An academic extract: marriage and deacons

Below is a bit from what I have been working on recently:

Owen Cummings is correct to assert that in order to recognize the image of the deacon that arises from what Ditewig has termed the "double vocational sacramentality" of married permanent deacons, marriage must be reaffirmed as a sacrament on par with the other six sacraments and, due to it being a sacrament at the service of communion, having a special affinity with the sacrament of holy orders (Cummings, “Images of the Diaconate” 2). This requires overcoming the view that sees the sacrament of matrimony in primarily or even exclusively juridical terms, a view of marriage that held sway for more than a millennium of the church’s history and which only started to be challenged at Vatican II. In seeking to theologically justify my assertion that by their full and simultaneous participation in the sacraments of matrimony and orders married permanent deacons bring a much needed dimension to the church’s pastoral ministry, there is no need to resort to technical or abstruse theological language.

Cummings points out that the popular mindset almost always reduces sacraments to a singular celebration of the rite for a particular sacrament (2). He is quite right to suggest that this mindset needs to be pastorally and persistently challenged. This all-too pervasive way of seeing things is expressed even in casual conversation when people say things like, "I was married so many years ago," or, "I was ordained so many years ago" (2). Indeed, such an understanding falls far short of the sacramental reality that those who receive these sacraments are called to live them out, flowing as they do from the fundamental sacrament of baptism, from the time of the celebration of the rite in the midst of the church until death (2). This is why, Cummings succinctly notes, "getting married in the church" does not mean much if the couple who so marries are not committed to being church precisely in and through their marriage (2).

The same holds true with regard to ordination. For example, if ordination is received by the ordinand as the conferral of personal honor instead of as a response to a divine call flowing from his baptism by which he is commissioned and strengthened for service appropriate to order into which he is ordained, then being ordained does not mean much. Lest we forget, episcopacy and priesthood, like marriage, are fundamentally diaconal insofar as these orders, too, are conferred so that one who enters them can minister, that is, serve others by performing specific kinds of service.

Due in large part to lingering suspicions about the inherent goodness of human sexuality and perhaps also to the pervasive view, which is held by many in the church, of not understanding marriage as an irrevocable bond, there is a discernible sense that marriage as a sacrament does not quite measure up (Cummings, “Images” 4). Cummings notes "a certain reluctance" on the part of many Christians to understand and experience their sexuality as a divinely-given good, let alone as "a mediating encounter with God" (4). Indeed, to investigate all the factors that contribute to this discernible state-of-affairs would itself require a separate and in-depth probe (4).

To top-off the theological portion of this section, I turn to Karl Rahner, who simply re-proposed an authentically Christian understanding of matrimony as the way to overcome the unhealthy and largely un-Christian duality inherent in the view of human sexuality that is either assumed or explicitly endorsed by those who insist that married permanent deacons in the Roman Catholic Church actually are, or should be, obligated to live continently upon their ordination. In his pre-conciliar essay "The Theology of the Restoration of the Diaconate," which he foresaw, as did most who promoted the restoration of the diaconate as a permanent order prior to Vatican II, as being made up in large part of married men, most of whom would work secular occupations:

in a true theology of marriage, marriage must really and truly not be regarded as a mere concession to human weakness (a conception attempted over and over again by an almost manichaean intellectual undercurrent in the Church), but must be seen to have an absolutely positive and essential function, not only in the private Christian life of certain individuals, but also in the Church. Marriage, understood as a sacramentally consecrated union, is both in and for the Church the concrete and real representation and living example of the mystery of Christ's union with the Church (163)

More on marriage and pastoral care

I have had a couple of very insightful comments from two people I admire very much concerning my post on Archbishop Sheehan's recent pastoral letter, Marriage as a sacrament of salvation, a channel of God's grace. One from a brother deacon in Los Angeles, Eric Stoltz, and one by none other than the IC herself, who had the great misfortune of being my theology professor in graduate school. Along with Deacon Vince Tomkovicz, Deacon Eric co-authored the fantastic book, which is our RCIA text, Ascend: The Catholic Faith for a New Generation. I also recommend the IC's book, Dear Communion of Saints: amusingly foolish advice for Christians (as a non-writer myself, I am always happy to give plugs for friends with gifts).

Commenting on Facebook, Deacon Eric, who has a passion for reaching out to those on the margins of the church, expressed his concern about the punitive approach taken in the letter. Indeed, there are six consequences listed for those in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe who are cohabitating without ever being married, those who were previously married and are now re-married without having their previous marriage annulled, or their attempted marriage officially voided by the church, as well as those who are Catholic and only civilly married. In my previous post I listed three of the six specific instructions given by His Excellency in the letter.

As to cohabitation prior to marriage, I think it is always good to point out to couples who are cohabitating, or are thinking about it, that those who live together before marriage have a significantly higher rate of divorce than those who don't. Many mistakenly believe they are setting themselves up for success, when they are doing the opposite. Msgr Francis Mannion, one of my early mentors, summed this up well well when he said "People who live together before marriage tend to keep living together after they are married."

While I am writing about this issue I feel the need to highlight the pastoral failure of the church in providing extensive, thorough, and high quality marriage preparation. As I mentioned in my previous post, if marriage is truly a vocation to which most Christians are called, one akin to being a priest or a professed member of a religious order, then why is the preparation for this state of life often slip-shod or even non-existent? Look at the resources we dedicate to priestly formation, diaconal formation, and lay ecclesial ministry formation, then consider what we put into marriage formation. Now, admittedly, the hope is that those who are formed for pastoral ministry do a lot by way of marriage formation. However, even granting that, my point is still valid.

