Thanks For Your Responses

As I supposed it would, my latest post "Preaching vs Partisanship" elicited a number of responses. 

I am humbled by the overwhelming words of encouragement and agreement which many of you were kind enough to express.  I understood there would be readers who would disagree with my position.  So be it.

As the title of the blog suggests, the posts which are published here address Catholicism in the current moment.  My intent is to observe and reflect upon the Church as it encounters the world and the culture of the day.  

As modern events are in themselves controversial, so the response of the Church to those events may and must in some cases be controversial.  

The critiques offered here are not of the Church in Her Nature as the visible means of salvation entrusted to us by Christ Himself.  Rather,  my observations and judgments are of the Church's actions and choices as it fulfills its Sacred Mission to teach, sanctify and govern God's People in the way of faith.

And so, we must remember the wisdom imparted to us by the Early Fathers of the Church that, while the Church is the perfect society of the faithful joined to their Leader and Shepherd, Christ Jesus, she is composed of imperfect people, sinners all who seek the Merciful Grace of the Lord.

At times, this perfect society of imperfect people is the light which permeates the darkness of sin.  At other times, this perfect society of imperfect people puts that light under a bushel basket and obscures the light of the Gospel.

If we are to truly love our Church, we must do so realistically and intelligently, not just emotionally.  We must accept the beauty of the Church but be keenly aware that this beauty has its blemishes as well.

The wonder of it all is that we have the power of Christ's Grace to help the Church, the perfect society of imperfect people, to cleanse the blemishes away with the truth as God gives us the ability to discern it through His Holy Word and with the sustenance of the Sacraments.

I would ask those of you who have been so kind and encouraging as well as those who have disagreed and objected to some posts to note the method I utilize as I offer my reflections.  

Employing what the Church herself has referred to as the "theological method", my point of reference in observation and commentary is this:  the teachings of Sacred Scripture, the pronouncements and prescriptions of the Councils and other teachings of the Church's Magisterium, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the precepts of Canon Law and, finally, the thoughts and reflections of recognized contemporary theologians and pastors.

With this as my starting point, I believe I have a compass which will guide me as I offer my thoughts, born from what I hope is fruitful prayer and meditation.

Thanks again to all of you for your kind remarks and for the encouragement to continue with these posts.

God bless us all as we strive to make His Wisdom and His Will the center of our lives.

Preaching vs Partisanship

In an article which appeared in the September 8th edition of the Catholic Standard (the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC), the Archbishop, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, emphasized the distinct roles between the clergy and the laity in the political process.  His comments are especially newsworthy and relevant during this Presidential election year.

The Cardinal writes:  “Each year in which we move toward a national election, I remind my brother priests that we are in the pulpit as proclaimers of the Gospel, not as political leaders. No one elected us as their political representative and there might be serious reason to believe they probably would not.”

He states further:  “We are there to present the Word of God.  Our listeners, who come from differing political parties and have diverse ideological perspectives, have a right to hear the Gospel and the Church’s teaching on faith and morals proclaimed with fidelity, consistently and courageously and not packaged in someone’s personal, partisan political views.”

Pastors, Cardinal Wuerl explained, have “the very demanding and challenging role of teaching by word and example the principles of our faith.  He insists that it is the task of the clergy “to preach and persuade,” and most of all, to teach, in order to help lay Catholics reflect their faith in their everyday lives. 

“The clergy’s task of teaching and helping to form the consciences of the laity, as envisioned by the Council and subsequent popes, requires patience in dealing with diverse opinions, fidelity in presenting the fullness of Church teaching and perseverance in continuing to teach, to teach and to teach,” the Cardinal wrote.

He explained further that sometimes Pastors must speak out and address “the moral and human dimensions of public issues and call for the protection of the weak and the pursuit of the common good.”  But the situations, the Cardinal stated,  “cannot substitute for the leadership of lay men and women. Pastors need to encourage, inform and assist lay women and men in their duty to bring the values of our faith into civic and public life.”

Overall, people of good faith and good will would agree with the statements and sentiments of His Eminence.  

The problem arises, however, when the political policies and positions of a certain candidate or Party are so antithetical to the Gospel values that the preaching of the Gospel appears to be a political endorsement of that candidate’s opposition.

Let me be more specific, if I may, even at the risk of offending some readers.

There is no question that life is a right which human beings derive from their very nature as creatures of God and not a right bestowed upon them by the State.  The right to life is an inalienable right of all human beings.  

