Two asides for the Synod

I am, perhaps, taking just a phrase from each of these two posts and adding to them a reflection not intended by their original authors.

First, tigerish waters, who some time ago posted on the Instrumentum Laboris for the forthcoming Synod of Bishops on the family. Read her post before reading my comments that follow.

I think the most interesting question tigerish waters asks is that of whether the (biological) family as a unit receives a mission or whether it is the individuals, particularly but not exclusively the parents, within such a family unit who receive a mission. Clearly such a mission, as a vocation received from the Lord, exists in the order of grace, and is certainly there for a Christian married couple. It might not, however, be completely absent from a "natural" marriage between non-believers who live a family life rooted in a genuine "good will".

Every family, within the wider context of a calling of the couple to a vocation that they share in common with other couples, is called to live that vocation in circumstances that are unique to them; and these circumstances give a specificity to their living of that vocation. tigerish waters question prompts me to wonder whether the Synod Fathers should try to teach in a universal way of a mission of the family, ad extra. For some families, the specificity of the circumstances of the couple might make that appropriate - families, for example, who through an engagement with an ecclesial movement are sent to a new part of the world as missionary families. But for others, the notion that they should be "active in the parish" rather overrides a primacy of a mission of the couple towards their own family - if they are to fulfil that mission, they simply do not have the time to be a parish catechist. The sense in which it is possible to speak universally of a mission of the family in society needs a careful relation to the mission of individuals in the family.

Secondly, Fr Christopher Jamison, who writing on A great Catholic marriage revolution, identifies a language of "discerning a vocation to marriage" as indicating a significant change in the way the Church speaks about marriage. Again, read his post before continuing.

Fr Jamison is referring, I think, to an action of discernment on the part of the couple themselves as to whether or not they have a calling to marriage. Of its very nature, this discernment needs to be a shared discernment of the couple ..... so it must radically challenge any culture of a "proposal" on the part of one party and a "yes" on the part of the other. It requires a shared conversation.

As far as the discernment of other vocations in the Church is concerned, those who hold office in the Church - Bishops, religious superiors or a vote in chapter - play a definitive part. How far is something similar appropriate to the discernment of a vocation to marriage? There seems to me some implication of this at least in the use of the language of "discernment" that Fr Jamison sees as marking a change in the way the Church is coming to speak about marriage. If a couple approach a parish priest asking for a marriage in Church, but clearly have no understanding of Catholic teaching about the nature of a sacramental marriage .... does not the parish priest have a part to play in helping the couple to discern the vocation to a sacramental marriage, and whether or not that is the vocation that they have in their relationship? And is this part to be played in discerning the vocation of a couple one that can be "delegated" from the priest to the marriage preparation course provided by such as Marriage Care? It will be interesting to see where the Synod Fathers get to in reflecting on the part that is played by "office" (in the Balthasarian sense) in the discernment of vocations to marriage in the Church.

Advocating for marriage

I expect that this event, Talk Marriage, is going to be a very good thing. It takes place in the evening of 7th February 2012, and is free, though you do need to book a place in advance.

The event is ecclesially interesting for two reasons. One of the speakers is a Catholic, a lay Catholic rather than a cleric. The other speakers are leaders in various non-Catholic ministries. For these latter speakers, it is more natural that they should take a lead in a matter such as marriage and not feel dependent on clerical leadership in order to do so. For Catholics, that lay people should be the leaders in the promotion of Catholic ideas in the public sphere, leaders in their own right and not through dependence on the clergy, is a relatively recent insight into what we would call the "lay apostolate".

The second reason comes to mind during the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity. Talk Marriage is indeed an exercise in a particular form of ecumenical activity, namely common activity in the public sphere in favour of a teaching and values held in common. It is an example of a dialogue of life. It is the type of ecumenical activity that can often be lost to sight.

What marriage is (2): in the Church

The locus of the current debate about what is, and is not, marriage is the world at large. The Catholic Church is engaged in that debate in promoting marriage as it is commonly understood, that is:

... marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

and in opposing proposals that would allow same sex couples to have a married status (rather than a civil partnership status that is currently possible in the UK) that is legislatively and culturally identical to that of married men and women.

However, the debate is not without its implications for the life of the Church, ad intra. The passage in St Paul's letter to the Ephesians - "Wives, be subject to your husbands ... Husbands, love your wives ..." - does not speak of marriage except in reference to the relationship between Christ and the Church. Indeed, in verse 32 St Paul almost goes as far as to say that, actually, the important point in all of this is that it has to do with Christ and the Church:

This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church (RSV)

So the relationship between man and woman in marriage, for the baptised Christian, represents the relationship between Christ and the Church. Witness by the Church to the nature of the male and female relationship in marriage is, therefore, not just about a witness to a truth of natural law for the correct ordering of human society (this the significance of that witness for the public debate about same sex marriage); it is also a witness to the very nature of the Church herself. What is at one level about the social and political is at another level profoundly a question of theology/ecclesiology. Recognising this intersection of the social and theological in the question of marriage is important for the Church, since it demonstrates that she can do nothing other than oppose the idea of same sex marriage in the spheres of culture and legislation, or she would not be true to her own nature. It would also be helpful if those outside the Catholic Church were to recognise this intersection of the theological and the social, as it would enable them to have a better understanding of the contribution that the Church is making to public debate on the subject.