How do we do in equipping couples to fully live out their vocation, one challenging dimension of which is preparing them to observe what the church teaches with regard to sexuality? I think Bishop Olmsted exhibited a lot of courage and genuine pastoral concern when he began requiring all couples seeking to be married in the Diocese of Phoenix to take a full-blown course on NFP, learning how to do NFP, instead of the one-shot, 3 or 4 hour overview, where couples learn about NFP, which is all most dioceses require. Getting involved with marriage preparation strikes me as a wonderful opportunity for married permanent deacons and their wives, collaborating with other committed married couples in their parishes, to be of great service to the church! In other words, the issues Archbishop Sheehan brings up are a call to action, not to sit in the bleachers and cheer.

Thinking about the need for better marriage preparation prompted me to remember when Holly and I were getting ready to be married: other than Engaged Encounter and the mandatory NFP class, from which we were exempted due to the fact were planning on using NFP and so were working weekly with a certified instructor, all we did was meet with our associate pastor twice. One time was to go over our FOCCUS results, which were scored improperly (before computer scoring), making it useless, and the other was to plan our wedding liturgy. But he thought because we were both committed Catholics we didn't need anything else by way of preparation.

While our associate pastor was a truly a wonderful priest, frankly, I don't think he had much to offer us. So, we did some intensive preparation, including a weekend retreat, in an Evangelical Christian setting. It was a great decision, something which has benefited us as a couple in terms of our need to pray out loud together, read Scripture together, etc. In fact, because our spiritual life together has been on the wane this past year, just last night we started reading together Couples Who Pray: The Most Intimate Act Between a Man and a Woman, which includes the 40 day challenge. You can poo-poo such things all you want, but here's my question- If you're married, how often do you pray with your spouse? Plus, we need something simple, not a discourse on prayer!

The IC wrote in wondering what effect reading the archbishop's letter from the ambo of every church at each Sunday Mass across the diocese had on those who were suddenly and, likely, unexpectedly "called out," as it were. I have to honestly admit that I have no idea. So, while I certainly laud Archbishop Sheehan for tackling head-on an urgent and persistent problem, I also hope his pastors, associate pastors, and deacons have been diligent in their pastoral follow-up with those who are affected by these episcopal directives, actively reaching out to those affected in their parishes, realizing the potential for disaffection and offering them a helping hand, a sympathetic ear, and even a shoulder to cry on. I have absolutely no doubt this is Archbishop Sheehan's intent. While I believe that such a straightforward approach has the potential to do great good, we also have to be careful about lobbing hand grenades and then ducking behind the altar. In my view, if this not taken as a call to pastoral action, it won't amount to much apart from more people leaving, opting to either stop attending church altogether, or moving to where they perceive themselves as more welcome.

Since I am privileged to serve quite a few people who are in irregular marriage situations (I stopped doing marriage prep a several years ago, but in my ministry I still deal with some who are cohabitating) this is something with which I personally have a lot of experience. I can honestly say that I cannot think of any person who has not been most eager to resolve these issues and have their marriage convalidated in the church. The trouble, as far as I can tell, is that nobody has ever reached out and offered to help them do this. In fact, quite a few people thought their situation was irresolvable and were overjoyed to learn it was not.

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

Marriage as a sacrament of salvation, a channel of God's grace

Very often when we speak or write of "being pastoral" it is a euphemism employed to justify our refusal to speak the truth in love. Just as frequently, those of us engaged in pastoral ministry view our role as one that requires us to be unfailingly comforting and never challenging, even when the situation calls for a challenge, perhaps even a mild provocation, aimed at helping those we serve live more fully in the awareness of their destiny. Of course, there is an art to pastoral ministry, which is necessary for discerning what approach to take with people in life's myriad of situations. However, this is more about means than ends because the end is always to draw people to Christ by drawing them more fully into the Church, Christ's Body, to which they were joined at baptism. The key ingredients are taking the necessary time, always acting out of love, which means never being adversarial, and approaching each pastoral encounter prayerfully.

On 3 April 2011, Archbishop Michael Sheehan of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico, in a challenging and provocative way, issued a pastoral letter: Pastoral Care of Couples Who are Cohabitating. He begins his letter by clearly setting out the issue he is addressing:

"We are all painfully aware that there are many Catholics today who are living in cohabitation. The Church must make it clear to the faithful that these unions are not in accord with the Gospel, and to help Catholics who find themselves in these situations to do whatever they must do to make their lives pleasing to God.

"First of all, we ourselves must be firmly rooted in the Gospel teaching that, when it comes to sexual union, there are only two lifestyles acceptable to Jesus Christ for His disciples: a single life of chastity, or the union of man and woman in the Sacrament of Matrimony. There is no ‘third way’ possible for a Christian. The Bible and the Church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman and opposes same sex unions.

“We have three groups of people who are living contrary to the Gospel teaching on marriage: those who cohabit; those who have a merely civil union with no previous marriage; and those who have a civil union who were married before”

He goes on to issue six specific instructions, among which are the following:

"People in the above three situations cannot receive the Sacraments, with the important exception of those who agree to live chastely ('as brother and sister') until their situation is regularized. Of course, those in danger of death are presumed to be repentant....

