Civil marriage and the Sacrament of Marriage in the Catholic Church

Civil marriage and the Sacrament of marriage in the Catholic Church

The debate taking place across our nation and in the Supreme Court regarding the understanding of civil marriage has also drawn the attention and concern of Catholics. I think this debate is a clear example of the problems that surface when civil and religious issues are intertwined, when we don't apply the distinction between Church and State.

The reality is that long before the Catholic Church declared it a sacrament, people were committing themselves to marriage in civil ceremonies for hundreds of years. Even though the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is one of the seven sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ, it is clear from the history of the Church that this sacrament actually developed over hundreds of years, as did many of the other sacraments. In fact, the very understanding of what constitutes a sacrament in the Catholic Church developed over centuries. The designation of the present seven sacraments did not become official in Church teaching until the 12^th century.

I mention this development in this context because it suggests a way to clarify what is taking place in the national discussion at present. It is a debate about what constitutes civil marriage and who has a right to be considered married civilly. The debate is not about the Catholic sacrament of marriage. These are two quite distinct realities that unfortunately bear the same name, marriage. For a couple to be married civilly, what is required is that they prove that they are old enough, not presently married, acquire a civil marriage license and have their civil marriage promises accepted by someone approved by the government to do so, normally a justice of the peace. In essence, the civil government is in the business of granting civil contracts to couples under the name of marriage. These contracts assure both participants have legal rights and obligations in civil society. These contracts can also be dissolved by civil divorce.

People who are involved in sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church know that there is much more involved and a clear process for a man and woman entering such a marriage. They need to be free to marry in the Catholic Church, they need to promise to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the sacrament, they need to sign Catholic Church documents to that effect and they need to be married in the presence of a Catholic minister- deacon, priest or bishop, normally after taking part in some form of Catholic marriage preparation. They also must obtain a civil marriage license to assure that the marriage is accepted by the local government. Unless couples go through this process, their marriage will not be understood in the Catholic Church as a sacramental marriage. Couples entering into such sacramental marriages understand that their marriage is intended for life. The only way to dissolve such a marriage is through an annulment process that determines that a sacramental marriage never took place. They also understand that their marriage is rooted in their faith in Jesus Christ and in his teaching in the Catholic Church. Catholics who purchase a civil marriage license and have a justice of the peace witness the marriage are not celebrating and entering into a sacramental marriage.

With these differences in mind, it is clear that the debate taking place now over who can marry will not affect who can celebrate the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic Church. What it will do is determine who can enter into a civil marriage. If the Government or the Supreme Court decides that two men or two women can contract a civil marriage, that is all that will change. The Catholic Church and any other churches, Christian or otherwise, can still maintain their understanding and their regulations for marriage in their churches, synagogues, etc.

Perhaps it would be clearer if the civil government would simply refer to civil marriage as a binding contract between two persons. However, this can be a wonderful teaching moment for Catholics and other religious group. We can explain very clearly what is our understanding of marriage, sacramental for Catholics, with its spiritual and religious meaning in the Church. At the same time, we can allow civil governments to do what they judge is in the best interests of all people,including those with no religious affiliation. We simply need to make clear that the separation of Church and State applies. The State is not telling the Church what to do and the Church is not telling the State what to do.        April 2, 2013

Benedict XVI, the pluses and minuses

As we are about to experience the election of a new leader for the Roman Catholic Church, I have been reflecting on the papacy of Benedict XVI.  Like many others, I was shocked by his decision to resign the papacy. At the same time, I was delighted with his decision, and not simply because I was glad to see him depart. Rather, I think this was one of the most significant acts of his papacy. Here was a Pope willing to admit that he no longer had sufficient good health and energy to carry on in this most important ministry in the Catholic Church.  He was willing to say that the papacy is more important than the person who is presently holding  the office. He was comfortable breaking a 600 year practice of pope's holding on to the office until death.

I hope that Benedict's decision rings out as a loud and clear message to all in positions of leadership in the Church and beyond. I hope others get the message that no one is more important than the position they hold in the Church. I hope this leads to more leaders experiencing the freedom and humility to step down and let others take over their positions. This needs to be said not only to popes but also to bishops and priests as well as women and men in positions of leadership in the Church. 

Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, gave a different message.  He chose to continue his papacy despite his illness and frail health, being a suffering Pope until he died. I think there is a value in being a witness to one's faith in the midst of suffering. I am not sure it ought to be associated with someone in such a high position of leadership in the Church. John Paul II could have resigned when his health became frail and continued to be a witness to faith in the midst of suffering.  I think the position of leadership in the Church deserved someone who was able to continue to lead and make decisions from a stance of good health and clear thinking.  For that reason, I admire Benedict's decision more than John Paul II's decision.