Hans Urs von Balthasar ends an essay "A meditation on Ephesians 5", an essay first delivered as a contribution to a seminar in 1978 commemorating the 10th anniversary of the publication of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, with the following:

Let us end with this observation. For sexuality as Christians understand it - sexuality that takes as its norm the relationship between Christ and his Church - Christ's words hold true: "Let him grasp it who can". But Christ is saying something more here than that very few men and women will actually grasp his doctrine. He is issuing us a challenge to serious endeavour, the same challenge, essentially, that rings through the whole of the Gospel: Take up your cross every day, sell all you possess, and do not cheat as did Ananias and Sapphira.  Why should the sexual area alone offer no challenge to the Christian? Sexuality, even as Eros, is to be an expression of Agape, and Agape always involves an element of renunciation. And only by renunciation can the limits that we set on our own self-surrender be transcended.

The debate about same sex marriage provides the Catholic Church with an opportunity to renew her own self-understanding, and to evangelise those of her community who have become less and less conscious of the ecclesiological signficance of the Sacrament of Marriage. And, of course, to evangelise those of her members who dissent from the teaching of the Church on this matter.

The meaning of marriage

Bridges and Tangents has a useful post on the marriage of the Prince William and Kate Middleton. The reflection on the nature of marriage as an institution contained in this post is of particular interest.

Thank goodness William and Kate chose not to invent their own wedding service. There is so much suspicion today of ‘institutions’, but on Friday you saw what it meant for a couple to enter ‘the institution of marriage’. It means they are taking on something far bigger and more beautiful than they could ever have invented for themselves – no matter how many books of poetry they might have plundered, or how many hours they could have put into phrasing their own heartfelt sentiments for each other and hopes for their future.

I was interested to learn of the origin of the wording of the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer. Bridges and Tangents' post is matched by Archbishop Nichol's comments. Speaking the day before the beatification of Pope John Paul II, he said:

“Tomorrow, in a way, is a celebration of the same love that William and Catherine promised to each other – yesterday in marriage, today in service of priest, bishop and Pope – but it’s the same well-spring of love that comes from God that we see on both days.”

An important event .... upstaged?

In the world of theatre, you upstage a fellow actor by coming on to the stage behind them so that, because they are facing the audience they do not see you, but since the audience are facing the stage they (the audience, that is) do see you. Your poor fellow actor remains in complete ignorance of who is really entertaining the audience, quite possibly at his or her expense. In some situations, the stage actually slopes gently downwards from rear to front, so that you can be quite literally "upstage".

The apathy towards a certain big wedding on the part of Catholic blogs is interesting. It is commented on here and here, to which blogs I tip my (virtual) hat. I think the second of these comments is particularly worth reading. There is clearly a value that Catholics should recognise in the fact that William and Kate (sorry, I have to call her Katherine now) are getting married, and that the said ceremony will be a religious ceremony rather than the registry office re-marriage of another royal who shall remain diplomatically un-named.

But quite apart from such socio-political-religious implications, the royal wedding is a national occasion and, regardless of what one might feel about its rights/wrongs or pros/cons or anything else about it, Catholics should feel part of a national occasion. Does the absence of attention to the wedding in Catholic blogs indicate that Catholics, and Catholic bloggers in particular, do not feel that they have any stake in this national occasion? If that is indeed the case, it would be interesting - and perhaps challenging - to explore the reasons for that lack of a sense of belonging at a national occasion. After all, the way in which the people of Britain responded to Pope Benedict's visit here last October really did make that visit a national occasion, the various protests notwithstanding. Surely we should now reciprocate that generosity towards Pope Benedict by a similar generosity towards William and Kate's (sorry, Katherine's) wedding.

Now, of course there is another big occasion that weekend that might be attracting more attention from Catholics. One cannot help but feel that William and Kate (sorry, Katherine) have been upstaged; but that is not a good excuse.

PS. I do have to plead guilty here - I am rather more interested in the beatification than the wedding. I have to say, though, that despite the above post, I have not yet been able to articulate exactly why I am  so un-interested in the wedding. I will give it some thought ...