"Nor are such people to be admitted to the role of sponsor for Baptism or Confirmation... It is critical for the sponsor to be a practicing Catholic - and can anyone be seriously called a practicing Catholic who is not able to receive the sacraments because they are living in sin?"

"Those who are married outside the Church because of a previous union are urged to seek an annulment through our Marriage Tribunal. If it can be found that the first marriage lacked some essential quality for a valid marriage, the Tribunal can grant an annulment. Your pastor can help someone start a marriage case for this purpose. It is important for such couples to continue to pray and get to Mass even though they may not receive Communion, until their marriage can be blest in the Church."

He ends his letter with this encouraging, yet challenging exhortation: "Our popular American culture is often in conflict with the teachings of Jesus and His Church. I urge especially young people to not cohabitate which is sinful, but to marry in the Church and prepare well for it.

"I congratulate and thank those thousands of Catholic married couples who role model the Sacrament of Marriage according to the teachings of Jesus and his Church."

One of the most rewarding aspects of my ministry is assisting people in resolving just the kinds of marriage issues Archbishop Sheehan courageously addresses in his very challenging and, hence, very pastoral, letter to his flock. I have convalidated many marriages that did not require resolving a previous marriage, or attempted marriage. Conversely, I have assisted many people in resolving marriage issues before the Tribunal of our diocese. Many of these have been simple lack of form cases that can be resolved in just a few weeks. But I have also worked with people and seen them through the lengthy process of seeking a full-blown annulment. It is amazing how healing and strengthening this process is for many people, especially with the proper pastoral support and encouragement.

Conversely, when parents bring their children to be baptized, one of the questions I ask is if they are married in the Church. At least in my own experience, increasingly parents, even when both are Catholic, respond, “No”. So, I ask, "Were either of you married previously?" The answer to this question is often, "No". Then the obvious, "Why didn’t you get married in the Church?" The same is true about completing Christian initiation by being confirmed. Even when couples answer, "Yes, there has been a previous marriage," and we discover that, say, it can be easily resolved due to lack of form, there is quite frequently no follow-up (i.e., the required documents are not submitted) and so they go on as before.

Over the course of each year, I have the opportunity to teach the parents of our young people who are preparing for their first confession, confirmation, and communion. Our first session always consists of discussing the 5 precepts of the Church, (see Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 431-432). I always add to this list the obligation we have to observe what the church teaches with regard to marriage. This means reminding people that, as Catholics, if we are married, or planning to be married, we are just as obligated to be married in the Church as we are to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, go to confession at least once a year, observe days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church, receive communion at least once a year, and contribute to the material support of the Church.

After all, like priesthood, religious life, or the diaconate, marriage is a vocation. Look at how long and diligently people prepare for these other callings. Why should marriage, which is certainly more challenging in many regards, be so different? Rather, as Archbishop Sheehan implicitly asks, why should Christians who marry be so indifferent?

This is a good time to once again draw attention the USCCB's terrific website For Your Marriage. This is an excellent resource!

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

Where do the most important conversations happen?

Because I was praying and thinking about, as well as planning for Lent this afternoon, something I read in an interview that John Allen did with Cardinal George back in early January struck me. In his response to Allen's question about what he would like to do after his retirement as archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal George responded by first stating that he would like to resume hearing confessions because he missed doing so as a bishop. "The conversations that take place in the sacrament of reconciliation are the most important conversations on the face of the planet. There you meet a soul in the presence of God ... I would very much like to make that ministry a large part of my life."

Paul and women, including a digression on men and marriage

"Women are oppressed - no kidding. But we're oppressed mainly by the people we yearn to to have sex and homes and children with, and many of these people try to stay on our good side in order to get the same things. But almost nobody has them in a peaceful state for very long, as if the human family had some sort of factory defect. All of the pain and the conflict between the genders seems to circle around this problem." This insight appears at the beginning of Sarah Ruden's chapter on Paul and women.

Of course, the factory defect to which Ruden refers is not a factory defect at all. It is what we call original sin, which Malcom Muggeridge said was the most empirically verifiable fact in the world. It is probably nowhere more evident than in human relationships, especially the intimate relationships between women and men. Another really great book, which my wife and I and are reading together, is Paul David Tripp's What Did You Expect??: Redeeming the Realities of Marriage. Tripp points out what should be obvious: "Our marriages live in the middle of a world that does not function as God intended. Somehow, someway, your marriage is touched every day by the brokenness of our world." He goes further, when he writes,

"At some point you will be selfish. In some situation you will speak unkindly. There will be moments of jealousy, bitterness, and conflict. You will not avoid this, because you are a sinner married to a sinner. If you minimize the heart struggle that both of you have carried into your marriage, here's what will happen: you will tend to turn moments of ministry into moments of anger. When your ears hear and your eyes see the sin, weakness, or failure of your husband or wife, it is never an accident; it is always grace. God loves your spouse, and he is committed to transforming him or her by his grace, and he has chosen you to be one of his regular tools of change. So, he will cause you to see, hear, and experience your spouse's need for change so that you can be an agent of [God's] rescue."

Our need for change is nothing other than our need for Christ.

The above is true for even for Christians married to non-Christians, as the apostle wrote to the Corinthians: "the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. ... how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?" (1 Cor. 7:14-15- ESV)

Jesus, I trust in You

Jesus Christ is our hope we have no other.

