Reflection on August 27, 1980

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb36.htm

I have never reflected on the difference between adultery and prostitution, but that is what JPII reflects upon here. Both are obviously sinful, but there seems to be more sin in the act of adultery. And when you look at each, you look at what the purpose of the sin is and judged from that its wrongfulness. Prostitution seeks to gain money, which is what they want for their actions. In adultery, the purpose is to satisfy a desire, to bend to the concupiscence within. Also, in the act of adultery there is the breaking of a covenant, which is why God uses it as an example for idolatry over and over in the Old Testament. I think many in the world would say that prostitution is far worse than adultery, and the laws of our nation would agree with them, (Only one is against the law, although that was not always the case) but just because a thing is legal or not does not make it more or less evil in the eyes of God or in its effects on a person. Think about the act of prostitution and who it might affect (if it is not a married man or woman doing it) and who the act of adultery affects and which is more harmful.

I have never reflected on the use of adultery as analogous to God and Israel, yet the idea of the covenant and marriage with God is not as strongly or often used. It might be implied with the use of adultery, but JPII seems to say that the “marriage” is not as analogous because Israel’s “flexibility” with marriage made the analogy weaker. Israel did not have a monogamous definition of marriage and so if you tell them their covenant with God is like a marriage covenant, they could go very easily and seek another God and not feel they broke the first covenant. When you think about that, Christ telling them that their whole idea of marriage, divorce, adultery, and covenants was misinterpreted does not just effect their understanding of spousal relationships, but their whole understanding of their relationship with God. Christ tells them to go back to the beginning, one husband, one wife, one covenant, for life. Then, go back and read your prophets and the talk of adultery and going to other Gods and what God wanted from you. When you change the definition of marriage, you change your understanding of your very relationship with God. (No intention of applying to the controversies today with gay marriage, but as I typed I think it bears reflecting what effect our changing the definition of marriage might have on our understanding of our relationship with God.)

The prophets and the law each saw adultery in a different light. The prophets saw it as a breaking of the covenant; the law saw it as a loss of property rights. The prophets point to the monogamous relationship that is from the beginning. JPII didn’t mention it, but if you go through the prophets, time and again, Israel is called the chosen people. They were chosen by God, no other nation was chosen. That, in and of itself, is significant in pointing to a monogamous relationship. God (the groom) does not have many brides. After Christ, who came to save all, the chosen people become all people. It is still only one bride, it is still a monogamous marriage, it is only the fulfillment of what once was. The chosen people of Israel are fulfilled in become the chosen people of all humanity.

What is the real sin in adultery? You must reflect on all that we have learned so far in the importance of that communion of persons; the uniqueness of the gift, what we learn about being human because of that experience, the need for it to be a full gift, fully received, no barriers and everything that makes that union so important is thrown away in adultery. The conjugal covenant is of the utmost importance in understanding the very nature of what it means to be human, of what God intended us for. Adultery is the antithesis of all that.