The Sacrament of Marriage - Homily for 4th October

Just in case you didn't get a homily today that quite caught what the readings were really about - try Deacon Pat Kearns homily for today. An extract which shows a very perceptive pastoral sense, but do follow the link and read the whole to put the extract into a full context:

I am saddened to say that many have left the church, or neglect the communion of Jesus due to a divorce and remarriage, yet they have not taken any steps to resolve this issue with the church. There are many misconceptions regarding what can and cannot be repaired. Neither God, nor the church would ever want to push anyone away, rather just the opposite. Mercy and Love are God’s greatest gifts. If you or someone you know, has endured a divorce and remarried outside of the church, and has a desire to return to full communion, please don’t hesitate to contact one of the Priests or Deacons and begin the process of repair. It is our greatest desire and would be our honor to assist you with reuniting with the church and the Sacraments.

Diakonia

It is a little while since I went over to visit Diakonia, but, in doing so today, I have found a series of very thoughtful posts. They are at once "theoretical" but at the same time very practical.

The Family, the Vital Cell of Society, presents Catholic teaching about marriage and comments on the legitimization of "de facto" unions;

Courtship - A Concept that Many in Society has Forgotten: The concept of courtship is not the same as dating. For many, the concept of courtship has been replaced by "dating," which has in fact lowered the expectation. For many, dating is not about finding the one that you will spend the rest of your life with, but rather, a means of meeting personal needs and satisfying personal desires (clearly not the same thing).

The post goes on to look at the period of engagement, too, offering this advice early in its list: Check to see if your partner prays, goes to Mass, Confession and is obedient to the Church.

Really a friend or not: compares what we might call "friendship" to what it really is.

UK National Marriage Week (5)

As National Marriage Week comes to an end, I thought to mention the Sixth World Meeting of Families that took place in Mexico in January. In my previous posts I have presented four key features of marriage: it takes place between a man and a woman, it is permanent, it is open to life and it is at the service of the communion of the couple who are married. The nature of marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman that is an image of the relationship between God and creation (when marriage is seen as a "natural institution") and between Christ and the Church (when marriage is seen as a Sacrament) - this nature of marriage as a covenant runs through all four aspects.

A very interesting address was given to the World Meeting by Fr Raniero Cantalamessa. His address had the title "Family Relationships and Values according to the Bible". The full text can be found at the ZENIT website, and I do recommend a reading of the full text for the variety of its insights. I offer some passages and comments here.

My first passages, taken from two different parts of Fr Cantalamessa's talk and therefore connected in a way perhaps not originally intended, offer an interesting insight into the life of a single person as much as a married person. I have added emphasis to try and indicate how I think these passages refer to the life of single people - the "first step" and "includes right from the beginning" - suggest that there is something here that is appropriate to all people, whether married or not, that single life has its sense of being nuptial through the distinctiveness of relationship to the opposite sex (the experience of boyfriend/girlfriend).

Opening oneself to the opposite sex is the first step toward opening oneself to others, our neighbors, and to the Other with a capital O, which is God. Marriage is born under the sign of humility; it is the recognition of dependence and therefore of one's condition of being a creature. Falling in love with a woman or a man is the completion of the most radical act of humility. It is becoming a beggar and telling the other person, "I'm not enough for myself, I need your being." If, as Schleiermacher said, the essence of religion is the "sense of dependence" ("Abhaengigheitsgefuehl") on God, then human sexuality is the first school of religion....

John Paul II, in a Wednesday catechesis said:"The human body, with its sex, and its masculinity and femininity seen in the very mystery of creation, is not only a source of fruitfulness and procreation, as in the whole natural order. It includes right from the beginning the nuptial attribute, that is, the capacity of expressing love, that love in which the person becomes a gift and -- by means of this gift -- fulfills the meaning of his being and existence."

I found this next passage interesting because of the way in which it indicates that marriage seen as an image of the relationship between God and his chosen people is strongly rooted in the Old Testament.

The prophets played an important role by shedding light on God's initial plan for marriage, especially Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah. They posited the union of man and woman as a symbol of the covenant between God and his people. As a result of this, they once again shed light on the values of mutual love, fidelity and indissolubility that characterize God's love for Israel. All the phases and sufferings of spousal love are described and used in this regard: the beauty of love in the early stage of courtship (cf. Jeremiah 2:2), the fullness of joy on the wedding day (cf. Isaiah 62:5), the drama of separation (cf. Hosea 2:4) and finally the rebirth, full of hope, of the old bond (cf. Hosea 2:16, Isaiah 54:8)....

We have to read the Song of Songs in the light of this prophetic tradition. This represents a rebirth of the vision of marriage as eros, as attraction of the man to the woman (in this case, also of the woman to the man); it presents the oldest account of creation.

On the other hand, certain modern exegesis is mistaken when it tries to interpret the Song of Songs exclusively in terms of human love between a man and a woman. The author of Songs writes from within the religious history of his people, where human love was assumed by the prophets to be a metaphor for the covenant between God and his people. Hosea turned his own marital situation into a metaphor for the relations between God and Israel. How could we imagine that the author of Songs would leave all of that behind? The mystical interpretation of Songs, beloved in the tradition of Israel and the Church, is not a later imposition, but rather it is in some way implicit in the text. Far from detracting from human love, it confers upon it new beauty and splendor.