Last night I went to the hospital with a priest of my acquaintance, who needed a ride. A man he had anointed, whose confession he heard, and to whom he gave communion a few days earlier passed away. The man's family arrived from out-of-state just before he passed. We walked into the room, nobody was there, except Father, myself, and the body of the deceased. I knelt as Father prayed. It was very peaceful. I rose from my knees and looked at the deceased. Just as I was thinking it, Father said, "He looks very peaceful because he is at peace." As we turned to leave the room and meet with the son of our departed brother, with such great serenity and as much quiet confidence as I have ever heard another person speak, with great trust and confidence in the Lord, Father said: "He went home."  His son was very visibly relieved to learn that his Dad died after receiving these sacraments. He needed no other comfort, no faltering and inadequate words, just the assurance that Christ came in the person of this priest to take his Dad home.

As we left the hospital I had the distinct sense that I was walking down the hall with the Lord. This is one of the more obvious ways He accompanies us through life to our destiny.

I challenge everyone who reads this to offer their penance and prayers on this Friday for the priest(s) of your parish and for vocations to the priesthood. When it is all said and done, they are Christ's presence among us.

Canon law and transcendence, or the lack thereof

My title conjoins two terms not frequently used together, namely canon law and transcendence. My mention of a lack of transcendence does not refer to canon law, but to those who have unfairly reacted to Pope Benedict's recent motu proprio, promulgated on 21 May 2010, amending Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, originally promulated in May 2001 by Pope John Paul II. Among other things, the original motu superseded the much maligned Crimen Sollicitationis, promulgated in 1922 by Pope Pius XI. Besides, canon law is not meant to be transcendent, whereas sacraments are. It is in and through the sacraments that we encounter Jesus Christ. Sacraments are where Christ comes to meet us in space and time. Liturgy is where past, present, and future touch. Hence, good liturgy is both immanent and transcendent.

Sacraments are so central to Christian faith and practice that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to exaggerate their importance. Hence, any abuse of the sacraments is serious, indeed. Nonetheless, there are those abuses so grave that the Holy See issues delicta graviora, which are canonical ways of dealing with those who abuse the sacraments in order to safeguard the sacred mysteries, a promise made by everyone in holy orders at their ordination. Accordingly, at the beginning of Pope Benedict's recent motu proprio we read: "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, according to art. 52 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, judges delicts against the faith, as well as the more grave delicts committed against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments and, whenever necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of both common and proper law, with due regard for the competence of the Apostolic Penitentiary and in keeping with Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine."

After dealing with heresy, apostasy, and schism, the motu proprio goes on to list grave delicts about the abuse of the sacraments sacrament-by-sacrament, beginning with four things related to the celebration of the Eucharist, then moving on to grave abuses in the Sacrament of Penance, including "1° the absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, mentioned in can. 1378 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law, and in can. 1457 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches" and "4° the solicitation to a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue in the act, on the occasion, or under the pretext of confession, as mentioned in can. 1387 of the Code of Canon Law, and in can. 1458 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, if it is directed to sinning with the confessor himself." It is the latter of these two that was the subject of Crimen. I am not certain, but I presume that the term "accomplice" in 1° does not presume nor imply that consent on the part of this person was given. Not being a canon lawyer, I am certainly open to clarification and correction on this matter.

Staying in order, the next grave abuse is against the conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders via ordination. Canon 1024 stipulates that "[a] baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly." This subjects any cleric who attempts to act contrary to this canon, along with the person who attempts to be ordained, to the penalties of this motu proprio, which, by virtue of canon 1378 §1, is latae sententiae, or automatic, excommunication, which means no formal decree of excommunication need be promulgated.

The motu proprio then goes on to deal explicitly with the sexual abuse of minors by one in holy orders, to include the transmission of child pornography (i.e., pornographic images depicting anyone under age 14)"by whatever means or using whatever technology." It further says that the canonical statute of limitations does not expire until twenty years after the eighteenth birthday of the person who was sexually abused by cleric as a minor.

The main objection to this motu proprio is that, somehow, the Holy See, even if unintentionally, is morally equating the attempted ordination of women to the sexual abuse of minors and attempts to cover up such actions by abusing the Sacrament of Penance, or even making it a more serious crime because excommunication for a cleric attempting to confer holy orders and a woman attempting to receive orders is latae sententiae. Here is where the confusion enters in.

It is a fair enough question to ask why a cleric who abuses the Sacrament of Penance, or who sexually abuses a minor, is not also subject to latae sententiae excommunication, but, instead is "punished according to the gravity of the crime, not excluding, if he be a cleric, dismissal or deposition." A couple of delicate things need to be touched on here: It should go without saying that what constitutes the sexual abuse of a minor runs the gamut from ages of the persons abused to the seriousness of the action committed, the most gross abuses being rape or forcible sodomy. Of course, a formal decree of excommunication, especially if there is no contrition for the acts he committed, is not removed as an option. Certainly in the case of a contested accusation, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence and has other canonical rights that have to be safeguarded.

The norms adopted by the USCCB and approved by the Holy See have also been largely applied to the universal church. So, when mention is made of being punished accordingly, we have to look to the binding norms that lay out the procedures and punishments, to which the motu proprio in question only alludes. These can be found on the Holy See's website and were made public to great fanfare: Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations. The failure, or even refusal, to connect these dots in favor of breaking out one's jump-to-conclusion mat and assigning the worst possible intention to the Holy Father's action, even on the part of the secular media, let alone by those who comment publicly from within the Church, constitutes, at least to my mind, a serious disinterest in the truth and a distinct lack charity.

