Pertinacious Papist Musings on Catholic Intellectual Culture

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Foreclosure of homes and philosophy departments
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 4:25 PM

Homes are being foreclosed at a fearsome rate these days, and it begins to look as though academic departments and programs are a similarly endangered species. I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the termination of the German Department at the University of Southern California, and on May 5, I noticed in The Chronicle that the University of Florida was terminating its doctoral program in Philosophy.

The university, confronting a substantial cutback in state appropriations, has announced that it will lay off 20 faculty members, among other steps, to reduce costs for FY2008-9. As part of this retrenchment, President Bernie Machen has also proposed reducing undergraduate enrollment and cutting back on research expenditures, as well as eliminating some degree programs.

I gather that other Florida universities are reacting similarly to dire state budgetary situations. Many states are experiencing exactly the same financial difficulties, and passing through their problems to public institutions of higher education.

Source: Stan Katz, "The Unity of Philosophy" (The Chronicle Review, May 14, 2008).

[Hat tip to E.F.]

Labels: Culture, Education, Liberal arts, Philosophy

Saturday, May 17, 2008

25 years of Catholic lay preaching
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 8:48 PM

Ginny Untiedt preaches for the last time at St. Joseph in New Hope May 4. In January, Archbishop Harry Flynn asked parishes with lay preachers to end the practice by his retirement, which was May 2.

Father Terry Rassmussen, pastor of St. Joseph in New Hope, finished reading, closed the Book of the Gospels, and stepped away from the ambo. From the congregation, Ginny Untiedt stepped forward.

Clad in a white robe, Untiedt bowed as Father Rassmussen laid his hands on her head and blessed her. She looked up, walked to the ambo and began preaching for the last time.

As many as 29 parishes in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis have used lay preachers at Mass during the past 25 years. In January, however, Archbishop Harry Flynn instructed pastors to discontinue the practice. He gave his retirement date - May 2 - as the time by which parishes should develop "a pastoral plan" to end lay preaching at Mass.

... Archbishop Flynn told The Catholic Spirit he was aware of a few parishes practicing lay preaching and that local leaders in the lay preaching movement were aware of his disapproval. He wrote the January letter only after becoming aware that the number of parishes with lay preachers was larger than he realized, he said. (emphasis added)

Source: Maria Wiering, "Directive from Archbishop Flynn ends lay preaching at Mass" (The Catholic Spirit, May 7, 2008).

What was that title, again, by Fr. Thomas J. Reese, S.J.? Oh, yes: A Flock of Shepherds: The National Conference of Catholic Bishops (Sheed & Ward, 1992).

Labels: Dissent, Liturgical abuse

Viaticum
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 5:01 PM

Viaticum refers to Holy Communion administered to a dying person during last rites. The word derives from the Latin, meaning "provisions for a journey." My father is approaching his last journey sometime in the near future -- it is hard to say exactly when. He is now facing the indignity of being put on a feeding tube. He has prepared as best he can for his journey. I know this from conversations we have had, both from when I was in Iowa with him on a recent visit, and from recent phone conversations. We talked about the recent earthquake in Chengdu, Sichuan, China, where I was born, and other natural disasters recently in the news. He understands these, along with all the evils that abound today, what with "nation rising against nation" and the like, as the "birth pangs" preceding the end of the age, mentioned in Mark 13:8. He said he didn't know how a person could navigate such times without knowing the love of Christ. I agreed and told him that he had given me the most precious gift any father could give a son: the knowledge of Christ.

I recently emailed a friend, asking for his prayers for my father. He replied with the following touching anecdote:

Dear Philip:

When Msgr. Ronald Knox was in his last illness, he visited his devoted student, Harold Macmillan at No. 10 Downing St. In his typical diffidence he announced: "I expect I'll be going on a long journey." And the Prime Minister replied: "But Ronnie, you are so very well prepared for it."

You and your father are in my prayers,

Kind regards, T.

My thanks to each and every one of you willing to remember my father in your prayers.

Labels: Family

USCCB: pro-life without quite being pro-life
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 1:54 PM

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) approved a new document on November 14, 2007, to guide Catholic voters in the upcoming elections. Entitled "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States" [PDF], and -- with 43 pages containing 90 sections -- is as long and verbose as its title.

Dale Vree, commenting on the document back in February ("A Perplexing Political Potpourri," New Oxford Review, Feb., 2008), wrote: "As can be expected from a document approved by the full body of the USCCB -- liberals, moderates, and conservatives -- by a margin of 221-4, it runs all over the map, touches on myriad topics, and suffers from information overload -- no easy accomplishment in our information era." More to the point, he adds: "What makes this document so maddening is that it buries the burning political issues of the day under an avalanche of lesser considerations."

Again, in the current issue of NOR, Vree continues his observations ("Muddier Waters," NOR, May 2008):

One of the more peculiar aspects of that dense document is its suggestion that voting for pro-abortion candidates puts a Catholic's eternal salvation in jeopardy. In section 22, the document states, "Intrinsically evil actions ... must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion...." Section 34 states, "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion." Section 37 states, "It is important to be clear that the political choices faced by citizens not only have an impact on general peace and prosperity but also may affect the individual's salvation." One can easily come to the conclusion that voting in favor of abortion places one's eternal salvation in jeopardy.

But then the document declares, "There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons" (#35). And, "The voter may decide...to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position" (#36). But isn't this the very cooperation with evil that would place one's salvation in jeopardy, especially if the "position" in question is abortion? The document neglects to provide an answer. Beyond the one mention, it is silent about how voting affects one's salvation.

Vree then relates how John L. Allen Jr., the well-known reporter for National Catholic Distorter, caught up with Wilton Gregory, Archbishop of Atlanta and former USCCB president, at the USCCB's annual Social Ministry Gathering in Washington, D.C., on February 26. Archbishop Gregory, he says, was good enough to take a moment to clarify this aspect of the USCCB document. According to Allen (National Catholic Distorter, Feb. 26), Archbishop Gregory "said that it was not the intent of the U.S. bishops in their recent 'Faithful Citizenship' document to suggest that Catholics who vote for a pro-choice candidate are automatically placing their salvation in jeopardy."