Yet, there has been no stronger opponent of this fundamental Gospel teaching than the Democratic Party and the majority of candidates which the Party puts forward and supports for public office.

The language and rhetoric of the Democratic Party in defense of abortion and so-called women’s rights to choose to allow birth or abort their children has been clear and consistent ever since the Supreme Court’s decision to allow abortion practically on-demand in this country.

Abortion and the right to choose are so identified with national Democratic platforms and candidates that an attack upon the policy is instantly seen to be an attack upon its adherents and an endorsement of their political opponents.

This is but one of many examples of Gospel values running headlong into political policies and the election process.  

Pastors, consequently, find themselves placed between two opposing forces.  To boldly proclaim the Gospel (as Cardinal Wuerl asserts their role to be) and to risk appearing partisan (which His Eminence decries).  What are the clergy to do?

Here’s what the clergy have opted to do for the past several decades:  be silent.  

If they speak of the right to life, if they object to transgender issues, if they assail corruption and the abuse of political power as moral evils, they risk the ire of certain members of their congregation who will complain to their religious superiors.  In almost every case, the religious superiors will admonish not the complainers, but the Pastors and clergymen who have been bold in proclaiming, not a partisan issue, but a moral precept.

Finding themselves trapped between an irate parishioner and the Bishop in the same moment, most Pastors have chosen to remain silent and let others in authority speak for them.  Of course, the problem is these “others in authority” are so far removed from the immediate impact which a local Pastor has upon his parish that their voices are never heard and the influence of their statements and teachings are negligible.  

Catholic Bishops seemingly cower before political power.  “We must be careful to respect IRS regulations regarding political speech,” they warn.  “We must honor the political diversity of the faithful,” they insist.  

True, but must we not also be fearless in confronting moral evil and those who advance it!

Catholic Bishops have succeeded in allowing the Catholic faithful to become political cripples, mute witnesses to the undoing of the moral underpinnings of this country and the evangelical counsels upon which its political institutions were founded.

If the Democratic Party chooses to be the political voice of abortion rights, those policies should rightfully be attacked as foreign to the Gospel of Life and its adherents be singled out as advocates of immoral principles and practices.   It should be understood that the Pastor or clergyman who does so is not endorsing the opposition but proclaiming the consequences which moral teachings must have upon our political lives.

Cardinal Wuerl, in his admirable attempt to walk a thin line between preaching and partisanship, encourages nothing but silence from the clergy entrusted to his supervision and care.  

The proof is the fact that the Catholic Church in America has no political status or stature.  To that effect, the Catholic Church has been useless in advancing and supporting the moral underpinnings of our civilized society.

I oppose Hilary Clinton and the Democratic Party directly, because I oppose practically everything she and the Party advocate as moral evils.  If that is seen to be an endorsement of the Donald Trump and the Republican Party, so be it.

If someone is politically offended by condemning such evils so closely identified with Clinton and her Party, so be it.  If the Bishop is upset with such statements, so be it.

It’s about time that Pastors and clergy recollect that their first allegiance is to Christ Jesus and His Gospel.

Bishops want to remind their clergy that they should be loyal to their Bishops.  True and good.

But, I would remind my brother-Priests and clergy that they will always be loyal to their Bishop if they are first and foremost faithful to Christ and His Gospel.

Where would we be now if such timidity had been manifested against Nazism or totalitarianism?  The very same Bishops who counsel the clergy to be "careful" are the same Bishops who laud the courage of Pope St. John Paul II in his bold political stand against Communism.  Frankly, I find their leadership sorely lacking in our Church and in our country.

Let us never be fearful in proclaiming what is right and just as God, in Christ, has given us the means to discern these good and noble virtues.

And so, these are my thoughts as we, thankfully and quickly, approach the day on which our citizens will collectively choose their political leaders for yet another Presidential Administration.  

May God bless us in our political decisions.  May God bless our beloved country always.

Church Teaching and Practice Regarding Exorcism

Halloween is right around the corner!  I wonder if it's not a sign of the times that this fantasy evening of ghosts and goblins is becoming even more popular than Christmas in the amount of attention paid and money spent in its celebration.  What is clear is that the religious significance of the moment (the eve before All Saints day) has been completely supplanted by images of the occult and paranormal.

In any case, I thought I would take the opportunity at this time to share a bit of the Church's teaching and practice regarding the ritual of exorcism and the circumstances under which these ancient rites may be legitimately performed and by whom.