In discussing the account in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus answer to the question about divorce, Fr Cantalamessa comments:

...I want to emphasize the "implicit sacramental foundation of marriage" present in Jesus' response. The words "What God has joined" say that marriage is not a purely secular reality, fruit of human will; there is a sacred aspect to marriage that is rooted in divine will. The elevation of marriage to a "sacrament" therefore is not based solely on the weak argument of Jesus' presence at the wedding of Cana, nor in the text of Ephesians 5 alone. In a certain way it begins with the earthly Jesus and is part of his leading all things to the beginning. John Paul II is also right when he defines marriage as the "oldest sacrament."

This does, of course, have an interesting implication for the distinction that can be made between marriage as a "natural institution" and marriage as a "sacrament". It suggests that this distinction is, at best, of limited validity. The natural is ordered towards the sacramental, and the sacramental has grown from seeds present in the natural.

Fr Cantalamessa suggests that it is a mistake to concentrate efforts on behalf of marriage only on efforts to resist or overturn laws that are to the detriment of marriage. He suggests a greater commitment to witnessing, in concrete examples of married life, to the truth contained in Catholic teaching about marriage. Fr Cantalamessa presents this as the approach of dialogue with the world that can be seen in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Here is one example of how Fr Cantalamessa approaches this:

Applying this method of dialogue means trying to see if even behind the most radical attacks there is a positive request that we should welcome....

In his encyclical "Deus Caritas Est," Pope Benedict XVI has gone even farther, writing deep and new things with regards to eros in marriage and in the very relationship between God and man. "This close relationship between eros and marriage that the Bible presents has practically no parallel in literature outside itself."

The unusually positive reaction to this papal encyclical shows to what degree a peaceful presentation of the Christian truth is more productive than rebutting the error of others, even though we should find room for this as well, at the proper time and place. We are far from agreeing with the consequences that some today draw from this premise: for example, that any type of eros is enough to constitute a marriage, even that between persons of the same sex; but this rejection gains greater strength and credibility if it is connected to the recognition of the underlying goodness of the request and as well with a healthy self criticism....

Fr Cantalamessa does not lack robustness in his analysis of the ideological challenges to marriage:

Among the representatives of the so-called gender revolution, this idea has led to crazy proposals, such as that of abolishing the distinction between sexes and substituting it with the more elastic and subjective distinction of genders" (masculine, feminine, variable) or that of freeing women from the slavery of maternity, providing other means, invented by man, for the production of children. (It is not clear who would continue to have interest or desire at this point in having children.)

It is precisely through choosing to dialogue and engage in self criticism that we have the right to denounce these projects as "inhuman," in other words, contrary to not only God's will, but also to the good of humanity.

Christians' task of rediscovering and fully living the biblical ideal of marriage and family is no less important than defending it. In this way it can be proposed again to the world with facts, more so than with words.

UK National Marriage Week (4)

Parts one, two and three of this series have already been posted.

What is love?

The formulation of Humane Vitae insists that it is not permissible to break the connection between "the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning which are both contained in the conjugal act" (n.12). And in another classical formulation, the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church talks of marriage as of its very nature "ordered to the communion and good of the couple and to the generation and education of children" (n.338). In this way, the sexual act expresses a double meaning that is true for the whole of a married relationship, and not just for its bodily, sexual aspect.

The phrase "good of the couple" indicates that, through their shared married life, a husband and wife will come more and more to fulfil their natures as persons called to love and the specific vocation they have received to life with this particular spouse. They should "grow" as persons. This vocation is one to communion with God, and so one should expect religion to be a part of the common life of a couple, and growth in the practice of religion to be part of the "good of the couple" that is a purpose of marriage. In a marriage, this becomes a common endeavour between two people, rather than one that is undertaken by an individual person.

This growth is linked to the communion between the husband and wife. They are called to a life lived in common, a shared life. This should not be a life in which each spouse does just their "own thing" while happening to live in the same house as the other spouse; it should be a genuinely shared life. It involves a style of poverty in the sense that what was previously owned or undertaken "just for myself" can now only be undertaken for the community of the marriage, "for us". I might still earn the same salary and have the same job, but that salary and the work undertaken to earn it, are no longer just mine, they belong to the community of the marriage. Common life means doing things together - meals, chores, prayer.

I happen not to find the language of "mutual self-giving", usually used in the context of the unitive meaning of sexual intercourse, a language to which I can relate very well.[OK, being single might have something to do with that!] But, used with a wider reference to the whole communion of the marriage, it can express something of what each spouse needs to try for during each day. They give what would otherwise be their own to the common life of the marriage.

Where the openess to life that was the subject of the third post in this series is excluded, then the ability of the two spouses to undertake this mutual self-giving cannot help but be affected.