What?? Then what did they mean in section 37 when they declared that the political choices faced by citizens "may affect the individual's salvation"? What part of the mass murder of over 50 million preborn babies in the U.S. since 1973 is unclear in being an "intrinsic evil" that "must never be supported"? Evidently, as Vree says, it depends on what your definition of "never" is:

"Defending the right to life is obviously a primary concern," Archbishop Gregory told Allen. "It's the point of departure for everything else." But, said Archbishop Gregory, it is "at least possible" that, as Allen put it, "a Catholic who carefully weighs the issues could decide that, on balance, a candidate who is not explicitly pro-life is preferable to one who opposes the legalization of abortion but who does not share Catholic positions on other matters of importance. In that sense, Gregory said, 'Faithful Citizenship' cannot be reduced to an absolute obligation to vote for a pro-life candidate...."

"Faithful Citizenship" itself states that "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion..." (#34; italics added). But now Archbishop Gregory is saying that there is no "absolute obligation" to vote for prolife candidates. How are voters supposed to make sense of this? Can you help us out here, Your Excellency?

"It's a complicated document," he told Allen.

Indeed. And that, my friends, is the problem. You cannot expect a 43-page document, which tries to blow hot and cold at once and qualifies to death every position it takes, to offer much guidance to a Catholic voter who will be voting simply up or down for the President in November.

Labels: Politics, USCCB

Concern for Dale Price's health
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 8:55 AM

I just learned about the prayer request for Dale Price offered by his wife Heather because of some concerns apparently related to possible heart problems. After a brief hospitalization, however, he's now back home with another appointment in late May and probably surgery sometime beyond that. Keep our friend Dale in your prayers.

Labels: Friends, News

Friday, May 16, 2008

Two confusions about homosexuality
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 7:31 PM

One of the most common confusions about homosexuality among Catholics today is the assumption that Church teaching condemns homosexual acts but finds nothing wrong with homosexual inclinations. This confusion has led many Catholics, even priests and bishops, to suggest that, as long as one does not act upon it, a homosexual disposition is perfectly acceptable, even a "gift" from God. But this is sadly misleading. It is true that a person is not culpable for a sinful inclination to which he does not consent. For example, there is nothing wrong with a man feeling sexual attraction for a woman provided he does not act on it outside of marriage. But this is not to say that the Church finds nothing wrong with homosexual inclinations, even if a person is innocent of acting upon them. The problem is that not all inclinations are natural and right. Some clearly are. God created men to be attracted by women, and vice versa; and configured their anatomical parts for one another in an obviously natural way. But not all inclinations and dispositions are natural and right. The inclination to autoerotic self-arousal, for example, is a perversion of nature. So also with homosexual inclinations. It is not merely that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered," as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches (CCC 2357); rather, it is that the homosexual inclination iteself is "objectively disordered" (CCC 2358, emphasis added). If a man feels attracted to a woman, this is natural. It's how he was meant to respond. If he feels attracted sexually by another man, this is contrary to nature and a profound burden and constitutes for most homosexuals "a trial" (CCC 2358). There is nothing cruel or harsh about this observation. The Catechism says that such individuals must be "accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" (Ibid.), yet also insists that they, like all of us, are called to "chastity," self-mastery," and "inner freedom" (CCC 2359).

A second confusion concerns the relation of the positions of the Bible and the Church on homosexuality to other moral and social questions such as slavery, usury, polygamy, etc. The assumption here, often promoted by revisionists under the guise of "doctrinal development," is that the position of the Bible and the Church on various moral and social issues has never been immutable or absolute, but has changed over time. For example, polygamy was permitted in the Old Testament, but has been forbidden since apostolic times; slavery was permitted in the Old Testament, but not condemned by the Church until modern times; usury was forbidden by the Church in the Middle Ages, but has been permitted in modern times. It is in light of this growing evolution and maturation of the mind of the Church on such matters that our understanding of the permissibility of homosexuality today must be assessed.

Let us examine this hypothesis by taking the example of slavery. There are several reasons why slavery is not a good analogy for the homosexuality debate.¹

First, there is no Scriptural mandate for slavery, that is, no commandment to enslave others, nor is there is a penalty for releasing slaves. Rather, the Old Testament merely tolerates a kind of slavery as a given social institution and regulates it without approving it. What kind of slavery was actually being regulated? The enslaving of prisoners of war, of criminals, of people who sold themselves into slavery as a last-ditch way to avoid starvation², or to advance their careers was permitted and regulated. As to regulating it, Robert J. Hutchinson writes, “while in the Code of Hammurabi anyone who harbors a runaway slave is to be put to death, the Old Testament law actually commands that such slaves be given refuge: “You shall not turn over a slave [who has escaped] to his master. He shall dwell with you in your midst . . . you must not ill-treat him” (Dt 23: 16-17). Not only that, but anyone who abducts someone and sells him or her into slavery—as the brothers of Joseph did in Genesis or the slave traders of the eighteenth century did—was to be put to death” (Ex 21: 16). “What’s more,” adds Hutchinson, “when a Hebrew ‘slave’ was freed, the Bible says, ‘you shall not send him away empty-handed, but shall weigh him down with gifts from your flock and threshing floor and wine press, in proportion to the blessings the Lord, your God, has bestowed upon you. For remember that you too were once slaves in the land of Egypt, and the Lord, your God, ransomed you” (Dt 15:13-15).³

By contrast, there is a Scriptural mandate, in the Old and New Testament, to limit sexual unions to heterosexual ones. In addition there is a severe penalty having to do with a person’s eternal standing before God or entrance into his Kingdom. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves: Neither sexually immoral persons [pornoi, i.e., like the incestuous man], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor ‘soft men’ [malakoi, i.e., men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners], nor men who lie with a male [arsenokoitai, a term formed from the Levitical prohibition of male homosexual practice] . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

Second, slavery is not divinely instituted, a structure or mandate of creation, in short, a God-ordained social arrangement. By contrast, the institutions of civil authority, marital and parental relations are divinely instituted, creation structures. The latter are God-ordained, roles are divinely specified, and conduct is regulated. In particular, the biblical authors throughout the Scripture viewed heterosexual unions as normative structures of creation that are transculturally valid.