A prestigious Vatican-recognized university, the Pontifical Academy "Regina Apostolorum", has established a program to assist both priests and seminarians in their understanding of exorcism.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that exorcism is the collection of rituals whereby the Church "asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ" that a particular person, place or object be protected against the power of Satan or be withdrawn from his influence.

Exorcisms can be of three types.

The first type is the "Baptismal Exorcism" of infants and catechumens in preparation for the Sacrament itself.

The second is the "Exorcism of Persons, Places and Things" which may be subject to diabolical infestation.  This ritual consists of a prayer and the Profession of Faith, the exorcist entreating the Lord to restrain the powers of evil on behalf of His People.

The third type is the "Excorcism of the Possessed", the ritual by which a demon is authoritatively abjured in the name of Christ Crucified.  Often accompanying this type of exorcism are certain symbolic actions.  These include breathing upon the person possessed (a sign of imparting the Holy Spirit upon them), the laying on of hands (again imparting the Grace of the Holy Spirit), blessings with Holy Water and the Sign of the Cross.

Official Church exorcisms of the possessed are quite rare.  Those which are performed, however, are usually administered by Priests who are special delegates of their local Bishops, and always after a very rigorous and diligent physical and psychological examination to eliminate any natural explanation for the symptoms being manifested.

In January of 1999, the Holy Father formally promulgated a new and precise liturgical form for the ritual of exorcism.  This replaces the previous rite established in 1614.  The Council Fathers of Vatican II had called for the revision which took over 30 years to accomplish.  The Rite of Exorcism was the last of the Vatican II rituals to be introduced.

Cardinal Jorge Estevez, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1999, stated that the rite was not changed greatly from the earlier form.  He added that, while there are "very few cases" in which the ritual is used, it always requires the approval and guidance of the local Bishop and the consent of the person suffering the diabolical possession.  Exorcism is necessary because the Devil is a reality and not a belief that a faithful Catholic may simply accept or reject.  The reality of the Devil and evil itself is an element of Catholic Faith and doctrine.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law prescribes that no one can legitimately perform an exorcism over the possessed without special and express permission of the local Bishop or his delegate(s) and that such permission is to be granted only to a Priest endowed with piety, knowledge, prudence and integrity of life.  (Canon 1172)

The rituals of exorcism confirm the victory of Jesus Christ over Satan and his minions.  These rites are part of the Tradition of Holy Mother Church which has consistently prayed that mankind will, through the Grace of the Lord Jesus, be freed from the wickedness and snares of the Devil.  By prayer and faith in Christ, may we always avoid any form of evil and endeavor to join more fully with God each moment of our lives.

Does God Answer Prayers For Healing

In my last two postings, I reflected upon the Church's teachings regarding end of life decisions and the new instructions issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding cremation and the funeral liturgy.

In one of the responses I received, the reader posed the following question:  "Does God answer prayers we offer for the healing of the sick and the dying?"

The answer to this question is clear and uncompromising:  "Yes, He does indeed!"

All around us there is evidence of healing in answer to the fervent prayers of some many who trust in the loving mercy of the Lord.  In my own life as well as during my years as a Parish Priest, I have seen so many lives which have been touched by the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

In the renewal of faith and liturgy of Vatican Council II, the healing influence of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick joyfully was rediscovered.  Prior to this time, this Sacrament was administered only to those on the very of death in order to prepare them for judgment after life.  It was commonly referred to as Extreme Unction  or "the Last Rites".  But today, the Church speaks of the Anointing of the Sick in the context of ongoing pastoral care for the ill and infirm as well as a source of hope and comfort for the dying.

The charismatic movement which briefly arose in the Church during and in the years following Vatican II gave rise to many prayers for the sick.  Healing services were celebrated and Masses offered for the sick and suffering.  Oftentimes, the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick was administered communally during these services.

Indeed, many have been touched by the healing power which flows from this Sacrament and from the many prayers and rituals.  Assuredly, not every prayer for healing is positively answered.  But let us reflect a moment about this.

It is true that not all those who are anointed or have Masses and prayers offered for their intentions are cured.  And, even though we know that Jesus Himself cured many who asked for healing, we also know we should not consider prayer as giving us a right of any kind to that for which we pray.  In imitation of the prayers of Christ Himself, we must admit that any sincere prayer contains , at least implicitly, a willingness to accept God Holy Will.  Likewise, we should remember that, even for those who may not experience a physical healing, there are many who speak of a spiritual rebirth, a sense of peacefulness and acceptance in the midst of the suffering.