Rushing in where angels fear to tread, it stands to reason that even a terribly maladjusted cleric who is sinfully disposed to abusing minors may well be a man of faith, who, despite failing miserably by the commission of horrifying sins and crimes for which he needs to face justice, both civil and ecclesial, may not dissent from the Church, or desire to be out of communion with the Church, especially if he is contrite. On the other hand, those who attempt to ordain, or to be ordained in defiance of canon 1024, are open and deliberate in their defiance, an intent that is usually expressed publicly by the celebration of a simulated liturgy that is then widely publicized. It is precisely here where the lack of transcendence comes into play. It is like the difference between a man who commits adultery habitually and a priest who consecrates doughnuts and Kool Aid at Mass. Morally, committing adultery is far more serious, but ecclesially, a priest who deliberately uses improper matter in the celebration of the Eucharist is acting in a openly defiant manner, not to mention denying the faithful the benefit of a valid communion, which is essential for living a life of faith.

Without going into any depth, the CDF's procedures, which have the force of law, right from the outset clearly stipulate that "[c]ivil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed."

In moral theology there is vincible and invincible ignorance, the latter either mitigates or completely relieves the acting subject of cuplability, the former, which can be overcome and constitutes a person's due diligence, especially when pronouncing publicly, does not. This same thing plays out in the debate about marriage, when the position of those who favor safeguarding marriage is reduced to a ham-fisted attempt to impose one's religious beliefs on others, when not only is that not one of the arguments being made, but an argument that would be rejected by many who see that the state has an interest in protecting marriage, an institution that pre-exists the state.

"to thee I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful"

I just returned from confession. It is always a little awkward to stand in line outside the confessional with others waiting for my turn. For several years I avoided going to confession in this manner. As a deacon, I know many priests and would just call, make an appointment, and go on the appointed day. I do not believe there is anything wrong with this in and of itself. However, I caught myself one time telling somebody that this was how I rolled when it comes to confessing my sins. In my mind I caught myself thinking that as a deacon it is not fitting for me to show up Saturday afternoon, wait in line with everyone, and go to confession when my turn came. Catching myself, I changed my practice.

The Coronation of the Virgin, by Carracci ca. 1595-1600

This afternoon, as I waited in line with 6 or 7 other people, I was struck by how close I felt to them, only two of whom I knew, or had met before. Of course, waiting in line for confession is not a social event, there is no talking, just a lot of silent praying. Above the confessional on the east side of The Cathedral of the Madeleine is a beautiful stained glass window of the Blessed Virgin being crowned Queen of Heaven. I found myself looking into her face and praying Memorares for specific people and intentions as I waited, all the time cognizant of being in the company of my fellow believers who are not afraid to acknowledge their need and to recognize that Christ meets their need, makes up for their inability, that He is the One who overcomes their weakness, and changes their hearts through His mercy and love, they look to Him to show them that the pursuit of selfish desires will never bring satisfaction and to acknowledge those times they let themselves be deceived. I could never come close to describing what it means to me to belong to such a hallowed company.

Corpus Christi

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:16-17).

A few thoughts on reality, memory, and experience

Something real happens to all of us everyday, all day long. If we pay attention, we will be humbled into true spirituality. God preserves everything that happens, whole and complete, which is why we purify memory by being unreservedly honest about what happens. It is just what JPII called for at the turn of the milennium with regards to how Christians have treated Jews, but extended to other times when we were untrue to the Lord. Confession is how we purify memory in our own lives, by being unflinchingly honest about what we do and what motivated us to do what we know is wrong. Not to be honest in confession reveals pride and a lack of trust in God's infinite mercy given to us in Christ Jesus.

Prior to confession we examine our consciences so that when we confess we will recall our lives as accurately as we can. Since we are not able to have total recall, God's mercy makes up for what we unintentionally leave out, which spares us the vice of scrupulosity and the neurosis that accompanies this spiritual affliction. At end of the day, all we do has to be dealt with; the choice is ours to reconcile now or we can wait for the day of reckoning. To think for one moment that we can skip over the bad parts is an exercise in self-deception. In other words, my limited consciousness can only preserve some of the past via memory, but I don't remember everthing, even what I remember I do not recall perfectly. God preserves everything that happens, whole and complete, which is why we purify memory by being honest about what happened.

All of the above is sketchy and probably skewed in some way. It began with Sandro Magister's summary of philosopher Robert Spaemann's presentation as part of the God today conference held in Rome back in December, specifically this: "The proposition 'in the more remote future it will no longer be true that we had gathered together this evening' is nonsense. It cannot be thought. If one day we will no longer have been, then in fact we are not real now either, as Buddhism concludes. If one day the present reality will no longer have been present, then it is not real at all...The only answer sounds like this: we are forced to think of a consciousness that preserves everything that happens [not obliterates it], an absolute consciousness""

Who gives best witness to Christ? Not political leaders, not generals, not even popes or bishops, or priests or deacons necessarily, but the saints. All that Mother Teresa did, all her sisters continue to do, is in the name of Christ. Christianity can account for the evil doing of its adherents, which shows how much we all need God's mercy and healing, which was effected in the world by the Incarnation of His Son, who is not a myth but a real person. His life, His passion, His death, His resurrection are facts in the world, like the genocide in Rwanda, the on-going situation in Darfur, et. al. Reality cannot be denied if we are to acknowledge and maintain our humanity. The world is not overcome by mythical beings.