Third, there is tension within the biblical canon itself on the issue of slavery, which is evident from the trajectory within the Bible itself that critiques slavery. As Gagnon summarizes this point, “We can discern a trajectory within the Bible that critiques slavery. Central in Israelite memory was the remembrance of God’s liberation from slavery in Egypt (e.g. Exod 22:21; 23:9; Lev 25:42, 55; Deut 15:15).[⁴] Christian memory adds the paradigmatic event of Christ’s redemption of believers from slavery to sin and people (e.g., 1 Cor 6: 20; 7: 23). Israelite law put various restrictions on enslaving fellow Israelites—even insisting that Israelites not be treated as slaves—while Paul regarded liberation from slavery as a penultimate good (1 Cor 7: 21-23; Phlm 16).” By contrast, adds Gagnon, “While Scripture shows unease with the institution of slavery, the only discomfort it shows toward same-sex intercourse is with the commission of the act, not with its proscription.”⁵

Fourth, the Scripture is a countercultural witness regarding slavery, rather than a willing supporter. Its position is liberal and liberating by contrast to the ancient cultural norm. “The Bible’s stance on same-sex intercourse moved in the opposite direction, against any accommodation. Simply put, Scripture nowhere expresses a vested interest in preserving slavery, whereas Scripture does express a vested interest in requiring a male-female dynamic in sexual relationships.”⁶ In sum, “Scripture itself does not provide the kind of clear and unequivocal witness for slavery that it exhibits against same-sex intercourse.”⁷

Notes

Here I follow a terse summary of Robert A. J. Gagnon’s argument in The Bible and Homosexual Practice: texts and Hermeneutics from an unpublished manuscript by a colleague. On the question whether slavery is a good parallel for the homosexuality debate, see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 443-448. See also, Dan O. Via & Robert A. J. Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003). Gagnon develops his argument against several analogies in this more recent book: Gentile inclusion, slavery, women in ministry, divorce and remarriage (pp. 42-47). See also, Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight & Narrow: Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995); and Christian Anthropology and Homosexuality, Edited by Mario Agnes, L’Osservatore Romano Reprints, Vatican City, 1997). [back]

On this, see Lev. 25: 39, “If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.” [back]

All the quotes in this paragraph are from Robert J. Hutchinson, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007), pp. 162-164. See also, Benedict M. Ashley, OP, Living the Truth in Love (New York: Alba House, 1996), pp. 290-293. [back]

Hutchinson, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible, “[T]he overarching theme that runs throughout the Hebrew Bible—from the Torah through the Deuteronomic History and the prophets—concerns how God ransomed the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Over and over again, the Hebrew Bible insists that Israelites must not mistreat their avadim (servants/slaves) because ‘you were once slaves [avadim] in the land of Egypt’” (p. 165). [back]

The apt phrase (“trajectory of critique”) is borrowed from Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible, p. 45. [back]

Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible, p. 45. [back]

Robert A.J. Gagnon, “The Authority of Scripture in the ‘Homosex’ Debate,” an expanded version of a presentation made to the Southeastern ELCA synod (http://www.robgagnon.net/). [back]

[Hat tip to E.E.]

Labels: Homosexualism

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

O'Leary on sex-topic rampage (again)
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 10:51 PM

Provoked by our post, "Robert Gagnon: Why sexual orientation is not akin to race or sex" (Musings, May 11, 2008), notorious dissident, Fr. O'Leary, is enjoying a rampage over in Gerald Augustinus' combox, where his targets include, besides myself, Ralph Roiter-Doister, and Ellen, with even Grega weighing in. Have a look, if you can stand it (scroll down near the end of the combox). I'm sure they could use the input, if you've the stomach for it.

Of related concern:

"Gerald Augustinus whY? -- Oh no! Is the Cafeteria Open Again?" (Creative Minority Report)

Labels: Homosexualism

The place of Jesus in Catholic education
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 9:33 PM

Personal faith, piety, and intimacy with Jesus Christ often seem terribly remote from the strategies of argument and analysis in most Catholic colleges and universities. Catholic professors see this in their students -- and, if they are honest, in themselves. This is why, if they are genuinely Catholic in their sentiments, they will rightly worry that they’re not really making a difference with their well-crafted mission statements, centers for Catholics studies, and required classes in theology.

R.R. Reno addresses the issue in a trenchant article entitled "Personality, Place, and Catholic Education" (First Things, May 13, 2008). He begins his article like this:

Some friends said, “Ho, hum.” They thought Pope Benedict’s recent address to Catholic educators during his U.S. visit was a nonevent. My reaction was different. Benedict brought home to me the daunting challenge of Catholic education. He observed that Catholic universities should not simply inform minds but also change lives by fostering a “personal intimacy with Jesus Christ.” “A particular responsibility” of Catholic educators, he said, “is to evoke among the young the desire for the act of faith, encouraging them to commit themselves to the ecclesial life that follows from this belief.”

Personal intimacy with Christ! It gave me pause....

The problem isn't that he lacks for support, says Reno. At the university where he teaches, they have a well-crafted mission statement, extensive core requirements in philosophy and theology, etc. All those pieces are in place. Well and good. But Benedict presses the issue: The deepest distinctive that makes the biggest difference in Catholic education is the proclamation of Christ as the way, the truth, and the life. "Are we making that kind of difference?" asks Reno. It's a hard, searching question. In the most substantial portion of his article, Reno comes to the point:

Let me put the problem plainly. The lecture hall is not a church, and the laboratory may give us access to the mysteries of the natural world, but it has no saving sacraments. Nearly all the work of higher education involves intellectual training, and as John Henry Newman realized in his own reflections on education, mental refinement often has little influence on the will. “Quarry rock with razors, or moor a vessel with a thread of silk,” he wrote in his masterful lectures The Idea of a University, “then you may hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and pride of man.”

... Newman was utterly convinced that education can be transformative, and he pointed the way toward the real source of influence. The will is engaged, thought Newman, by personality, and institutions have personalities. By his reckoning, a university is not simply a matter of classes and assignments, lab reports and carefully argued seminar papers. It’s not just about what students learn—and so quickly forget. Instead, a university is a culture unto itself. It’s a place—or at least it can be a place—that has what he called an “ethical atmosphere” that provides a “living teaching.” A college or university can have a genius loci.

