[00:00] Praise be Jesus and Mary. Herod in today's Gospel, also called Herod Antipas, married Herodias while her first husband was still alive, Philip. And this we call adultery, for which reason St. John the Baptist denounced this marriage

[00:32] and said, "It's not lawful for you to have her as your wife." We know that Christ has really elevated marriage. He restored it to its original dignity and elevated it even higher to the dignity of a sacrament. And a man shall leave his father and mother, He says, so that he can be joined to his wife and the two become one flesh. So serious and so holy is marriage that for no reason whatsoever can married people become

[01:06] one flesh with anybody else in the world for any other reason you can think of except with the person to whom they are married. So it's really an exclusive right of married persons to become one flesh with each other and nobody else in the whole world for any reason you can possibly think of. And yet theologians, thinking that they're merciful or pastoral, keep trying to think of exceptions to this rule.

[01:37] But what if, and what if, and what if? Maybe in this case, adultery is okay. Maybe in that case, adultery is okay. So what if a person is afraid and the only way to be freed from that fear is to commit adultery? Is it okay then? And what if there's something great to be gained that would otherwise be lost? Is it okay to commit adultery then so that you don't miss your opportunity? And then they create, honestly, maybe tear-jerking examples of people that are really in situations

[02:11] like that, afraid or standing to seemingly lose something if they don't commit adultery. So the so-called classic example, reduced really to its minimum here for the sake of brevity, imagine this. And theologians rarely use these examples and I'll give the example and then show how it's really a cruel example, right? So the classic example is imagine a woman is pseudo-married to a man because she already has a husband or he already has a wife.

[02:43] At a certain point, it bothers her conscience. She realizes this probably is not pleasing to God. She does not wish to engage in sexual relations because she realizes this would be sinful, but the man insists and uses threats to have his way. So should she really, so theologians would then say, well, look at this situation. The man will leave if the woman does not comply and what a tragedy if he does. So should she really refuse to let herself be abused by the abuser or should she just

[03:20] give in and commit adultery? There's so much to be gained if she gives in. If she lets the abuser keep abusing her, he's going to stick around. He'll keep paying the bills. The family will look like a family. And if she doesn't, well, then he's going to leave and he won't give her financial support. So not only can she, theologians would say, she has to let the abuser keep abusing her.

[03:50] There's really theologians that say that. Of course, they say it in language that makes it sound a lot more warm and fuzzy, but it boils down to this. It's really an example of cruelty imposed on a victim. And I have any better example, I think, than the one I just read to you, a real historical example of what really happens to people and how the teaching of the Church on morality really protects us from becoming victims of a cruel world and sinful people in the world.

[04:25] So the example of Maria Walewska, she was a Polish noblewoman in the late 1700s at a time when Poland was without independence. She was beautiful and Napoleon Bonaparte felt lust for her and wanted her to be a concubine. If she accepted, he would create an independent Polish kingdom. And she accepted. And Napoleon used her for four years, and when he was done with her, he went on to different women.

[04:56] Now, didn't the welfare of the nation justify what she did? I mean, just a whole country regains its independence if one person consents to being objectified and used and a concubine. Isn't that worth it? She was treated like a toy, used until she was boring, thrown away, and then Napoleon went on to other women.

[05:27] Certain theologians today would say, not only was it lawful, she had a duty to do so. Which is what happened, she accepted. And wouldn't it be heartless, merciless, rigid, pharisaical to tell her, "No, your dignity as a Christian woman is so great that you cannot let yourself be objectified, used, abused, and thrown away for any reason. You cannot do that."

[05:58] Wouldn't it be heartless to tell people that? Shouldn't we stop being so rigid? Shouldn't we stop being Pharisees and just let people live in a real world that is sometimes cruel and sometimes you just have to be a victim, let yourself be trampled because that's what the real world requires. Isn't that a lot more merciful? So Maria Walewska was afraid to let this opportunity go by, and she had precisely that, a lot of people pressuring her to accept. She left diaries and the diaries show it.

[06:30] She knew exactly what she was doing, was reluctant, would have preferred not to have to do it, but she thought she had to do it. Now her level of culpability was less than that of the other concubines of Napoleon, less than the culpability of Napoleon himself, but it was still serious and grievous because she knew what she was doing and she chose to do it, because such is our responsibility.

[07:02] But in reality, it would have been much better for her, for Napoleon, for Poland, for the whole world, had she not committed that sin. I mean, just even historically speaking, you know, today we could be speaking of, you know, the heroic virtue of Maria Walewska, who refused to let herself be objectified and abused even by Napoleon and even for Poland to regain its independence. Wow, what virtue.

[07:33] Instead, today we talk about her as somebody who, yes, under a lot of pressure, gave in and allowed herself to be used as an object. So I bring this up because, wow, you know, this is really something that theologians would say and it really leads to bad advice being told to good people. St. John Paul II will quote him and conclude with this. St. John Paul II, in his encyclical on moral theology, Veritatis Splendor 93, says,

[08:06] "Martyrdom is an outstanding sign of the holiness of the Church. This witness makes an extraordinarily valuable contribution to warding off in civil society and within ecclesial communities themselves a headlong plunge into the most dangerous crisis which can affect man, the confusion between good and evil. Which makes it impossible to build up and to preserve the moral order of individuals and communities. By witnessing fully to the good, the martyrs are a living reproof to those who transgress

[08:40] the law and they make the words of the prophet echo ever afresh. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. Who put darkness for light and light for darkness. Who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." And so such was St. John the Baptist who was a martyr, a witness to the holiness of marriage. The real holiness of the sacrament of marriage, which is so holy that it allows for no exceptions,

[09:17] no transgressions, no adultery for any reason whatsoever. Such is the dignity of marriage, such is the dignity of spouses. It's a great thing that Christ has done this for us so that we are governed not by passions and emotions and weakness, but rather by reason enlightened by faith as to our true dignity, our true worth and our call to holiness. Praised be Jesus and Mary. Amen.

[10:03] Amen.