List of points

Please excuse me for insisting on the same subject. Through the letters which reach our Editor's desk, we know that some mothers of large families complain about their being limited to the role of having children, and feel dissatisfied about not being able to devote their life to other fields: professional work, cultural activities, social work… What advice would you give them?

Now just a moment! What is social work, if not giving oneself to others, with a sense of dedication and service and contributing effectively to the good of all? The job of a woman in her house is a social contribution in itself and can easily be the most effective of all.

Take the case of a large family. The mother's work is comparable to that of professional teachers and in many cases leaves them in the shade. A teacher manages to educate a number of boys and girls more or less successfully in the course of his life. A mother can give her children a solid set of values and shape their character, and can make them, in their turn, other teachers, thus setting up an uninterrupted chain of responsibility and virtue.

In these matters it is easy to be misled by mere numbers and to think that the work of a teacher, who sees hundreds of people pass through his classes, or that of a writer who reaches thousands of readers, is more valuable. That is all very well, but how many people are really formed by that teacher or writer? A mother has three, five, ten or more children in her care and she can make of them a true work of art, a marvel of education, of balance and understanding, a model of the Christian way of life. She can teach them to be happy and to make themselves really useful to those around them.

Besides, it is natural for the children to help with the household chores; and a mother who knows how to bring up her children well can manage this. This way she will have spare time which, if used well, will enable her to cultivate her personal interests and talents and to enrich her culture. Fortunately, these days there is plenty of technical equipment, household appliances and that sort of thing, which can be great time-savers if full advantage is taken of them and they are used correctly. As in every field, personal qualities are what count. Some women with the latest-model washing machine take longer to do the washing, (and do it worse) than when they did it by hand. Appliances are useful only when one knows how to use them.

I know of many married women with large families who manage their home very well and still find time to cooperate in other apostolic tasks, just like that early Christian married couple, Aquilla and Priscilla. They worked in their house and at their job, and besides this were splendid cooperators of St. Paul. With their word and example they brought Apollo to the Faith of Jesus Christ, a man who was later to become a great preacher of the early Church. As I have already said, someone who really wants to, can overcome quite a number of limitations, without neglecting any of his duties. In fact, there is time for a lot of things: for running a home with professional outlook, for giving oneself continually to others, for improving one's own culture and for enriching that of others, and for carrying out many other effective tasks.

There are marriages in which the wife, for some reason or other, finds herself separated from her husband in degrading and unbearable conditions. In these cases it is difficult for her to accept the indissolubility of the marriage bond. Women in these circumstances complain that they are denied the possibility of building a new home. What answer would you give to people in such a situation?

While understanding their suffering, I would tell them that they can also see in their situation God's Will, which is never cruel, for God is a loving Father. The situation may be especially difficult for some time, but if they go to our Lord and His blessed Mother, they will receive the help of grace.

The indissolubility of marriage is not a caprice of the Church nor is it merely a positive ecclesiastical law. It is a precept of natural law, of divine law, and responds perfectly to our nature and to the supernatural order of grace. For these reasons, in the great majority of cases, indissolubility is an indispensable condition for the happiness of married couples and for the spiritual security of their children. Even in the very sad cases we are talking about, the humble acceptance of God's Will always brings with it a profound sense of satisfaction that nothing can substitute. It is not merely a refuge, or a consolation, it is the very essence of Christian life.

If women who are separated from their husbands have children in their care, they should understand that their children continue to need their loving motherly devotion, and especially now, to make up for the deficiencies of a divided home. They should make a generous effort to understand that indissolubility, which for them means sacrifice, is a safeguard for the integrity and unity of the great majority of families and ennobles the parent's love and prevents the abandonment of the children.

Surprise at the apparent hardness of the Christian precept of indissolubility is nothing new. The Apostles were surprised when Jesus confirmed it. It can seem a burden, a yoke, but Christ Himself said that His yoke was sweet and his burden light.

The theory that love justifies everything is current today and as a result, engagement is looked upon by some people as a sort of 'trial marriage'. They say that it is hypocritical and reactionary not to follow what they consider to be imperative demands of love. What do you think of this attitude?

Any decent person and especially a Christian would consider it an attitude unworthy of men. It debases human love confusing it with selfishness and pleasure.

Reactionary? Who are the reactionaries? The real reactionaries are the people who go back to the jungle, recognising no impulse other than instinct. Engagement should be time for growing in affection and for getting to know each other better. As in every school of love, it should be inspired, not by a desire to receive, but by a spirit of giving, of understanding, of respect and gentle consideration. Just over a year ago, with this in mind, I gave the University of Navarra a statue of the Virgin Mary, Mother of Fair Love, so that the undergraduates who study there might learn from Her the nobility of love, human love included.

A trial marriage? How little anyone who uses the term knows about love! Love is a much surer, more real, more human reality. It cannot be treated as a commercial product that is tested and then accepted or rejected on the basis of whim, comfort and interest.

This lack of moral standards is so pitiful that it does not even seem necessary to condemn people who think or act in this way. They condemn themselves to the barrenness, the sadness, the desolate loneliness they will suffer within a very few years. I never stop praying for them, loving them with all my heart and trying to make them understand that the way back to Christ is always open. They can be saints, upright Christians, if they make an effort. They will lack neither the necessary grace nor our Lord's pardon. Only then will they really understand love — divine Love and also noble human love. And only then will they experience peace, happiness and fruitfulness.