So strongly did Newman feel that true education involves a culture with constant and often insensible influence over the lives of students that he expressed a preference for an undergraduate education with stimulating peers and no professors or classes at an Oxford college over a carefully planned-out and well-taught curriculum designed as if students were interchangeable, disembodied minds. (One can easily imagine his disdain for the idea of distance education over the Internet!)

... Newman’s realistic sense of the limits of mental training and the importance of personality has helped me see the true nature of the problem Catholic educators face in living up to Benedict’s rightful call for an evangelical core to a genuinely Catholic university. In the past, the genius loci of American Catholic colleges and universities came from the distinctive charisms of the religious orders that ran them. Their drastic decline is the simple, devastating fact that explains nearly all the aimlessness and uncertainty in contemporary Catholic higher education. Half-hearted half measures have produced, at best, half successes. The retreat of Catholic identity into campus ministry, social-justice programs, and courses on ethics has kept the flame alive but at the cost of giving up on the classroom and the professoriate. Many institutions are seeing the secularizing results, which is why the question of Catholic identity has become so important in the last decade.

Reno says that he can be dyspeptic, which should endear him to Ralph. As a result, he says, he can become rather jaudiced about the whole question of Catholic education and even about where he teaches. There is no blueprint, no formula, no ten-point action plan for guaranteeing renewal. Benedict's vision can only be realized by the painfully slow process of building and sustaining living Catholic intellectual cultures. This cannot be achieved by some sort of gimmick. Instead, he writes, "the future will be made at each college and university by way of thousands of decisions: whom do we recruit as students, to whom do we offer scholarships, whom do we hire, whom do we tenure, who gets the endowed chair, who is made dean or president. People matter, and, as Newman points out, when it comes to influencing the will, people matter most."

The Newman quote, said the Musings reader who emailed me the link to this article, "makes me ask, if apologetics is not what drives those big Evangelical churches, what does, and can Catholics learn anything from the answer to that question?" I am not sure whether the answer is apologetics, although the subject is surely neglected to our own detriment in serious ways; but the question is one, surely, from which we can learn. The challenge of Benedict is for Catholic educators to face the fact that no strategy of rational argument or analysis will suffice to create a living Catholic intellectual culture without personal intimacy with Jesus Christ, and that this intimacy cannot be relegated entirely to extra-curricular ancillary functions of campus ministry, social-justice programs, and the like. It can't be compartmentalized. Rather Jesus must be found and faced within the academic discourse of the classroom itself.

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Labels: Catholic education

Emergent Church: postmodern pathology
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 7:11 PM

The "Emergent (or 'Emerging') Church" movement is a movement of the late 20th and early 21st century whose proponents present themselves as seeking to present the Christian message in new, laid-back conversational packaging to their postmodern unchurched and post-churched peers. Dr. R. Todd Mangum, Associate Professor of Theology and Dean of Faculty at Biblical Seminary [yes, that's its actual name], describes it this way: "'Emergent' is a loosely knit group of people in conversation about and trying experiments in forwarding the ministry of Jesus in new and different ways, as the people of God in a post-Christian context." Um-hmmmm ... You know what I'm talkin' 'bout. It's cool to be hip. Now I wouldn't want to deny for a moment the sincere intentions of some of these fine folk. Yet those with noses for the difference between chicken soup and chicken spit soon realize that the soup is in the other pot: the 'Emergent' folk have themselves succumbed to the pathology of postmodern hippification. At a steep price: a decentering loss of clarity and amorphous banality. But of course, that's part of the appeal: Who wants easy answers when the alternative is a hipster paradise of narcissistic conversation and mocha lattes?

In Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be (Moody Publishers, 2008), Kevin DeYoung, the senior pastor at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, and Ted Kluck, a sportswriter who has written for ESPN, have written a friendly critique of the Emergent Church movement. Kristen Scharold reviews the book in a First Things article entitled "The Emerging Church and Its Critics" (FT, May 14, 2008). Her review begins like this:

Order a pint of Guinness, turn up Coldplay, and meet me in the corner booth of our local pub because I want to tell you a story.

Rushing to finish Why We’re Not Emergent, I balance against the train’s jolts while furiously underlining various passages. I live in Bushwick, Brooklyn—which, according to the New York Times, is “home to a growing artists’ scene,” though “many pockets are still poor and the crime rate remains relatively high.” The train slows at my stop. I shove the book back into my purse (relieved to at least put the kitschy orange and green cover out of sight). Waiting for the doors to open, I catch a glimpse of my reflection in the subway windows and suddenly feel disaffected by the “Royal Tenenbaum” gaze that stares back at me. Once in my apartment, I collapse onto my vintage, button-tufted couch and toss aside my Bible—one of those new ESVs with a red leather cover and floral etchings. After putting some Sigur Rós on my iPod and making myself a latte, I pick up where DeYoung and Kluck left off. The end.

A story can say a lot, but it can also leave a lot unsaid. For example, that dull story—with its postmodern self-consciousness, lazy plot line, and forced cultural references—alludes to some facts about myself, but it doesn’t reveal anything about what I actually believe.

The emergent church isn’t much different. Its devotees like to tell stories and engage in discussion, but often the dialogue is not helpful and the stories are not very exciting. This is because the emergent “conversation”—“movements” are passé and narrow-minded—lacks the commentary and the narrative of traditional Christian doctrine.

"Defining the emerging church is like nailing Jell-O to the wall," say the authors of Why We're Not Emergent. Rather than simply making a case against 'Emergence,' DeYoung and Kluck argue for doctrine, conviction, and they do so, according to Scharold, with a winsome authenticity that would make any devotee of 'Emergent Christianity' proud. In their book, they counter the arguments of this movement, refreshingly, she says, with the Word of God and simple logic: "The result is refreshing."

The Musings reader who sent me the link to Scharold's article remarked that the article made him ask whether Vatican II was "the mother of 'Emergent Catholicism' of a respectable mainstream suburban American stripe?" What do you think?