None of this is easy, and I expect that we can all think of marriages we know where the life of communion is not lived to this high expectation. There are spouses, though, who are trying their best, and hoping to get nearer to the communion of life that marriage is really about, even though they slip up. In the "catechetical moment" we owe it to them to talk about our high expectations, with all due charity, so that they can keep in sight what the aim is. We also owe it to young people who will in the future get married.

UPDATE (Thursday 12th February)
The February issue of New City dropped through the letter box this morning. One of the articles is entitled "The Root of Our Lives", and the introduction to it says: "Family life is beautiful, but as any married couple will tell you, it is not without its difficulties".

Once, when the children were growing up, the Schwingers drove to the seaside on holiday. They had found a reasonably priced cottage through some friends. Soon after they arrived, however, the family started arguing. The children wanted to buy all sorts of things which were not within their means. The parents suddenly remembered the words of the Gospel "Seek first the kingdom of Heaven ... and all these things will be given to you", which meant keeping the peace, being patient with one another, nor responding to unkind behaviour and above all including the children in sharing the responsibility.

"We put all our holiday money into a basket", Hans recalls, "and together we decided how we would spend it". The basket was accessible to everyone and everyone developed a sense of responsibility for the money. The children even shared in planning the meals, cooking and cleaning. "And harmony was maintained long after the holiday had ended".

I think the basket, containing all the money, and everyone's having a shared access to the basket, is a nice parable for marriage as a sharing of a common life.

UK National Marriage Week (3)

The first and second posts in this series are here and here. This series of posts is an attempt to recognise that National Marriage Week provides an opportunity for a "catechetical moment" with regard to the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage.

Marriage is open to the gift of life

According to Catholic teaching, sexual intercourse is only exercised morally between a man and a woman who are married. Outside of marriage, the virtue of chastity is equivalent to an expectation of celibacy or virginity. This allows for the married couple the possibility of having children, and then the responsibility of educating and caring for them.

This possibility is part of the purpose of marriage, and is a part of what is expressed in the vows that a man and woman make to each other in getting married. A circumstance where the openess to the possibility of life is deliberately and decisively excluded from the start is sufficient to make the marital covenant invalid.

In order to successfully live out this teaching, married people, and those preparing for marriage, need to recognise two things:

1. Sexual intercourse is not intended to be a form of recreation, a way of achieving enjoyment in the same way that playing sport or going out for a day is a form of recreation. It is something with a serious meaning and intent.

2. Within a married relationship, the aspect of sexual intercourse needs to be "integrated" and lived, not just as a separate end of its own, but as a part of a whole inter-personal relationship. The bodily aspect of intercourse itself needs to be lived as an expression of relationship that is essentially a relationship of persons, in which the body plays its part but is not the "whole". This allows for moments when the bodily aspect might defer to the more strictly "personal" in the relationship, as well as for moments where the bodily aspect might rightly play a full part.

These two points might be termed "living chastely within marriage", and they have a practical demand of exercising self-control which applies to both the husband and the wife.

The idea of openess to life is expressed in Catholic teaching that the use of artificial means of birth control is not morally permissible. Contraception is a denial of this idea of an openess to life that is expressed in sexual intercourse. However, if we recognise that an integrated married life has its moments where the "personal" takes a kind of precedence over (but does not deny) the "bodily", and its moments where the "bodily" takes a kind of precedence over (but does not deny) the "personal", then this teaching becomes quite reasonable.

To go back again to my talk to parents of children preparing for First Holy Communion, the following passage and testimony appear relevant to a reflection on openess to life.

...be explicit about putting Jesus at the centre at key moments of your family life. This comes first between the parents. When you encounter difficulties or important decisions it means sitting down and, together, placing Jesus at the centre of that situation and referring your choices to him. The following testimony is from the diary of the parents of a girl called Emmy Maria, who died from a severe kidney problem when just three months old.

“It was quite extraordinary what such a small child could feel and notice, and how we could tell what she felt…..The last few days our child was given to live among us were hard for the human heart to bear, yet extremely great and powerful, filled with promise because of the nearness of Christ.

“It was remarkable that each time we interceded for Emmy Maria and gathered ourselves inwardly, the powers of death withdrew and she revived. Whereas before she lay there apathetic and unresponsive, with half-open eyes, shallow breath, and a very weak pulse, she would suddenly open her eyes, look at us, cry, and drink, moving her hands and turning her head when she was gently touched: she would come back to consciousness. Sometimes such a transformation came within seconds.

“There was a special atmosphere of love in her room. It went out from her and filled the whole house, and united us in special love to each other….” [From the diary of Emmy Maria’s parents, quoted in Johann Christoph Arnold A Little Child Shall Lead Them p.53-54.]

This testimony reminds us that, as well as having a natural implication, openess to life also involves a supernatural dimension, an openess to the possibilities of grace.

PS. I think I had better take back my promise of shorter posts as the week progresses ....

UK National Marriage Week (2)

Continuing the series of posts (first post here) to represent a contribution to a "catechetical moment", I would like to make some remarks about the permanence of marriage.