Many different factors, among which must be included the teaching of the Church's Magisterium, have contributed to create and promote the deep social awareness that exists today. We hear a lot about the virtue of poverty as giving witness to Christianity. How can a housewife, whose duty it is to secure the well-being of her family, live this virtue?

'The poor will have the Gospel preached to them' (Matt 11:6), we read in Scripture, precisely as one of the signs which mark the arrival of the Kingdom of God. Those who do not love and practise the virtue of poverty do not have Christ's spirit. This holds true for everyone. For the hermit who retires to the desert; and for the ordinary Christian who lives among his fellow men, whether he enjoys the use of this world's resources or is short of many of them.

I would like to go into this topic at some length because when poverty is preached nowadays it is not always made clear how its message can be applied in daily life. There are some people, well-intentioned no doubt but they haven't quite managed to move with the times, who preach a poverty which is the result of 'armchair speculation'. This poverty has certain ostentatious outward signs while at the same time it betrays enormous interior — and also sometimes exterior — deficiencies.

Recalling an expression of the prophet Isaiah — discite benefacere (Is 1:17) — I like to say that we have to learn to live every virtue and perhaps this is especially true of poverty. We have to learn to live it, otherwise it will be reduced to an ideal about which much is written but which no one seriously puts into practice. We have to make people see that poverty is an invitation which our Lord issues to each Christian, and that it is therefore a definite call that should shape every human life.

Poverty is not a state of miserable want; and it has nothing to do with dirtiness. Because, to start with, what makes a Christian is not so much the external conditions of his existence as the attitude of his heart. And with this, we are getting close to a very important point, on which a correct understanding of the lay vocation depends. For poverty is not simply renunciation. In certain circumstance Christians may be asked to give up everything as a testimony to poverty. They may be asked to challenge directly a society bent on material well-being, and thus to proclaim to the four winds that nothing is good if it is preferred to God. However, is this the witness that the Church usually asks today? Isn't it also asking us to give an explicit testimony of love for the world and of solidarity with our fellow men?

Sometimes when people consider Christian poverty they take as their main point of reference the religious whose job it is to give, at all times and in all places, official and public testimony of poverty. Such considerations run the risk of not recognising the specific characteristics of a lay testimony, lived interiorly, in the ordinary circumstances of everyday.

The ordinary Christian has to reconcile two aspects in his life that may at first seem contradictory. There is on the one hand, true poverty, which is obvious and tangible and made up of definite things. This poverty should be an expression of faith in God and a sign that the heart is not satisfied with created things and aspires to the Creator; that it wants to be filled with love of God so as to be able to give this same love to everyone. On the other hand an ordinary Christian is and wants to be one more amongst his fellow men, sharing their way of life, their joys and happiness; working with them, loving the world and all the good things that exist in it; using all created things to solve the problems of human life and to establish a spiritual and material environment which will foster personal and social development.

Achieving a synthesis between these two aspects is to a great extent a personal matter. It requires interior life, which will help us assess in every circumstance what God is asking of us. For this reason I do not want to give fixed rules, although I will give some general indications with special reference to mothers of families.

Poverty consists in large measure in sacrifice. It means knowing how to do without the superfluous. And we find out what is superfluous not so much by theoretical rules as by that interior voice which tells us we are being led by selfishness or undue love of comfort. On the other hand, comfort has a positive side which is not luxury nor pleasure seeking, but consists in making life agreeable for one's own family and for others, so that everyone can serve God better.

Poverty lies in being truly detached from earthly things and in cheerfully accepting shortage or discomfort if they arise. Furthermore it means having one's whole day taken up with a flexible schedule in which, besides the daily norms of piety, an important place should be given to rest, which we all need, to family get-togethers, to reading and to time set aside for an artistic or literary hobby or any other worthwhile pastime. We live poverty by filling the hours of the day usefully, doing everything as well as we can, and living little details of order, punctuality, and good humour. In a word, it means finding opportunities for serving others and finding time for oneself without forgetting that all men, all women — not only those who are poor in a material sense — have an obligation to work. Wealth and abundance of economic means only increase one's obligation to feel responsible for the whole of society.

It is love that gives meaning to sacrifice. Every mother knows well what it means to sacrifice herself for her children; it is not a matter of giving them a few hours of her time, but of spending her whole life in their benefit. We must live thinking of others and using things in such a way that there will be something to offer to others. All these are dimensions of poverty which guarantee an effective detachment.

It is not enough for a mother to live in this way. She should also teach her children to do so. She can do this by fostering in them faith, optimistic hope and charity; by teaching them not to be selfish and to spend some of their time generously in the service of other less fortunate people, doing jobs suited to their age, in which they can show in a practical way, a human and supernatural concern for their fellow men.

To sum up: each person has to go through life fulfilling his vocation. To my way of thinking, the best examples of poverty are those mothers and fathers of large and poor families who spend their lives for their children and who with their effort and constancy — often without complaining of their needs — bring up their family, creating a cheerful home in which everyone learns to love, to serve and to work.