It is important to note that one cannot adhere to a system called Christianity, but only to Jesus Christ. Among the most misunderstood aspects of Christian faith are original sin and post-baptismal concupiscence, both of which are necessary in accounting for the whole of reality, especially that part of reality that is my own life! It is necessary to account for reality, something we cannot do by rejecting language, politics, and all of the other factors that make up reality. To reject any factor that constitutes reality is not an answer to anything and leads to a kind of paralyzing fixation on one's self and to fear. Reflecting on the writing and life of J.D. Salinger offers us an actual glimpse of what a person who seeks to reject a great deal of reality looks like.

Just as I was finishing this post my dear friend Fred brought this post to my attention: For the Soul of David Foster Wallace by Webster Bull.

The state of Christian marriage

The Manhattan Declaration is an important document. Released on 20 November 2009, this declaration is signed by Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox leaders, not least among whom are several Catholic bishops and Metropolitan Jonah, head of the Orthodox Church in America. The entire declaration, which focuses on issues of life, marriage, and religious liberty is a well-written and timely declaration of the Christian faith in the contemporary United States. The section on marriage is of particular interest given the current national debate about it, a debate that is very ideological and too often reductive. To give just one quick example of where we are on marriage, there is an effort underway in California, where a state-wide referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman narrowly passed last year, to collect enough signatures to get a measure banning divorce on next year's ballot. I am in favor of such a measure, at least of a measure banning so-called no-fault divorce. Trust me, I understand that it is difficult to stay married. If you're looking for reasons to bail on marriage you never have to look far. We need to change our mindset and look for reasons to stay married. Like priesthood and religious life, marriage is not for everyone, though I daresay it is more normative than priesthood, religious life, or being single. Because it is a vocation raised to the dignity of a sacrament, marrying another requires prayer and serious discernment.

Earlier this month, Sharon Jayson, writing in USA Today, demonstrated that many couples marry not expecting their union to last. This attitude builds from another demonstrably bad practice, co-habitating prior to getting married, a subject Jayson also tackled in concise format for USA Today some months earlier. As with Pope Paul VI's predictions about the consequences of the widespread availability of artificial contraception, what the church teaches about marriage holds up well when measured by against reality. Nonetheless, honesty requires me to note that the divorce rate among Christians, including Catholic Christians, does not significantly differ from the overall divorce rate. This flows in part from the pastoral mentality that does not view co-habitation, pre-marital sex, and non-practice of the faith as barriers to being married in the church. Too often there is no judgment made about whether a sacramental marriage is even possible between the two people asking to be joined. I would also say that teaching people it is not necessary to adhere to Christ by endeavoring to be obedient to what the church teaches about sex within marriage, which basically amounts to dispensing married people from practicing and acquiring the virtue of chastity, also contributes to this sad this state-of-affairs. Neither is it unusual for one or both people not be confirmed, often not seeing completing Christian initiation as important. In this regard, it is always important to remember that to truly love an other means to love her/his destiny.

In any event, the authors of the declaration- Robert George, who is profiled in the current issue of the New York Times magazine, Timothy Beeson, and Chuck Colson (a Catholic and two Evangelicals respectively)- begin the section on marriage with self-critical reflection on the failure of Christians to understand and live marriage in a sacramental way:

"The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Genesis 2:23-24

"This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." Ephesians 5:32-33

"In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as 'holy matrimony' to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.

"Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling—and alarming—indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society—and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out- of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average—is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

"We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same."

When it comes to out-of-wedlocks births, which occur dispropotionately among people who are poor, maybe we owe Dan Quayle an apology.

A brief take on the importance of marriage

I am hard-pressed to write anything really meaningful or even heartfelt at the moment, not because there is nothing on my heart or mind, but because I have been so very busy. I finished all my coursework for my graduate degree and now have to begin writing my Integrated Pastoral Research paper on the emerging ecclesial identity of the permanent deacon in the Roman Catholic Church, much to ponder there...

In light of the USCCB's document Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan and the Manhattan Declaration, both of which set forth very well the Christian view on marriage and take on many of the very shallow arguments in favor of altering the fundamental meaning of marriage, my mind is very much on this subject. If you look, you will find good things in the most unexpected places, like in the British tabloid-like newspaper The Daily Mail. Of course, it was in The Mail this past spring that A.N. Wilson announced his return to Christian faith. In yesterday's on-line edition, author Sally Emerson recounts the importance of marriage and family by recounting a torrid affair she had with Douglas Adams, author of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, early in her marriage. She also recounts how she came to her senses about life and love, something many who go down that path never do. Towards the end of her lovely article, 'My wild affair with author Douglas Adams and how returning to my husband taught me the true value of marriage', she writes: "I can't understand in whose interests it might be to allow this most ancient institution to crumble. The facts and figures of countless research studies are devastatingly conclusive: children with two devoted parents tend to do better at school and have fewer behavioural problems. It is not hard to work out why.

"A government should not be trying to knock down the edifices which make us happy, but should be trying to build them up."

Jesus Christ makes us clean and whole

During the first part of the Nativity Fast (15 November-12 December), I am trying to pray my way through St. Mark's Gospel. In my reading this morning, specifically chapter two verse seventeen, Jesus says to those scribes and Pharisees who are scandalized by him eating with tax collectors and sinners: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." In so doing he affirms the opinion of the scribes and Pharisees with regard to the tax collectors and sinners, that are sinful and need to repent, that is, they needed to reorient their lives, to change. The Lord also, with a no small amount of irony, bordering on sarcasm, includes the scribes and the Pharisees among those who need to repent. In other words, despite all their works, their strict observance of the 613 mitzvot, their lives need to be reoriented, too.

