, and this goes again for other states of
life. Husband and wife are in touch with the major realities about their
existence on this earth, God, the church, place of religion, and so on. The
begetting of children, the nourishing of children, of educating them and so
on, they agree about these things, which means they see these realities and
are in touch together.

A shared vision is a seeing reality, seeing truth, because truth is being in
touch with reality as it is. Shared vision means that together they have one
mind. Together they are in touch with the important aspects of human life,
and including their vocation. Notice the important aspects. We don't have to
agree about every little detail. Now, second concept to be discussed a few
moments. There are several levels of shared vision. We are especially
talking, as I have already said, about basics and fundamental principals and
realities about matters of our human situation. That's the most basic level.
I just sketch it.

Now, there is a question, do we have to have a shared vision about things
like finances? Well, it would help a lot in marriage, if they had a shared
vision about the use of money, and Gospel frugality, and a sparing, sharing
lifestyle. That would be wonderful if they have it, and to some extent that
is a basic. How we use material goods. But there is a level of shared vision
that is not necessary, mainly practicalities. If husband and wife disagree
about color schemes for painting the walls of the house, it is not a big
deal, and it should not become a big deal. There is room for compromise. If
somebody likes it done in this way, and the other one likes it done in that
way, it’s not a basic, and you don't have to have a shared vision about that
or when to replace the vacuum cleaner.

Let me just sketch the areas where there must be a shared vision, say in
marriage. The views they have of marriage itself, for instance, the sexual
morality in marriage. They must agree about that, that the children are the
main purpose in marriage. And they must agree about the religious and moral
formation, the spiritual formation of children, (their children especially);
about abortion and contraception; about the indissolubility of marriage;
about honesty toward each other; about forgiveness. We all slip here or
there. Have adverseness or momentary weakness, but forgiveness. And then of
course, if somebody has slipped, they get it corrected and don't do it
again. They have to agree that there is such a thing as forgiveness and they
should agree about amiable discussion and that nagging and quarreling are
out of bounds in this marriage...because they are not Gospel. And so those
are some basics that they have to agree on. And again, I repeat, in
religious life there are these basics, somewhat different, but somewhat the
same too, that have to be agreed upon.

I will make that point again. That nobody is trying to force a shared vision
on anybody. You might say than how do they get it? We are going to get to
that later on, you see, but it is not forced. As the Holy Father put it the
church proposes, she does not impose. We are not terrorists, and we are not
going to persecute people. And so nobody is forcing anything.

Those are a few comments on the levels of shared vision. Now, let me say
next we are sharpening concepts, still...what shared vision is not. First,
it is not a dictatorial imposition from on high. That is not what we are
talking about. Shared vision...nobody is dictating, and nobody is trying to
force a conformity about all kinds of incidentals. The second that it is
not: It’s not a fine rigidity in details of human life. Nobody is saying
when we must have a shared vision. We are not saying we have got to be
detailed about all kinds of little matters of human life.

Thirdly it is not a lock-step conformism. That it sometimes has been
somewhat interpreted that way in religious life in the past. That was a
mistake. And like a lot of mistakes, it triggers an opposite reaction, of no
kind of unity. We tend, we human beings are wounded, and we tend to go to
one extreme or another, so that's why I want to be clear about the concepts.
That is one reason for clarity about concepts what we are not talking about.
Fourthly, it is not an infringement on human freedom, human thought,
creativity. Our best contemporary theologians, Hans Von Baltazar, Henri De
Lubac, and so on, completely faithful to scripture, and the teaching of the
church, and most creative minds. And there is no class between the two. And
the last, what shared vision is not, let me just put a little parenthetical
remark there. Many people, seculars, do admire, and say how wonderful it
would be, if the United States community were of one mind. But nobody
seriously tries to bring it about because it is impossible, merely on the
human level. But you see we are not dealing with the human level merely. We
are dealing with the divine level and with God's grace and we will see how
it comes about...indeed that it happens, when we live the Gospel fully. And
nobody's imposing anything on anybody. Humanly speaking it just can't
happen. Once you look at history it doesn't happen in history, except among
saintly people, very holy people. That's where it happens. The fourth
thing, clarifying concepts here. I want to say a few things about pluralism
and diversity. And that we have to be a little bit academic here because it
would save us a lot of grief if we would get things rightly defined. Now, we
all know what pluralism is in this sort of thing, or we don't, somebody is
saying she doesn't know. Pluralism here means that there are different kinds
of thinking about things. So one group thinks this, and another group thinks
that. Well, look at the Presidential campaign we just finished. That is
pluralism, and its diversity. They were at odds about a lot of things.