Regarding the rest of Benedict's papacy, I will remember him for his publication of two wonderful encyclicals, "God is Love" and "Charity in Truth."  He chose to publish at the very beginning of his pontificate an encyclical extolling the message that the God we believe in is a God of unconditional love for all people, indeed a God passionately in love with all of us.  Given his background as a strong defender of Catholic doctrine, I found it reassuring that he would begin his ministry with such an encyclical.  I believe it sent an important message to all people as to what is paramount in our Church, a message that is overlooked by far too many people.

The encyclical,"Charity in Truth" was powerful in that it continued a long line of papal encyclicals presenting a powerful message of Catholic Social teaching, going back to Leo XIII encyclical "Rerum Novarum" in 1891. Benedict's encyclical was so strong in espousing the dignity of labor, worker's rights, the common good and the subordination of personal profit to the needs of others that some critics claimed that Benedict was affected too much by liberal influences in composing the encyclical.
Therefore these critics felt free to pick and choose what parts of the encyclical they accepted.

On the other hand, I will also remember Benedict in a not positive way for what he has attempted to do with the liturgical renewal of the Second Vatican Council, especially with the celebration of the Eucharist.  Along with many others, I was deeply disappointed with his decision to allow for the celebration of the Eucharist in the pre-Vatican II format. Even worse was his statement that Paul VI had not abrogated that way of celebrating Eucharist when he issued the Vatican II Order of Mass.

We have words of Paul VI himself stating his reason for not wanting the pre-Vatican II way of celebrating Mass to continue.  In a meeting he had with a friend, Jean Guitton,
Paul VI was asked why he did not allow the so-called "Missal of 1962" to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers who rejected the new Order of the Mass. Paul VI replied "Never. This Mass so called of Saint Pius V, becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council. I will not accept under any circumstances the condemnation of the council through a symbol. Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken. And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken."  This quote is taken from a wonderful book on the liturgy of Vatican II, written by Massimo Faggioli.

Besides making clear that Paul VI did not want the pre-Vatican II Mass format to be used any longer, this passage gives a clear reason for Paul VI's position.  He saw the new Order of Mass of Vatican II as expressing the theology of the Council so to reject it was also to reject Vatican II.  That is precisely what the Lefebvre followers wanted.
Benedict XVI gave them and anyone else who requested it permission to use the pre-Vatican II Mass in an effort to draw them back into union with the Church. That was not enough for the Lefebvre followers so they did not return to the Church as a group.
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church now has these two quite distinct ways of celebrating Mass and each offers a different view of what the Church is.

The Vatican II form of celebrating Mass focuses on the entire community gathering to celebrate the Paschal Mystery of Christ made present. Clergy and laity join together,
facing one another and each has a legitmate role in the celebration. The use of the language and the customs and culture of the people is used to encourage active participation. This participation also is encouraged through the reception of Communion under the forms of bread and wine.  The theology of the prayers, especially during the Triduum of Holy week is more sensitive to our Jewish brothers and sisters.  The theology of the Mass is the theology of Vatican II.

The pre-Vatican II form of celebrating Mass focuses more on people worshipping God with the priest facing away from the people, praying in Latin. Participation of the laity comes in a much more silent way or by reciting responses in Latin. Involvement of the laity is limited to the male altar servers, assisting the priest. Communion is not offered under both forms. The prayers of the Missal speak more of the theology of pre-Vatican II days.

Sadly, as a result of this decision by Benedict, which was not supported by many bishops througout the world, we have the present situation of two quite different ways of celebrating Eucharist and at the same time two different understanding of what liturgy and the Church is truly meant to be.

As we now wait the election of a new Pope, we can hope and pray that someone who is totally committed to the renewal that was fostered by the bishops of the Church in an ecumenical council, Vatican II, will be chosen, guided by the Holy Spirit. Who that person will be is anyone's guess as I write. My hope is that he will be someone like Blessed John XXIII, who has the openness to the Spirit and the courage to make decisions that will truly promote the common good of all.

Hopes and Dreams for 2013

Hopes and dreams for the New Year 2013

How did 2012 turn out for you and what are your hopes for the new year 2013. A new year gives us an opportunity to reflect on the past, to learn from what happened and did not happen and to think and plan for this year for our individual lives, for our Church and other communities as well as for our nation and world. I have been struggling to come up with my own hopes for this New Year for myself, Church and nation. There is so much I long for in all areas and I can best summarize them by saying I long for the presence of two of the basic principles of Catholic Social teaching-- the dignity of every human, made in God's image, and the common good of all people. How we achieve these lofty goals is another matter. Here are my reflections to promote your thoughts.