It seems to me the difference between these two groups is that the tax collectors and sinners are somewhat conscious of their sins and, hence, of their need to repent, but the scribes and Pharisees see themselves as righteous, as spiritually well, thus needing no physician to heal them. A more subtle element comes into play here, too. Christ came into the world to heal, not to judge, to call us to repentance and blaze the path of righteousness. Insofar as our good works are motivated by legalism, by a self-congratulating sense of keeping the rules, they have the effect of keeping us from God and separating us from others by causing us to think we are somehow better because we try harder. In the case of fasting and abstinence, say, we have to see what are doing as a means and not as an end in itself. The end to which such efforts are a means is holiness, Christ-like-ness.

Genuine righteousness comes through faith and is manifested by wholesome works. Like the teachers of the Law, very often we want to expel evil, to cast it out, to avert our gaze. Christ Jesus comes to transform evil, to stare it in the face, and to overcome it. When contemplating evil, I need look no further than my own heart. In the prayer at end of Lauds this morning (Tuesday, Week I of the Psalter), we pray: "The light of heaven's love has restored us to life; free us from the desires that belong to darkness."

As an observant Jew, but one who is Messiah and Lord, Jesus did not become unclean by contact with tax collectors, sinners, or even Gentiles. His touch makes the unclean clean. Can anyone imagine that the tax collectors and sinners who dined with Jesus walked away from this event unchanged? Of course, the textbook answer is "No! They would have been changed, their lives redirected!" More realistically, in our heart of hearts, which draws from our own experience, we can imagine them walking away unchanged. We can imagine this because of how often we walk away from Mass having received the Eucharist unchanged, that is, unrepentant. As we approach Advent perhaps we should give some thought to the reason for our hardness of heart. I urge you to consider this reason: maybe too often we receive communion not being properly disposed, that is, to use the old formulation, not in a state of grace, put more simply still, not having gone to confession for far too long.

If you think living the moral teachings of the church is difficult, you are correct. I would say that living this way, in the manner of disciples of Jesus, doing the right things for the right reason in the right way, is impossible on our own, even assuming that we really want to. We need the support of others who are committed to holiness, but more than that even, we need God's grace. Where and how do we receive the grace necessary to live as followers of Jesus? The answer is that we receive the grace necessary to be made whole, to be made healthy, to be made clean, through the sacraments. Post-baptismally, we receive the grace we need primarily in and through the sacraments of penance and Eucharist. To fully receive the grace the Eucharist holds for us, we must clear out all that blocks God's grace. Sin does not prevent God from communicating divine life to us, but it prevents us from receiving God's life and communicating God's love to others. So, like the scribes and Pharisees, we deny that we need a physician by not going to confession. By refusing to go to confession, we do not seek treatment for what ails us: sin. Like any untreated serious illness, sin results in death. Jesus is the healer of my soul.

Christian marriage and infidelity

In the Faith section of tomorrow's print edition of the Salt Lake Tribune, which appeared on-line in advance, is an article by religion reporter Kristen Moulton: Christian spouses and infidelity. In light of the recent scandals involving South Carolina governor Mark Sanford and Nevada senator John Ensign, both committed Christians, she asks members of the local clergy, including your humble blogger, whether it is necessary or advisable for a spouse who has been cheated on to forgive.

I am happy that our answers are consistent. We all come down on the side of the advisability and necessity to forgive, even when the marriage cannot be salvaged. That consensus being established, I like very much what Julie Hanks has to say: "The expectation of Christians is to forgive... but everyone has their own process and timetable."

At the mercy of the body

A quick thought on the fifth chapter of a fascinating book on sacramental theology, using as it does Wittgensteinian analysis, even if only to a slight degree:

I very much like conceiving of the symbolic language of the liturgy as a language game. To see it as such is not to trivialize it in the least, but to recognize it for what it is and to make sense of the thesis floated at the beginning of the book, namely that all of reality is mediated to us and that language plays a key and indispensible role in this mediation. Language is certainly the only way we are able to make sense- in the liturgy that is what we do- make reality, that which constitutes reality (i.e., the paschal mystery), sensible and sensory; reality being that which comes to us involuntary from outside ourselves. As he writes in the previous chapter: "Not only is language efficacious but it is what is most efficacious" ( The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body 91 italics in the original).

Veni Sancti Spiritus, veni per Mariam.

Jesus and Rutherford B. Hayes

I am doing some reading on the sacrament of confirmation, while reading today I came across something by the late Fr. Aidan Kavanaugh, OSB, who, when discussing the problems that negatively affect our understanding, liturgical praxis, and living out the sacrament of confirmation, states that we misunderstand "the connection between memorial (anamnesis) and invocation (epiclesis) in worship." He insists that "memorial and invocation, anamnesis and epiclesis are in reality one, since the deepest memory of God is made possible only when the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to be the Christ of God." Here is the punchline: "To remember Jesus in any other way is not essentially different from remembering Rutherford B. Hayes."

I love Fr. Kavanaugh's writings on the sacraments and this made me smile today and to remember him. He passed over in 2006.