For those who are healed of their infirmities, we must always be mindful that they will eventually pass from this life through the portal of human death.  We should remember that there is always a provisional aspect to healing and that earthly life remains fragile and fleeting for all of us.

Sickness and suffering are the legacies of a sinful humanity.  And yet, in a mysterious and wonderful way, sickness can be a journey of self-discovery and faith.  Certainly, illness humbles us all and reminds us of how dependent we are upon the goodness of God and others.  Truly, in the experience of many saints and countless souls, sickness and suffering have been the pathway by which they discovered the Lord and saved their souls.

Let us pray continuously for the sick asking always that the Lord grant them healing and consolation, disposing them to accept His Will and find the spiritual comfort and peace that only Christ Himself can give.

Church Teaching Regarding Cremation and the Catholic Funeral Rite

It is indeed curious that cremation remains such a confusing issue for Catholics.  I am afraid the issue will continue to be even in spite of the most recent statement regarding the Church’s teaching and practice relative to this subject.

Just yesterday, Tuesday October 25, 2016, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a new instruction on the burial of the dead and conservation of the ashes in cases of cremation.  The Holy Father approved these norms in March of this year.

In 1963, the Church formally rescinded its longstanding prohibition which forbade Catholics from choosing cremation.  The lifting of this ban would later be reflected in the 1983 Code of Canon Law which states:  “The Church earnestly recommends the pious custom of burying the bodies of the dead be observed; yet it does not, however, forbid cremation unless such has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.”

Early on in the history of Christianity, cremation was viewed as a pagan custom contrary to the Church’s belief in the resurrection of the body.  In our day, cremation continues to be forbidden by the Church, if the person choosing it does so as a denial of the resurrection and immortality of the soul.

Even though the Church permits cremation, it recommends that the body be cremated after the celebration of the Funeral Mass.  The Church’s ancient belief in the sacredness of human life and the resurrection of the body is at the heart of the desire to see to it that the funeral rituals are celebrated with the body present.

Still, the Church is aware that there are many circumstances and personal preferences which do not make it possible for the body to be present at the Funeral Mass.   In these cases, it is permissable for the Mass of Christian Burial to be celebrated with the cremains (ashes) present in the church.  Since it is the cremains and not the body of the deceased that are present, there are special norms which are to be observed in the celebration of the funeral liturgy.

Since 1963, certain practices seem to have been introduced in the way Catholics treat the cremains following the Funeral Mass.  This latest instruction appears to be the Church's answer to these unacceptable practices.

The Church insists that the cremains be treated with respect in the way they are handled and transported until their final disposition.   Apparently, there has been a growing trend of either keeping the ashes in the home of a family member or friend, dividing them among members of the family, or scattering of the ashes to the wind.  

This most recent instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explicitly forbids such practices.  

The instruction states:  “... the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence is not permitted. Only in grave and exceptional cases dependent on cultural conditions of a localized nature, may the Ordinary, in agreement with the Episcopal Conference or the Synod of Bishops of the Oriental Churches, concede permission for the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence. Nonetheless, the ashes may not be divided among various family members and due respect must be maintained regarding the circumstances of such a conservation.”  

I believe this part of the instruction will prove a bit problematic for the Church as Catholics subject to the discretion of Episcopal Conferences will be able to retain ashes in the home and still celebrate the Funeral Mass, while others under the jurisdiction of other Conferences will be denied the funeral liturgy for wanting to do the same thing.  

I 'm afraid the Church will appear to be acting arbitrarily at a time when individual members of the faithful are experiencing the sadness and trauma of the death of a loved one.  I cannot even imagine how the Church and its teachings will be honored and respected if those who mourn feel they are being treated harshly at such a painful moment.

Furthermore, the instruction states: “In order that every appearance of pantheism, naturalism or nihilism be avoided, it is not permitted to scatter the ashes of the faithful departed in the air, on land, at sea or in some other way, nor may they be preserved in mementos, pieces of jewelry or other objects. These courses of action cannot be legitimized by an appeal to the sanitary, social, or economic motives that may have occasioned the choice of cremation.”

The instruction concludes:  “When the deceased notoriously has requested cremation and the scattering of their ashes for reasons contrary to the Christian faith, a Christian funeral must be denied to that person according to the norms of the law."

In my opinion, the denial of the Funeral Mass for whatever reason to a grieving family is a horrible solution which the Congregation has decided to impose.  

