Right Thinking About Married Love
SIR,—Having read Fr. Holloway's final letter several times, 1, a parish priest of many years standing, cannot discover any definite meaning amongst all the abundance of words, but only an attitude, which still seems to me the over-puritanical attitude
which has been consciously left behind by the Church at large. For instance, there seems a sug gestion that before the Fall there Is there any grain of truth in the
said suggestion? Only that a married couple may give up their use Of Marriage, tas1 as people may give up sugar in their tea; and this might be pleasing to God. but not to do it is not an " imperfection."
As for that alarming word " con
cupiscence." so valuable to sensational pulpit-orators, what after all does it really mean when the old confusions are cleared up? It simply means that owing to the Fall the controlling guidance of reason over instinct (all instinct. not only the sexual) is more difficult, and often imperilled. Fr. Holloway writes as if desire
becomes " concupiscence " by being more " intense." Not at all; it becomes concupiscence by being inordinate. • Inordinate " does not mean extra-strong, it means wrongly-directed, out of order as regards ultimate object or purpose, an "urge" that seeks to elbow reason aside. If the outlook suggested by Fr. Holloway's letters were the true one. it seems to follow that strongly-sexed people would be hopelessly handicapped in the " illumination " and " unitive" ways, and the saints would mostly be drawn from the undersexed. This is so unlike anything one gathers from history, hagiography. and common observation, that I should call such a conclusion (which of course Fr. Holloway has not actually drawn) the most arrant nonsense.