Lent about half-way through

Lent is now about half-way gone. It is a good time to reflect on our Lenten journey this far. So, how is it going for you? I think, too, this Third Sunday of Lent is a good time to re-hack, especially if you are discouraged by any failures you may have experienced along the way. Remember, our Lenten objective is to be more conformed to Christ. Without a doubt, the first realization we need in order to achieve our goal is that we need help, divine assistance, also called grace. Any discouragement you might be experiencing is not coming from a good place. Opening ourselves to the mercy the Father has shown us in His only Begotten Son, Christ our Lord, is the best experience we can have.

How can you do this? Go to confession. Stop the hemming and hawing, stop the rationalizations, acknowledge your need for reconciliation by undertaking a thorough examination of your life since your last confession, even if it took place many years ago. I also think it a helpful reminder that, in addition to acting in persona Christi, the priest acts on behalf of the Church. So, the reconciliation that occurs in the sacrament of penance is cruciform, having both a vertical and a horizontal dimension. Like the graces we receive in communion, reconciliation is not something we keep to ourselves, but something we practice in our lives. After all, part of our baptismal vocation as God's priestly people is to help reconcile the world. As a wise priest told with me yesterday, a bit in tongue in cheek after I shared with him my choice to give up alcohol (excepting communion) during Lent, truly being reconciled with an enemy is worth many glasses of scotch!

Caleb's apology

Here it is, a day early traditio. Oh, by the way, Caleb is a fire captain, who, at the beginning of the movie, chastizes a rookie firefighter for getting separated from his partner in a fire.

"Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit.

"My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins" (James 5:13b-20 [ESV]).

I have to pass along, for those interested, something from last evening's All Things Considered, David Foster Wallace's Final, Unfinished Novel. The NPR link, in turn, links you The New Yorker, which provides an excerpt from his last work. It was December before I was finally able to write about his suicide directly, after an odd and oblique attempt.

"Give us this day our daily bread..."

Michael Crosby, writing about the petition in the Our Father in which we ask, "Give us this day our daily bread," says:

"To ask with such confidence implies a relationship of trust. If we have problems trusting in God , it's not likely we'll be able to pray this petition from our heart. It's not likely, either, that we will have much of a personal relationship with our God" (Michael Crosby from The Prayer That Jesus Taught Us). The Father offers us friendship through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Friendship is always a matter of the heart, not to mention a matter of obedience, perhaps better denoted as faithfulness. The Old Testament Canticle for Morning Prayer this Saturday after Ash Wednesday is Ezekiel 36:24-28. In this passage God, speaking through his prophet, says to his exiled people, who, like us have been unfaithful to their covenant, "I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts." It always amazes me that Ezekiel does not say God will give them supernatural, but natural, hearts. In my own midrash, I think this refers to the state of original grace, the original state of harmony, or communion, the state in which all things, including human beings, originally shared, a state that was lost through disobedience. This is the kind of renewal God seeks, a complete transformation. The transformation God seeks, which always requires our cooperation because God does not force us, is to become who we are, who God, out of love, created, redeemed us, and now sanctifies us to be. Lent is the Church's springtime. Hence, it is a season when what appears to be dead comes to back to life.

At the heart of the covenant is, "you shall be my people and I will be your God" (Ezk. 36:28). This is the only covenant God has ever sought with humankind, who He made in His image and likeness, from the beginning, even before the fall. This is why God's covenant with Israel is not superceded. Rather, through Christ, as St. Paul seeks to point out again and again, we merely come to share in this covenant, all are invited to share in the wedding feast, the marriage of Christ with humanity.

We know that we cannot live by bread alone (Luke 4:4). The Word of God is what sustains us and all things. The Word of God, Jesus Christ, is the Bread of Life. Unless "you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you" (Jn 6:53). After all, as our Lord himself points out, those who ate manna in the desert eventually died (Jn. 6:49). He is "the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die" (Jn. 6:50). At each celebration of the Eucharist, our covenant is renewed.

It is not only possible, but necessary, to ask in our fasting "give us this day our daily bread" and then intensify our Scripture reading and praying. In this way, we will be filled, not only with what we truly need, but with what we most desire. In this way we will develop the kind of personal relationship with God, a relationship in which we come to trust God and so be able to pray this petition with the kind of confidence necessary to help usher in God's kingdom.

Rounding out the year in sex on Καθολικός διάκονος

I posted a lot this year on a subject usually and understandably avoided. But how can we remain silent in the face of so much confusion, of so much ideology, of so much propaganda? While not a major contribution to anything, I have collected what was lacking in my previous post on this delicate matter. So, from the most recent to the earliest, I offer thoughts and observations on marriage, chastity, and sex in general:

A song for nobody: remembering Fr. M. Louis

Seemingly random associations left seemingly random

Humanae Vitae and the communio sanctorum

An amateur stab at moral reasoning


A humane view "Of Human Life"

Starting from a positive hypothesis: marriage is unity

Bl. Louis and Marie Martin, pray for us

A few brief thoughts on chastity and teens

Hiatus interrupted to bring you this message

Humanae Vitae turns 40, part II

Humanae Vitae turns 40

"I think, therefore I am," but what about God?

The on-going need for natural theology

Urgently needed: The development of a healthy understanding of sexuality

"Send [Wisdom] forth from your holy heavens and from your glorious throne dispatch her That she may be with me and work with me, that I may know what is your pleasure" (Wisdom 9:10 from Saturday Morning Prayer, Week III of the Psalter).