Would it not have been preferable for the Congregation to suggest that, at an appropriate time following the Funeral Mass, the Pastor speak with the family and, gently and compassionately, urge them to memorialize their loved one by interring the ashes in a suitable grave?  Could this not be a teaching moment by which the Church could calmly and sympathetically instruct the family on the beauty of the dogma of the resurrection of the dead?

Certainly, the desire of the Church to affirm the teaching of the dignity of the human person and the resurrection of the body is to be commended.  However, I believe the solution the Congregation has imposed suggests and the penalty it recommends is both misguided and terribly insensitive.

One can only hope that the Episcopal Conferences around the world will see the error of this solution and choose a course of action which is sensitive to those Catholics who mourn the loss of their beloved dead.

Church Teaching and End of Life Decisions

I just received a question from a family who is keeping watch over a loved one dying of cancer.  After repeated efforts at chemo and radiation therapy, the doctors have told the patient and the family that there is nothing further which they can do for her therapeutically.  Each day, their loved one advances closer and closer to the moment of death.

As is the common practice today, the hospital and the doctors have presented the patient and the family with alternatives related to end of life decisions which may have to be made in the very near future.

A life ending and painful illness is indeed an emotionally stressful time for the person who is dying and for the family members who wish to provide support, comfort and care.

In considering the Church's moral teaching regarding such issues, we need always remember that the dying person has a grace-filled opportunity to join his or her suffering to those of Christ Himself for the salvation of the world.  Always and ever, the Christian person should consider and accept this redemptive value of suffering.

There come a moment, however, when the critically ill patient and the family may be faced with having to make a decision which will result in the death of their loved one.  The Catholic Church makes clear distinctions between morally obligatory and morally optional means of preserving life.

Generally, one is obliged to receive and provide care which is considered routine and common practice with regard to one's medical condition.  This is often referred to as the "ordinary means" of preserving life.

Again, generally speaking, medical treatments or procedures which offer little medical benefit or are excessively burdensome are not morally obligatory.  These are commonly referred to as the "extraordinary means" of preserving life.

There remains a presumption, however, in favor of providing food and water to dying patients.  Even so, there may come a time when even these are no longer obligatory since they will provide no benefit or become practically impossible to administer to the dying person.

In making such profound decisions about preserving life or hastening the moment of death, the patient and the family are to be provided with all the relevant information regarding one's medical condition as well as the predictable course of a treatment or procedure, its risks, its cost and any additional care requirements the treatment may necessitate.

When death is imminent, the patient or family in consultation with physicians, may morally refuse treatment which would only result in the painful prolongation of life.  In these moments, it is advisable for the patient and the family to seek the counsel of their Pastor or a chaplain to help them in making an informed and morally acceptable decision.

Advanced Medical Directives and Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care documents can be of tremendous benefit when the patient can no longer direct the course of his or her treatment.  The Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care is preferable to the Advanced Medical Directive since it leaves decisions to a person who knows what the patient would have wanted.  Hospitals and doctors give great weight to these documents.  Catholic hospitals should not enforce directives which are contrary to the moral teachings of the Church.

Certainly, the death of a loved one is the saddest and darkest of life's experiences.  Yet, as Christians, we see death not as an end, but as a change, a passage to a new life.  For those who die trusting in the loving mercy of God, that new life is in the eternal presence of Lord.  We rejoice in our Catholic Faith as we pray for the dying and their families who may be faced with such terrible and challenging end of life decisions.

What Does the Church Teach About Angels?

I am consistently amazed that, as secularized as our society has become, there is still a fascination which many people have about the existence of angels.  I am often asked about what the Church has to say about angels.  I recently received such a similar question.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Paragraph 328) declares that"the existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings which Sacred Scripture usually calls 'angels' is a truth of faith."

The Church bases this doctrine on the teachings of both the Bible and the unanimous and uniform magisterial pronouncements of the Church Fathers.

It was Pope St. Gregory the Great who provided the clearest testimony regarding angels.  He declared that, on the authority of Sacred Scripture, we can identify nine classes of angels.

In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas synthesizes and develops the Catholic doctrine regarding angels and teaches that the Nine Choirs of Angels are composed of the following:  Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels and Angels.  He classifies these nine choirs in a hierarchy of three groups, reflecting the nature of the Holy Trinity Itself.

Church doctrine further proclaims the existence of the Guardian Angels, the Angel of the Lord, the Living Beings as well as other titles and names by which the angels have been made known to us.

