Please:

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the next 3 sentences on your blog along with these instructions.
5. Tag 5 people.^[1]

I am skipping step 5. One, because there aren’t 5 people I could tag who will not already have seen this, two because its too chain letterish. You will not that she did not tag anyone either.

I have two books approximately equidistant from me, since I had two books in my bag today.

1. Ms. L. M. Montgomery. Anne of the Island. Page 123 of my edition, sentences 5-8:

In fact, I daresay they’re a good deal the worse. But they’ve worn nice and easy. New shoes are smarter than old ones, but the old ones are the more comfortable.

Aunt Jamesina’s introductory speach to the girls as they set up housekeeping at “Patty’s Place” for their sophmore year at Redmond. 2. Mr. Peter Kreeft & Mr. Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics Page 123 of my edition, sentences 5-8:

The heart of the problem is not found in words like ours, in a book, but in the words from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It is a problem not on paper, but on wood.

Three forms of the problem of evil must be distinguished:

1. It may be claimed that any evil disproves an all-good God.
2. Or it may be claimed that the amount of evil, the superfluity and needlessness and pointlessness of much evil, disproves God.
3. Or it may be claimed that the unjust distribution of evil disproves God–not that bad things happen, or even that so many bad things happen, but that they happen to good people just as much as to bad people.

Here we are looking at part of the introduction to what will be an entire chapter devoted to the question fairly well summed up in those bullets.

“An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.”^[1] Pause and read that again. Proponents of same-sex “marriage” want this. It boggles the mind.

Clearly they are betting that this will not pass. They must be hoping that by pushing this, they will be able to either force those defending marriage to drop the claim that marriage is about procreation, or to be able to call them for hypocrisy when they make such claims.

But just imagine for a second what would happen if this was passed. I am not in favor of it, mind you, but it offers interesting food for thought. First of all, right off the bat, a good number of marriages would be annulled from a civil standpoint. This would have severe economic consequences for a non-trivial number of families. They will be put in a decidedly awkward situation.

But those with children, and those who take seriously the command to be fertile, will be minimally (if at all) affected. In one place, for the first time in ages, young people looking at the married life will be forced to consider a more real view of what it is to be married.

And, if nothing else, it will slow (though since it seems one child is enough, it will not stop), the population decline currently hidden only by the immigration levels.

However, I am not really in favor of this. Marriage is about procreation, but not in quite the literal sense that this bill would require. Those too old to have children, or incapable of it because of physical illness or disability, can still be validly married. This is because the Church recognizes the possibility of the miraculous. Such couples are not closed to the possibility of life. In the same way, the couple who uses natural family planning to avoid having more children than they could support is not closed to the possibility of life, but is instead attempting to act responsibly as stewards of the lives that God has already granted them.

Such couples also continue to model Christ’s love for His Church, though perhaps to a lesser degree. Theirs is not the selfish, inwardly turned love of mutual use, but is, or at least can be, one in which the true gift of self takes place.

I am not saying this clearly. I have not Pope John Paul the Great’s eloquence or lucidity on this topic. Nor do I have Pope Benedict XVI’s scholastic ability. I can but approximate, poorly, the truth the Church proclaims.