Marriage is permanent, for life

The Catholic Church teaches that the covenant of marriage establishes a permanent and exclusive bond between the man and the woman. What does this mean?

In the first place, the consent that the couple give when they make their vows of marriage is what brings the bond into being. It establishes a covenant, a binding promise between husband and wife. The promise cannot be a real promise if the people involved do not make the promise of their own choice, in freedom and without being forced into it. It cannot be a promise if the two people do not understand what it is that they are promising to each other. This is why the Church expects couples to follow a course of preparation for marriage - so that they can understand what the promise is that they are entering into, and so that they can make that promise with full knowledge and in full freedom.

The covenant is permanent, and binds the couple together for life. This can be understood when we remember that the relationship of husband and wife in marriage is an image (in a strong sense) of the relationship between God and creation, and, more so, of the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church. God never gives up on his love for the human race, and never gives up on his love for the Church. And, similarly, even though the Church is made up of people who sin, in the totality of her holiness represented by the figure of the Virgin Mary, she remains totally faithful to the Lord. The image of these relationships in marriage is also unbreakable.

This does not mean that the Catholic Church insists that a couple continue to stay together when such a life becomes impossible. That a couple might have to separate due to all too human difficulties that might arise is recognised by the Church. Also recognised is that, in such a separation, it might be necessary to use provisions of the civil law to assure the material well being of the parties, and, perhaps of the children. But the Church would still consider the couple to be married in an objective sense, and does not permit a Catholic partner to marry again.

In these circumstances, not re-marrying can be witness to the unity and permanence of the original marriage.

Forgiveness in marriage

"Staying" married is not always an easy task, and one of the areas that might need a couple to "work on it" is that of forgiveness. When I gave the talk I referred to in my first post in this series, I included a testimony about forgiveness between a married couple. In preparing that talk, a high proportion of the marriage testimonies that I read were ones involving forgiveness.

Veronique and Jean-Claude have been married for 20 years. At the moment when they decide to participate in a pilgrimage to Lourdes, their relationship is in trouble. Jean-Claude has already found a flat to buy for himself.

“I hadn’t been going to Church for 15 years, except for funerals and marriages. Before leaving for Lourdes, I had made it clear to Veronique, my wife, that she shouldn’t get her hopes up and that I would come home just as I had left. When I got to Lourdes, despite my state of mind, I was surprised by the joy that was in the air. That did not stop me from reacting angrily and violently to the teachings that I heard on the message of Lourdes. It offended me to hear: ‘ Penance, penance, penance.’ The last day, after a celebration, my wife wanted to go to pray one last time at the Grotto. I jumped at her: ‘Listen, I’ve had enough of prayers. We’re going home’. She replied: ‘Jean-Claude, for once, do this for me. Let’s go one last time to the Grotto before leaving.’

Whether I wanted to or not, I accepted. In front of the Grotto, I stayed toward the back. And then, I tried to pray. During the whole pilgrimage, I never really had succeeded. And then, all of a sudden a great light illuminated my heart. It did not take place on a visual or an intellectual level, but well and beautiful right in my heart. When we came back from the Grotto, I took Veronique’s hand saying that I felt something had changed inside me. My mistakes and my faults became apparent. It is from that moment that we began working on reconciliation, between us of course, but first with God. And since then, everything has changed in our life as a couple thanks to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.” [A radio interview, quoted in Lourdes Magazine February 1999, page50.]

What I find most moving in this testimony are the words of Veronique - "for once, do this for me" - and the reaction of Jean-Claude - "Whether I wanted to or not, I accepted". These two phrases seem to me to be the point around which this whole testimony turns.

UK National Marriage Week

Today sees the start of a National Marriage Week here in the UK. This is not a specifically Catholic, or indeed, a specifically religious event, as can be seen from this link. It is, however, supported by a number of Christian organisations. Catholic dioceses in England and Wales have taken the opportunity to arrange a number of events during the week, some of which are listed at the end of this news release on the Bishops Conference website.

Elsewhere, and in different contexts, I have commented on the distinction between a "catechetical moment" and a "pastoral moment" in the life and mission of the Church. National Marriage Week seems to offer a good opportunity for a "catechetical moment", where the teaching of the Church about marriage could be presented positively. I will try to offer some short posts on this during the week.

Marriage can only be between a man and a woman

This is something that the Church would argue from the point of view of marriage as a "natural institution" in human society. The Church believes that this is the case even for those who marry having no Christian faith, whose marriages reflect their communion simply as male and female human persons.

This might appear as if the Church is wanting to impose its teaching on marriage even on those who do not share it. However, the Church's view is that marriage as a permanent relationship between a man and a woman is something that is for the common good of the whole of society, so she argues that it should have a kind of "preferred" or supported place in the legislative and/or social structures of society. One of the duties of government with regard to the common good is that of acting for the common good of marriage.