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Labels: Evangelicals, Postmodernism

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

An Evangelical ***yawn*** manifesto?
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 10:49 PM

Evangelicals used to know how to craft a manifesto. The Lausanne Covenant of 1974 was a manifesto that basically defined modern Evangelicalism. On May 7, 2008, however, another group of Evangelicals released a document calling itself a "manifesto" that gives pause. Have Evangelicals lost their touch? Alan Jacobs, in "Come On, You Call This a Manifesto?" (Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2008), suggests that the 20-page document taxes patience, bores the imagination, and conveys a message that boils down to the appeal: "Please don't call us fundamentalists or confuse us with them." Puh-LEEEEZE ... That is like, just so ... yesterday. And how is this supposed to galvanize an increasingly somnolent Evangelical movement? What do these guys have in common with the Call to Action grey hairs with their "Call to Puppery" liturgies? They're fighting the now effectively irrelevant battles of the 60s and 70s. Wake up Neo. It's later than you think.

Labels: Evangelicals

Saint Pius X, a Backward Pope?
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 10:28 PM

A 1300-page study treatise written by a great scholar, Carlo Fantappiè, overturns that presumption in order to argue what we've known all along: "Saint Pius X, a Backward Pope? No, an Unprecedented Cyclone of Reform" (www.chiesa, May 13, 2008), by Sandro Magister.

Labels: Popes

Sunday, May 11, 2008

What in the name of Brahman?
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 8:51 PM

A Catholic woman wrote to me recently to tell me that she had embraced the spirituality of Mātā Amritanandamayī Devi, an Indian spiritual leader named otherwise known as "the hugging saint," or "Amma," which means "Mother." People come from miles, even from other continents, to wait in line for hours to be hugged by Amma in a practice called "Darshan." She has been known to individually hug over 50,000 people a day. This, they tell us, is profoundly "healing." It is one of the ironies of metaphysical monism, which regards individuality as illusiory, that in its diverse religious forms it continues to compromise itself by attachments to individuals, whether as in the chosen ishtas of Bhakti Hinduism or as in the embrace of this singular "Amma." Whereas Christianity tells us to love our neighbor, Hinduism tells us that we are our neighbor. But even if I am you and you are me and he is she and we are ultimately all Brahman, it is as if there is something in the most forlorn Hindu souls (or the most jaded lapsed Catholics who have turned to the East as an alternative to "Western institutional religions"), which longs for the loving and embrace of an individual person (human or divine), almost as if they weren't really illusiory. (Click on the image of Amma, above left, for a video documentary on Amma and her "hugging ministry.")

Labels: Religion, Society

Pentecost:
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 5:28 PM

What do we have when we have the Spirit? We have everything. This is no exaggeration.... All the treasures of God, hidden away in the depths of God from before the foundation of the world, become ours through the Spirit of Pentecost. At Pentecost, God gives us God Himself: What more can we ask?

... God put His Spirit in us when we were dead in transgressions, so that we fulfill the righteous requirement of the law, so that Eden is restored.

... The Spirit makes war against the flesh, as the flesh wars against the Spirit, but the Spirit will be the victor. It’s only through the Spirit that we can trample Satan underfoot. By Him, we put on the armor of God to fight principalities and powers and wickedness in high places.

... What do we have when we have the seven Spirits of God? We have creative wisdom, power, effective speech. And more.

... If this is what the Spirit gives and brings, nothing can be more important than to keep the Spirit of Pentecost.

So: Don’t grieve or quench the Spirit. Don’t lie to the Spirit. Don’t test the Spirit. Don’t insult the Spirit of grace. Don’t let your anger and bitterness, your grumbling and complaining, your hardness and your unforgivingness, drive the Spirit from you. Don’t fall short of the seven Spirits of God. If we lose the Spirit, we have lost everything.

Instead: Follow the Spirit. Walk in the rhythm of the Spirit. Sing in the Spirit. Pray with the Spirit. Be filled with the Spirit. Sow to the Spirit. Reap from the Spirit. Preserve the unity of the Spirit. Be borne by the Spirit. Cling to the Spirit. Breathe in the Spirit, and breathe Him out. Drench yourself in the Spirit. Be anointed with the Spirit. Drink the Spirit, and be drunk by Him.

The Spirit is the Pentecostal Gift of God, and if you have the seven Spirits of God, you have everything. So: In all your getting, get the Spirit, keep Him, and trust Him to keep you.

"Pentecost Homily" (Leithart.com, posted May 9, 2008).

[Hat tip to Dr. E.E.]

Labels: Liturgical calendar

Robert Gagnon: Why sexual orientation is not akin to race or sex
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 4:18 PM

You may have heard about the case of Ms. Crystal Dixon, the African American Associate Vice President of Human Resources at the University of Toledo, who was suspended for rejecting a comparison between homosexuality on the one hand and being black or handicapped on the other. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary as written a remarkable "Open Letter" to the University President challenging his administration's suspension of Ms. Dixon. It begins like this:

May 6, 2008

President Lloyd Jacobs
University of Toledo

Dear President Jacobs,

Your suspension of Ms. Crystal Dixon, Associate Vice President of Human Resources at the University of Toledo, for rejecting a comparison between homosexuality on the one hand and being black or handicapped on the other hand constitutes, in my view, a gross injustice and an expression of the very intolerance that you claim to abhor. The disciplinary action is also predicated on a lack of knowledge and thus prejudice. I have read of your action first at worldnetdaily.com, then the full exchange at www.toledofreepress.com (the editor’s editorial, Ms. Dixon’s response, your response, and finally the news of the suspension).

Ms. Dixon is absolutely right that sexual orientation is not akin to race or sex. Unlike a homosexual orientation, race and sex are 100% congenitally predetermined, cannot be fundamentally changed in their essence by cultural influences, and are not a primary or direct desire for behavior that is incompatible with embodied structures.

Of course, generally people don't wake up one morning and say, "I think I'll be a homosexual." Yet that is different from arguing that homosexual development is always and only something "given" like race and sex. Even the Kinsey Institute has acknowledged that nine out of ten persons with same-sex attractions will experience at least one shift on the Kinsey spectrum from 0 to 6 during their life; six out of ten will experience two or more shifts. The intensity of impulses, and sometimes even their direction, can and often do change over time. Like various forms of sexual impulses, the degree to which a homosexual "orientation" becomes fixed in an individual's brain and the intensity with which it is experienced, at least in part and for some, can be affected by choices regarding fantasy life, responses to social and environmental factors in childhood and adolescence, the degree to which one acts on impulses, and the degree of self-motivation for change.