In our Church and nation, we need to stand up more dramatically for life of all, from the moment that life begins within a mother to each person's last dying breath. We need to work with individuals, families, churches, states and our nation to make abortions unnecessary and undesired. To do this, we need to challenge males and females not to get involved in sexual activity until they are ready to accept the consequences of their actions. We need much more blunt and specific sex education for young people beginning very early in adolescence. Our Catholic Church needs to back off its rigid stance on birth control and leave those decisions to couples. We also need to make available whatever pre-natal and post-natal resources are helpful for parents and infants.
As the children begin to grow up, we need to do all we can to support them and make sure that parents have all the resources, physical, material and spiritual they need to raise their children in a healthy environment, through childhood, adolescence into adulthood. We also need to do all we can to assure that our children grow up, educated with appropriate moral values, whether Christian or otherwise.

In order to help children grow up into adulthood, we need to promote an environment in our cities and states that encourages moral living. To accomplish this, we need to do whatever we can to tone down if not totally eliminate the violence in our society, a violence that is far too prevelant in our nation. The recent tragedy of Newtown is one example of that violence as well as the many other mass and individual killings that continue to occur in our cities. How can we do this? How can we get to the causes of such violence in our society?

It is helpful to hear so many people, including our national government leaders, reflecting on this matter and preparing to propose comprehensive measures to improve the environment in our nation. Surely, something needs to be done regarding the ease with which people can acquire guns in our society and any kind of guns. This has nothing to do with overturning the second amendment. It has a lot to do with bringing reasonable common sense regulations to the exercise of the second amendment. Just as we have the freedom to purchase and drive cars in our society and yet have to pass reasonable tests and obey traffic regulations, so we need to make sure that reasonable regulations are in place and observed regarding the purchase and use of firearms in our society. Most reasonable people do not think that semi-automatic rifles ought to be purchased and used by most people. Nor do ordinary people need high capacity magazines for their guns. And everyone purchasing a firearm ought to have to go through a thorough background check to prevent convicted felons and mentally instable persons from buying them. Previous regulations regarding semi-automatic weapons and background checks have allowed too many loopholes, such as private sales at guns shows.
This leads to another aspect of working to promote a healthy environment for the common good within our society, the matter of mental health. Sadly, too many states are closing down mental health facilities and thus leading to many mentally ill persons walking the streets instead of being supported and helped in an appropriate setting. Even more sadly, some of these individuals end up with guns that lead to killings on our streets, in homes, schools and elsewhere, like the recent tragedy in Newtown.

Another dimension of the violence in our society lies in the entertainment industry and the news media. While some studies have indicated that there is no direct connection between the violence on television, in movies and in Internet games, it is hard to believe that the violence has nothing to do with the behavior of those who are exposed to it. And the news media tends to exaggerate the significance of the violence by repeating its coverage over and over again. Do we really benefit from the twenty-four hour coverage of violence?

Looking at the twin issue of human dignity and the common good more broadly, we need to consider how our nation's attitude toward war and capital punishment further complicate the situation. If we are truly in the business as a Church and as a nation of wanting to promote the dignity of each person and the common good of all, we need to challenge ourselves regarding the approach we have taken toward both war and capital punishment for far too long.
There are indications that more states are moving to abandon capital punishment and replace it with imprisonment for life. Are we truly standing up for life when we kill one person because he or she has killed others? Can we not achieve an even higher goal by convicting those of heinous crimes to life in prison. That kind of sentence will lead the convicted to spend the rest of their lives reflecting on what they have done and possibly even leading to an experience of conversion of life within the prison.

There is always the possibility that some person may be unjustly convicted and sentenced to death. If that person is killed, there is no way to bring him or her back to life once the injustice has been discovered. Perhaps, most important of all, eliminating the death penalty will give a clear signal that we stand for life, even for those who have done horrible crimes, that we leave the end of life to God and nature.

The issue of our nation's attitude toward war is certainly a complicated one. Yet, we ought to be willing to address this issue and ask ourselves if we are too willing to engage in war, rather than use other means to resolve conflicts in the world. How many of these wars need not have been waged? What has been accomplished to promote the common good of all through the recent wars, beyond the killing not only of soldiers but innocent children, women and men? How much physical destruction has been brought to so many countries throughout the world? How much mental and emotional harm has come to all involved, soldiers and innocent people, harm that continues on years after combat has ended. Have the benefits from these wars outweighed the damage and the immense expense in money, resources and personal lives?

Ultimately, if we are going to promote a greater respect for life of every person and the common good of all, we need to look at the total picture and not focus simply on one or another issue. It is too easy to take simplistic answers to the complex issues facing us. Simply focusing on the elimination of any one issue will not work whether that issue is abortion, the death penalty, war, gun control or mental illness. Unless we are all willing to look at our attitudes towards all of these issues and others such as our financial system and immigration,(that deserve individual treatment at another time) we will never achieve the proper dignity of every human being and the common good of all in society. We need to work at these laudable goals as individuals, as families, as communities of religious groups, as cities and states in our nation, along with others throughout the world.

What can each of us do in this new year to further in some specific way the dignity of each person and the common good of our society?