From the point of view of Christian faith, marriage is seen as a Sacrament, a visible sign of inward grace and, I would argue, office in the Church. It is a sign of God's love for the world, which is nuptial or married in nature. It is a sign of the relationship between Jesus Christ (the Bridegroom) and the Church (the Bride). The husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, whose figure is the person of the Virgin Mary. That marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, therefore, has a meaning not just for marriage seen at an ordinary human level. It has a meaning for our whole understanding of marriage and of the Church at a theological, doctrinal and spiritual level.

Testimonies

Some time ago now, I was asked to give a talk to the parents of children preparing to receive Holy Communion for the first time. This is part of what I said, trying to reflect on how a married couple might live out the sacramental aspect of their vocation, something that I suspect is not often addressed:

Adrienne von Speyr reflects on Jesus words from the cross - “Woman, behold your son…Son, behold your mother” - in this way. She sees John, the disciple who Jesus especially loved, as representing Jesus’ love given to the Church. She sees Mary as representing the Church who receives that love. The words of the Lord are therefore a nuptial blessing, establishing from the Cross the irrevocable relationship between Christ and the Church that is at the centre of St Paul’s teaching about marriage:

“If an ordinary bridal couple were to stand beneath the Cross and the Lord were to give them the nuptial blessing from the Cross, that particular couple would be exalted above all other couples in an almost unimaginable way. Once and for all in the whole history of the world they would be the couple who had enjoyed the grace of the Lord’s blessing. There is such a couple, but they are both virgins; they inhabit a place beyond individual sacramental marriage, where the Church (both bridal and virgin) is, at her core, the suffering Bride of Calvary. This couple is created by the Lord’s word from the Cross. In some way they thus become an original couple like Adam and Eve. In them, human relationships are refashioned by the dying Son.” [Adrienne von Speyr, The Cross: Word and Sacrament p.31, cf pp.29-35]

Igino Giordani, writing about his own family, says:

“If the family became aware of its sacrament and developed it….that is, if in addition to carrying out its functions in regard to birth, work, illness and care, entertainment and anxieties, it fulfilled also its sacramental role as the organ for transmitting divine life, in addition to physical life, and as copy of the household of Nazareth, so that the Father was Christ and the Mother the Church and the child was Christ-Church; if it were in the world as the representative of the Eternal, as the Church giving Christ to men and making of its fellowship a participation in the Trinitarian fellowship of God in heaven, realizing unity in trinity (father, mother, child = a single heart and a single soul), then its course on earth would be a repetition of Calvary, that is, it would bring forth redemption and resurrection” [Igino Giordani, quoted in Edwin Robertson The Fire of Love. A Life of Igino Giordani p.216]

PS: Don't worry - the posts will get shorter as the week progresses!

Humanae Vitae - after forty years

I have hesitated to post about Humanae Vitae - age wise, I belong to the generation whose active life in the Church came "after HV" and so do not have any direct memories of 1968, and, in terms of marital status, I am single, so cannot speak from experience of trying to live according to this particular teaching of the Church.

My memories of the publication of Humanae Vitae are mediated. We were at primary school at the time, attending the English section of an international school attached to a military headquarters in Holland. Much later in life, mother told us that we came home from school at that time asking "What is this pill that everyone is on about?"

From my early life as an active Catholic, I cannot recall any instance of a clear, firm, well argued presentation of the teaching of Humanae Vitae - not at school, not in the parishes I then attended, not in an episcopal pastoral letter. I sometimes wonder how I would have fared in this regard had I been looking to marry in my mid-20's.

I do recall from around university days that the attitude you adopted to Humanae Vitae was a kind of "test question" that indicated the orthodox Catholic from the liberal. And the first place I encountered a clear, firm, well argued presentation of the teaching of Humanae Vitae was through FAITH Movement, which I encountered at this time. At this time, if I recall correctly, Fr Edward Holloway always seemed to be talking about sex and chastity at their events .... but, with hindsight, I think a lot of pastoral insight and experience lay behind this.

But one of the most interesting experiences I had in this regard was World Youth Day 2005 in Cologne. I only read about some of the activities of dissenting organisations there when I got back home afterwards - they made virtually no impact on the young people taking part, something that I suspect will have been true of the recent events in Sydney. At the catecheses I attended in Cologne, the young people demonstrated a total faithfulness to the Church. At one point, a bishop described television coverage he had watched of Pope Benedict XVI's arrival in Cologne the day before. After an interview with a dissenting theologian from America, the report had returned to an Italian young person in Cologne. Her answer? No, we don't think the Church should change its teaching. We think we should change, so that we become more like Christ. And the young people attending this catechesis applauded the bishop's account of this to the echo.