Even Edward Stein, a scholar of law and philosophy who is strongly supportive of homosexual unions, has challenged deterministic models of homosexual development. He posits instead a nondeterministic model that incorporates a significant role for choice—often blind, incremental, and indirect but choice nonetheless (The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation [New York: Oxford University Press, 1999]). This is what the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review had to say about Stein's book: "A landmark book…. It so pulls the rug out from under biological arguments for lesbian and gay rights that anyone from now on who appeals to such arguments will have to answer to Edward Stein's objections" (from back cover).

Read the rest of this thoroughgoing indictment, not only of the suspension of

Ms. Dixon, but the smoke-and-mirrors chicanery of contemporary pro-gay "scholarship." If ever the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force had reason to fear complete exposure of this sort of "scholarship," it is from Professor Gagnon. The man is brilliant.

Book recommendation: Professor Gagnon book below is one I am familiar with and is probably the best analysis of the biblical data concerning homosexuality you will find in print:

Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001).

Labels: Homosexualism

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Questioning Snopes: What does this 1895 Eighth Grade exam show?
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 9:10 PM

This is one time I may disagree with Snopes. Snopes examines and evaluates "urban legends" of the kind that make their way around the cyberspace community via emails. One of these messages -- "1895 Exam" (Snopes, July 9, 2007) -- begins like this:

Could you have passed the Eight Grade in 1895? Probably not ... take a look:

This is the eight-grade final exam from 1895 from Salina, KS. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina , and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

* * * * * * * * * *
8th Grade Final Exam: Salina , KS - 1895

Grammar (Time, one hour)

1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.

2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.

3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph.

4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of 'lie,''play,' and 'run.'

5. Define case; illustrate each case.

6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.

7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

The exam continues with portions devoted to Arithmetic, U.S. History, Orthography, and Geography, with equally daunting questions. (Do people even know what "Orthography" means these days?)

Now the truly interesting thing about the story, of course, is precisely how daunting the questions are and what this may suggest about the status of education in our own day. In fact, Snopes' own bibliography includes Dan K. Thomson's "A Little Education Once Was a Lot," Scripps Howard News Service (19 June 2001), in which, after reviewing such a story, Thomson says:

The object of this exercise was only to reveal what many of us have known for some time. The dumbing down of American public education over the past 100 years has been substantial, particularly in the last 50 years. When Great-grandma says she only had an eighth-grade education, don't smirk.

What I find peculiar, though, is Snopes' response to the story. Usually Snopes examines the sources of an "urban legend" to see whether it is authentic, and then offers a verdict: "true," "false," or else it sorts out the parts that are true from those that are false. But what Snopes did with this story was not to authenticate its credentials -- to determine whether the exam was historically authentic or not. In fact, it didn't really question its authenticity or even seem interested in that question. Instead, what Snopes did was to formulate the question it posed for its own investigation, as well as its verdict, as follows:

Claim: An 1895 graduation examination for public school students demonstrates a shocking decline in educational standards.

Status: False.

In other words, Snopes is interested in trying to rebut the import of Thomson's claim, and the obvious suggestion of the published exam itself, that our public education today is in any way deficient when compared to that of the 19th century. The Snopes article goes on at considerable lengths to argue why the test should not be taken as betokening a decline in American public education. For one thing, Snopes argues, the exam requires no knowledge of the arts, literature, algebra, trigonometry, foreign languages, or world history. If today's students or even adults "can't regurgitate all the same facts as their 1895 counterparts," says Snopes, "it's because the types of knowledge we consider to be important have changed a great deal in the last century, not necessarily because today's students have sub-standard educations."

I do not deny that what our society considers important today has changed since the 1800s. Yet I think many of these changes have not been necessarily for the better. I do not have in mind so much the topical expansion of education to include many things about such subjects as world history and science that were virtually unknown in 1895 in the U.S. agricultural belt where Salina, KS, is located -- such as the difference between Shiite and Suni Muslims and the virtues of safe sex. Rather, what I have in mind is a sea change in attitudes about the value of substantive and rigorous learning which leave so many graduating from high school and even college today without knowing the most fundamental facts necessary to excelling in a fully human life. Further, students may even graduate without knowing the most basic cultural data considered standard fare by most educators today (See, e.g., our post about the "Culture Quiz" [Musings, June 30, 2006] administered at Lenoir-Rhyne College -- soon to be "University".) I think Snopes missed something on this one.

Labels: Education

Speaking of liturgical abominations ...
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 8:35 AM

To borrow a phrase from the Simpsons: "Well, I for one welcome our new White Robed Puppet Overlords."

You can't make this stuff up. It makes the Washington Nationals Mass seem almost liturgically tolerable by comparison. Just imagine if Call to Action had been running the show. Pope Benedict might have had put the entire country under an interdict.

Pour yourself a stiff drink, sit down, and watch the video: "Master of Muppets -- Call to Action Liturgy."

Amy Wellborn, "Call to ... Puppery?" (Charlotte was both, May 6, 2008) comments:

Playing “spot the liturgical abuse” is not the point. Nor is snarking at the average age of the participants. (Just heading off the predictable commentary at the pass here. Let’s go deeper.)

What I am just not grasping, despite my pretty strong powers of empathy, is the gestalt at work here.

Why does everyone think the giant liturgical puppets are so awesome?

This has got to be one of the oddest things I’ve ever seen.

My own observations are twofold:

First, notice that virtually all the Call to Action crowd "assisting at this Mass" (I use the expression loosely) are old people -- goofy geezers at that. There is very little about any of this that the younger generations would consider 'hip'. It's just goofy old people acting out their recrudescent nostalgic fantasies from the 'revolutionary' 1960s. If you want to find young families excited about assisting at Mass, you'll find many more at a Tridentine liturgy than at anything like this.

Second, as bizarre as this Mass may be, my own perception (based on my own experiences over the last two decades) is that most AmChurch parishes would find participating in such a Mass less alien than assisting at a Tridentine Mass. And that, if true, tells us more than we ever needed to know about where the last 45 years have brought us liturgically. Thank God for Pope Benedict VI.

Of related interest:

"The King of Glory" (Adventures in liturgical dance).