Pluralism may mean that husband and wife, may disagree about some things,
you see. As indeed they may, they do, even an ideal marriage. We are very
different people, all of us are. You can have an ideal marriage. They are
different people and have different ideas about things. Now, that's
diversity in the marriage situation. There are two kinds of diversity,
pluralism, and especially about truth. The first kind of diversity we will
call complementary. Complementary diversity means that about some matter
they have different insights into the matter, but the insights don't
contradict one another, they are all true. An example makes it clear. In the
New Testament there are at least four Christologies, which means four kinds
of truths about the Lord. The Incarnation, Jesus, the Incarnation,
redemption and so on. There are four Christologies. Scripture scholars talk
about the synoptic Christologies, Matthew, Mark and Luke Gospels. Then there
is a Christology, the Johninne, the John's Gospel Christology. Then there is
the Pauline Christology, Saint Paul's teaching about the Incarnation, and
then there is a Christology and a priesthood of Christ, especially in
Hebrews, the letter to the Hebrews. So there are four Christologies in the
New Testament but they all beautifully compliment, that is, fill out,
complete one another, and there is no class between them. That is a healthy
diversity, and we should find it in marriage. We should find it in a
monastery, and we do, because every single member of a monastic community is
a different personality, and husbands and wives are different people, even
when they are beautifully living the gospel. That complimentary diversity is
good, necessary. It enriches society and it enriches the marriage, and it
enriches the episcapacy and so on. Its very good.

Now the other kind of diversity! The name we will give it is an accurate
name, contradictory diversity. Now, we get the logic here, the study of
logic, formal logic it is called. A contradiction is the affirming of some
principal 'X is Y'. It’s an affirmation, a proposition we call it, and a
denial of exactly what was affirmed. So if somebody says 'X is Y' that's a
statement. It’s a proposition. If somebody says 'X is not Y', meaning in
the same use of the terms, and the same meaning, somebody denies that, it’s
not true. That's a contradiction. Now logic points out in that diversity one
must be wrong. They can't both be right. Okay? So, if husband and wife have
a contradictory diversity about something, one affirms something and the
other denies exactly what was affirmed in the same sense, in the same
meaning, at the same time, husband or wife is wrong. That goes for two
priests. That goes for everybody. It’s logic. It’s good to realize that. So
that if there is a contradictory diversity in the state in life, in case of
most of you, marriage, husband and wife are not in touch with reality
together. One of them is out of touch. If it is that kind of diversity. It
is bad news. And if the matter is very important, it can be tragic, being
out of touch. Now, this is very important. I remember some, two or three
decades ago, one of the very prominent theologians, a dissenter, wrote an
article, in theological studies, on how great it is that we have diversity
in theology. And the guy, he's got a Ph.D, and he didn't even make this
distinction that I am making now. Yike! How could he be so, so, so...I'll
use a gentle word...unknowing. I have thought of a less gentle word!

To have a contradictory diversity about something important can be tragic.
Let's use an example. Suppose you are going to take a jet. We're near
Detroit so you are going to take a jet from Detroit to London, alright? You
are getting ready for boarding and you are in the boarding area, and the
airline, Northwest, would say "Well ladies and gentlemen, we want to be very
honest with you. We are ready to board this plane for London, this 747 Jet
from Detroit. Um, but there is a disagreement among the cockpit crew, and
the ground crew. The ground crew says that there is not enough fuel in the
tanks of this jet to get to London, but the cockpit crew says there is, but
we have cheery good will and we're going as is. Now, we are ready to board
the plane so rows 75 to 82 will board, and of course, nobody will board the
plane! There is a contradictory diversity between the two crews about
something important. One says "Yes, there is enough fuel left to get to
London", notice the affirmation, proposition. The other one says "No, there
is not enough", about the same thing and the same meaning. One of them is
wrong for sure. That is a contradictory diversity.

Human beings are made for union. We are incomplete, each one of us, by
ourselves. God made us social beings, who radically need to know, love, and
embrace one another, and most of all, know, love, and embrace Supreme
Beloved, who is God. We just don't make it by ourselves alone.

______________________________________________________________
Tape 1 - Side 2

That is why truth is absolutely indispensable. You and I must be in touch
with reality. Otherwise, we become cabbages. And I am not opposed to
cabbage. We need to be in union with other people. Now, its not only bodily
union in marriage, the physical union between husband and wife, yes, but
there is a much more deeper union. So, husband and wife need a deeper union
between themselves: that they be in touch with reality together in all the
ways, the important ways we have mentioned. The physical union is not
enough. Nobody makes it in life on simply bodily matters. No human being
does. And so the more vibrant, and alive, and innerly rich that a person
is, the more that person yearns for a deep union of heart, mind and will. In
marriage included. This is one of the problems, when they are not united in
heart, mind and will. There is a physical relationship, and even that fades
away, and well anyhow you know all that as well as I do. There has to be
the mind and heart union as well. And this goes for people in other states
in life, but I'm not talking to them now. All of us, no matter what our
state of life is, must be in union, first of all, with God Himself: Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. And a deep prayer union, or we don't make it fully at
least, in life. We might survive like prunes survive, but we don't want to
be human prunes. Consequently, we need and in marriage, you need, and in
parishes we need, to be united with others in mind, and heart and will. And
that is very much shared vision we are talking about. Now, this is a natural
breaking point and we will stop here.



LEGAL: Privacy Policy Terms of Use Site Disclaimer Affiliate