But returning to Fr Holloway. The teaching of Humanae Vitae in the Church, like any teaching of the Church, has a catechetical dimension and a pastoral dimension. When a couple come to marriage preparation, they should not be hearing the teaching of Humanae Vitae for the first time. Their vocational choice for marriage needs to already include the attempt to live according to the teaching of Humanae Vitae - and it is only going to do that if the couple have received it in earlier catechesis. It needs to be something that the couple themselves bring to the marriage, not something that they experience as being imposed on them by the programme of preparation, as a kind of condition attached to the marriage ceremony. So an effective catechesis in the general life of the Church - parish and school - allows for a proper pastoral presentation at the level of the individual case, a pastoral presentation that is experienced as positive and yet remains faithful to the Church's teaching.

But it is a topic that people do not want to talk about - so the catechesis is omitted. Which is why I think Fr Holloway showed a fundamentally correct insight, both in catechetical and pastoral terms.

A couple of thoughts to finish. A particular pastoral situation - and a very difficult one - arises where one of the partners to a marriage is not a Catholic. If marriage is seen as a vocational choice, should a Catholic partner see a fiance(e)'s unwillingness to live by the Church's teaching on contraception as an indicator that this is not the person they are called to marry? And, whilst priests and bishops clearly have a teaching office in the Church, what of catechists? Should lay people, catechists and others, be more willing to teach Humanae Vitae in their work in parishes and schools?

Marriage preparation: a need for reform?

Being single, the nearest I have got to being involved in marriage preparation was when I was asked to give a talk to the parents of the First Communion children in the parish, some five years ago now. Near the beginning of my talk I spoke about the idea of the husband-wife relationship in a marriage as being a sign of the relationship between Christ, who is its head, and the Church. So, the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, which can also be seen figured as the Virgin Mary. This signification is essential to an understanding of marriage as a sacrament and not just as a community in human society, albeit that the community in human society aspect has a divine origin "from the beginning". It is, of course, why the Church teaches that a sacramental marriage is indissoluble.

What struck me at the time was that the parents listening to me might well have not heard that said to them before; and they almost certainly would not have had any help as to how that aspect of the sacramental character of marriage can be lived out in daily life. As I write this post, I am reminded,too, of the bidding prayers that I wrote for my sister's wedding - they were the only place in the ceremony where explicit reference was made to marriage as imaging the relationship between Christ and his Church - and the appreciation of them that was expressed afterwards.

I am prompted to comment on this by a post at just doing my best, describing the blogger's experience of a marriage preparation course. It is a very calm and dignified post, but the following extract gives some idea of the blogger's evaluation of her own marriage preparation course (but do follow the link and read her entire post):

I was hugely disappointed that the organisers were so desperate not to offend people who don't follow the Church's teaching that they ignored that teaching altogether and actually went out of their way in some cases to indicate that they didn't follow it either. I truly believe that a course which purports to be Catholic should actually be Catholic. Where you have a mixed marriage, I think that the non-Catholic spouse should know what it means to be married to a Catholic. If they don't hear it on a Catholic marriage preparation course, where else are they going to hear it?

I have wondered for some time now whether the preparation for the Sacrament of Marriage should not perhaps mirror more closely that required for the other "Sacrament at the service of Communion", Ordination. That requires up to six years of preparation, sometimes longer ... well, perhaps I am not suggesting that for marriage! But other aspects - a human formation, a spiritual formation, a pastoral formation and a suitable philosophical/theological formation could be put in place. A bishop should perhaps define for his diocese a minimum standard of formation that should be received before a couple may marry, rather like the minimum requirement for studies before ordination that is contained in Canon Law. It would be interesting, too, if both partners to the marriage were required to write to the parish priest requesting the Sacrament, in a form of words that makes clear their understanding of what marriage is. Perhaps some form of pre-marriage retreat should also be expected. If this seems "over the top" to some, I would respond that it reflects that what is being sought is not just "marriage" but the reception of a Sacrament, and it is this latter that requires a sacramental type of preparation.

Some aspects of the human formation do appear to have been present in the preparation day described in just doing my best's post (communication). Spiritual and theological formation appears to have been pretty much absent. A pastoral formation could be very interesting, responding as it does to Familiaris Consortio's discussion of the role of families towards each other and towards society as a whole [comment made from memory, so I might not have got this quite right].

Whilst it would be wrong to make the demands of marriage preparation unecessarily burdensome, I think it is clear that the one day course described is not sufficient. I have no doubt that it should be possible to provide a preparation that is authentically Catholic, that is pastorally appropriate for non-Catholic partners to marriage, and responds in an authentically Catholic way to those couples who come to marriage preparation after already starting to live together.

POSTSCRIPT: I have just visited the Marriage Care web pages that describe their aims in marriage preparation. Without being uncharitable, and recognising that it is at the service of the common good for a (Catholic) organisation to offer marriage preparation to those who are not Catholics, the inadequacy of their statement of aims as a preparation for Catholic sacramental marriage is quite transparent. Their preparation programme would need to be supplemented by additional provision in order for it to be satisfactory for sacramental preparation.