Labels: Latin Mass, Liturgical abuse, Liturgy

Food for thought
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 8:32 AM

Msgr. Cormac Burke, an Irish Opus Dei priest, was appointed by JPII to the Roman Rota. Very interesting articles on his website: anthropology, marriage, etc.

Labels: Culture, Opus Dei

Fr. Luigi Villa's Paolo VI beato? now in English
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 8:06 AM

A reader just sent me the following bit about the recent translation of a traditionalist Italian book. Here's the background: Alice von Hildebrand gave an interview to Latin Mass magazine in 2001. The interview can be found at "The Church in Crisis -- And Scenarios for a Solution" (Scripture and Catholic Tradition, April 13, 2006). In that interview Von Hildebrand referred to a book by Fr. Luigi Villa, Paolo VI beato? (Brescia: Editrice Civilta, 1998; 2nd ed. 2001). That book is now translated thanks to an Italo-Aussie: Father Luigi Villa, "Paul VI ... beatified?." See also: "Paulo Sesto, Beato? Available in English" (Athanasius Contra Mundum).

[Hat tip to A.S.]

Labels: Paul VI, Traditionalism, Vatican II

Heineken offers U.S. market new Beer Tender
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 8:01 AM

Nice. "Heineken rolls out Beer Tender in U.S." (Realbeer.com, March 11, 2008)

Labels: Beer

Friday, May 09, 2008

Beer
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 10:56 PM

Recommended sites, both by David Palm:

Catholic Beer Review (De Gustibus non est Disputandum) -- for all your beer needs: Hops? Grow 'em! Russian Imperial Stout? Try it! Old Rasputin? Beware the jinx. Stout floats? You'll love 'em!
The Reluctant Traditionalist (Reflections on Life, Land, and Traditional Catholicism) -- Rogationtide. The Traditional Latin Mass and the Family. St. Paul contra Sola Scriptura. Maple Syrup Time ... and more.

Labels: Blog

Thursday, May 08, 2008

The Bible at your fingertips ...
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 11:04 PM

You can now read the Bible at the click of a button..... Check out this innovative Bible research tool from BibleGateway.com (scroll down, and you'll see). Very nice.

Something similar exists for the Douay-Rheims Bible at DRBO.ORG.

Labels: Bible, Resources

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Cardinal Kasper gets downright Ratzingerian
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 11:22 PM

Damian Thompson, "Rome tells Anglicans: it's time to decide if you are Protestants or Catholics" (Holy Smoke, Telegraph, May 6, 2008), writes:

The Vatican said last night that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient sacramental Churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told the Catholic Herald that the Anglican Communion must “clarify its identity” and stop hovering between the Catholic and Protestant traditions.

... The cardinal [Kasper] is clearly hoping for some sort of breakthrough – or break-up? – at this summer's Lambeth Conference, which already promises to be a spectacular disaster. But I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that his views represent those of Pope Benedict.

[Hat tip to C.B. for the "Ratzingerian" notion as well as for the link]

Labels: Ecumenism, Kasper

"Pope wants the Latin Mass everywhere"
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 11:02 PM

Damian Thompson, in his slightly cheeky 'Holy Smoke' column in the Telegraph (UK), writes: "Bishops Hollis and Conry, if you have ever thought of jumping ship to the C of E, now might a good time to do so. According to a senior Vatican cardinal, Pope Benedict wants the old Latin Mass celebrated in parishes even where the people have not asked for it." Thompson's article, entitled "Pope wants the Latin Mass everywhere" (Telegraph, May 5, 2008), sports a photo of a priest in Tridentine vestments celebrating the Mass ad orientem in a slightly superman-esque pose, beneath which one reads in bold: "English bishops take note: this is what the Mass looks like." Thompson then continues:

Well! That will certainly drive a horse and cart through the English bishops’ shameful attempts to ignore Summorum Pontificum, last year’s papal letter removing their power to block the 1962 (Tridentine) Missal.

According to the Catholic News Agency, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, let the cat out of the bag in an interview for a DVD instructing priests on how to celebrate the Extraordinary Form.

Here’s the money quote: “The cardinal said that parishes and priests should make available the Extraordinary Form so that ‘everyone may have access to this treasure of the ancient liturgy of the Church’. He also stressed that, ‘even if it is not specifically asked for, or requested’ it should be provided. Interestingly, he added that the Pope wants this Mass to become normal in parishes, so that ‘young communities can also become familiar with this rite’.”

Thompson suggests, however, that the Pope may need to make one additional provision to realize his goal: "New bishops. Lots of them. And fast."

[Hat tip to A.S.]

Labels: Latin Mass, Liturgy, Pope Benedict XVI

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Are annulments simply "Catholic divorce"? -- A canon lawyer responds
Posted by Pertinacious Papist at 11:31 PM

Some months ago, in one of our combox discussions, the question posed in the title of this post was raised in a fairly heated discussion between several readers. The suggestion was made that a post could be devoted to the subject of how annulments are understood in the Catholic Church. With this in mind, I asked a colleague of mine who is a noted canon lawyer and author of Annulments And The Catholic Church: Straight Answers To Tough Questions, whether he had any online articles that address the issue, which I could post for discussion in this venue. He did. Hence, with his permission, I offer you the following article which appeared in its original version in Catholic Family (May-June 1998) and is also available online at CanonLaw.info:

Catechetical Issues Related to Annulments

by Dr. Edward N. Peters
Catechists who prepare adults for entrance into the Church need a good understanding of annulments (technically: “declarations of matrimonial nullity”) for at least two reasons. First, virtually all adults seeking to enter the Church have heard of annulments, but most of them labor under one or more serious misperceptions about the process and its purposes. In particular, because of the great increase in the number of annulments being declared by tribunals, questions might be raised about the Church’s commitment to permanent marriage. It is important, therefore, to correct any misunderstandings about annulments before they result in confusion about Catholic teaching on sacramental marriage.

Second, many adults considering conversion to the Catholic Faith are already divorced and remarried outside the Church. Among Catholics, such status, although it no longer results in their excommunication, is considered objectively gravely sinful and prevents their participation in the Eucharist. Similarly, it would be self-defeating to welcome converts into the Church, only to then immediately tell them that, because they are remarried after a civil divorce, they cannot take Communion in the Church they just entered. Thus the matrimonial status of divorced-and-remarried candidates must be assessed before their entering the Church.

In this article we will look at some of the more common issues encountered by catechists regarding annulments. Keeping in mind that most adults seeking to enter full communion with the Church are already validly baptized, we will focus on questions related to marriage cases of the baptized. Even so, however, we must still limit this discussion to those marriage cases which are not complicated by unusual factors such as non-consummation of the marriage or presumed death of a spouse.

What is an Annulment?

The most common misperception among potential converts regarding annulments is that a declaration of matrimonial nullity is simply a Catholic divorce. Obviously, and without denying certain similarities which do exist between divorce and annulments, catechists need to draw clearly the crucial differences between the two. Briefly, a divorce, at least as far as civil law is concerned, ends a marriage which was in existence. In contrast, an annulment declares that what appeared to be a marriage was, from a ecclesiastical point of view, never a marriage in the first place.

The Catholic Church, relying on the teachings of Christ, holds that the marriages of the baptized last until death (Canon 1056). The Church, therefore, unlike the state, does not regard the existence of a civil divorce as sufficient to allow a divorced person to marry again during the lifetime of the first spouse. In order to enter what can be recognized by the Church as a marriage, a divorced person must demonstrate the invalidity of the earlier marriage. The process whereby the possible invalidity of the earlier marriage is examined is the annulment process. Annulment cases can only be heard by ecclesiastical authorities, usually a diocesan tribunal, and are conducted in accord with Church law (Canon 1671).

Broadly speaking, every annulment case comes down to three (or six, if you prefer) questions (Canon 1057): did each of the parties have what canon law considers to be capacity for marriage at the time of the wedding?; did each of the parties express consent to marriage as the Church proclaims it?; and finally, did each of the parties observe whatever level of form might have been required for marriage at the time? — although in non-Catholic weddings, this requirement is usually very easily satisfied and hence rarely serves as a basis for nullity.

Now, canon law presumes that both parties had capacity for marriage at the time of the wedding and it presumes that both parties expressed consent to true marriage (Canons 1058, 1060, & 1101). But, if it can be proven that either or both parties lacked capacity for marriage or that either or both parties did not consent to marriage as the Church teaches it, then such a marriage can be declared ecclesiastically null.

Sometimes a divorced person can demonstrate that the failed marriage was also null by ecclesiastical standards; sometimes not. The mere fact, however, that there has been a sharp rise in the number of broken marriages which have been declared canonically null does not mean that annulments can be obtained simply by doing the paperwork correctly. Each marriage nullity case is heard separately and on its own merits, and the number of rejected annulment petitions is undoubtedly higher than most people believe.

The Catechist’s Role

Catechists should try to make clear that annulments are regarded by the Church as exercises in justice, not charity. In other words, annulments are declared when, and only when, the parties meet the objective canonical requirements for nullity.

Annulments are not given out because tribunal judges feel sorry for certain people (even if such people are clearly sympathetic characters), nor are an annulment petitions rejected because tribunal officials suspect (even if accurately) bad-will on the part of one or both parties. Admittedly, most of the parties involved in annulment cases are pleased when nullity petitions are approved because it will make possible (for both parties) a marriage in the Church. But the fact that most people want their nullity petitions approved does not mean that approval of the petition is the correct result. The tribunal process has not necessarily failed when an annulment petition is denied; the process has not succeeded just because a nullity petition is approved. Annulments are declared when the requirements of canon law are met. They are declined when the requirements of canon law are not met.

Converts, Marriage, and Annulments

It is not unusual for potential converts to the Faith, upon learning that their marriage history might impede their entrance into the Catholic Church, to wonder why the Church is even interested in their earlier marriage(s) in the first place. They might feel that they are unfairly being held to standards that did not apply to them at earlier times in their lives. A couple of observations are in order here.

On the one hand, for example, the requirements of canonical form (what Catholics refer to as “getting married in the Church” according to Canon 1108) are not applied to Protestants. While the violation of canonical form can (and, some 15,000 times a year, does) result in the nullity of the marriages of Catholics, Protestants need not comply with Catholic laws on canonical form and in that regard they are not being held to that Catholic standard for marriage. Of course, because they are not bound by canonical form, Protestants cannot use the fact that they were married, say, in front of a civil magistrate, as proof of the invalidity of their marriage.

On the other hand, some aspects of canon law on marriage are applied to Protestants. To take an obvious example, biological brothers and sisters are canonically incapable of marrying each other, regardless of their religious affiliation (Canon 1091). Such attempts at marriage would be invalid under canon law for Catholics and Protestants alike. Notice, however, that what is at issue in a case like this is not simply a matter of canon law, but one of Divine Law, to which the Church believes all baptized persons are bound. Indeed, when looked at carefully, nearly all of the “Catholic” marriage requirements which are applied to Protestants will be seen to be based on natural or Divine Law.

There are, nevertheless, some significant areas in which Catholic teaching on marriage is applied to Protestants, despite the interdenominational differences which exist on certain points. Let us look at just one, namely, intentions regarding permanence in marriage.

All major Protestant denominations discourage divorce, some of them quite strongly. But none of them currently takes the position of the Catholic magisterium on divorce, to wit, that remarriage is impossible during the lifetime of one’s former spouse. Now, prescinding from whether our cradle Catholics have been adequately educated on this point, it is an accepted part of canonical jurisprudence that anyone who deliberately excludes the intention of remaining in a lifelong marriage attempts marriage invalidly. Therefore, it is possible that the marriage of a Protestant which has ended in divorce can also be declared canonically null based on the fact that the Protestant rejected what the Catholic Church considers to be a true marriage. How? By it being proved that at the time of the wedding the Protestant, quite understandably perhaps, rejected a major facet of the Church’s teaching on marriage (Canons 1056 & 1101). Obviously, great care is taken in hearing nullity cases on these or similar grounds and, as noted above, canon law presumes that all persons consenting to marriage consent to marriage as the Church understands and proclaims it. But such presumptions can be, and sometimes are, overturned in particular cases, resulting in a declaration of matrimonial nullity.

As most catechists know, many people seeking admission to the Church were first attracted to the Church by the strong stand she has taken in defense of innocent human life, her opposition to divorce, and her advocacy of marriage and family life values. I hope the above observations will help catechi