Church teaching not only encompasses the existence of the Holy Angels but speaks also of Satan or the Devil, once a Holy Angel whose pride corrupted his natural goodness causing him to become evil along with other angels who joined him in his fall from Grace.  These are the fallen angels or demons who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls through sinfulness and pride.

The Church's doctrine regarding angels is ancient and inspiring.  Let us pray that, through the intercession of the Holy Angels, we may humbly seek to do God's Will and, by so doing, denounce Satan and his company of devils who wage war against the goodness and love of the Lord.

Pope Francis: The Vast Majority of Marriages in the Church Are Invalid -- Part Three (Final)

Canon 1060 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states: "Marriage enjoys the favor of the law; therefore, in case of doubt, the validity of the marriage must be upheld until the contrary has been proven."

Once a marriage has been properly celebrated according to the canonical discipline of the Church, that marriage is presumed to be valid until such a time that a doubt raised against that presumption establishes in fact and in law that a marital contract or bond was never established. Proofs of invalidity are submitted tribunals in the form of evidence from the parties to the marriage themselves as well as from credible witnesses.  The evidence is collected and weighed against the presumption of validity.  In the judgment of the tribunal, if the evidence is sufficient to prove the claim of invalidity, the presumption is overturned and the marital bond is declared to have been null and void at the very time of consent.  If the evidence does not rise to this standard of proof, the tribunal declares that the presumption of validity still holds and neither party is free to attempt a future marriage.

The Church considers this presumption of the validity of properly celebrated marriages necessary to the Catholic community to protect the very dignity and stability of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony itself.  Moreover, the presumption protects couples who may either be overly scrupulous about the legitimacy and morality of their relationship or who have a rightful claim to both the privileges and responsibilities which arise from the marital contract.

But what is essential to note in this traditional Catholic teaching is that the validity of a marriage is fundamentally a presumption.  This means that the Church simply assumes that each party entered into marriage in such a way that a valid marital bond was established.  For this to have happened, each party must have (1) come forth freely and without any external duress of any kind; (2) not have been hindered by any impediment which would have prohibited the establishment of a valid bond of marriage; (3) been fully cognizant of the rights and obligations of the marital relationship; and (4) been fully capable of fulfilling these obligations in deed and in fact.

If there is evidence that any one of these four requirements was lacking at the time of consent, the presumption of validity cedes and the marriage is determined to have been null and void from the beginning.

When Pope Francis stated that "a great majority (later redacted to "a portion") of our sacramental marriages are null because couples do not enter them with a proper understanding and acceptance of permanence and commitment, it is clear that the Holy Father was attacking the very idea that marriages properly celebrated in today's Church do not enjoy this traditional presumption of validity.

Why?

Because, as we have seen, the Catholic culture has been so weakened in modern times that the very concept of marriage as a permanent, lifelong relationship of exclusivity and fidelity are no longer part of the average Catholic's experience or appreciation.

Our Catholic faithful do not live in a theological bubble which protects them from the day to day experience of broken marriages and families.  They are aware of and interrelate with family members, close friends, co-workers, indeed fellow parishioners who have suffered the heartache of divorce.  They suffer with those who have been traumatized by the effects of broken promises and unfulfilled responsibilities.  They rejoice when these same people are able to rebuild their lives and find happiness in a loving relationship with another.

Catholics live in a secular culture which does not socially stigmatize the divorced.  Catholic communities seek more and more to reach out to the separated, divorced and remarried.  

As we have seen, more than a third of all millenials claim no church affiliation.  Just 16% identify themselves as Catholic.   Clearly, the Catholic culture is not being conveyed to or being acquired by these succeeding generations of the Church. And yet, we have admitted that culture plays a central and essential role in the formation of a human being as a moral and religious person.  

How, then, can the Church presume that Catholics today, living in the increasingly secularized society in which divorce is so pervasive and easily accepted, are either full aware, accept and are capable of the commitment to permanence and fidelity which are essential to the establishment of a valid marital bond?

The simple answer is this:  they can't be presumed to bring to marriage a requisite understanding and a willingness to accept that the Sacrament of Marriage is an indissoluble relationship in which the parties bind themselves to a lifelong relationship of exclusivity and fidelity "no matter what may happen in their futures".  

In fact, a contrary presumption is more likely, namely, that couple today enter into marriage with a preconception that, if the relationship encounters significant or insurmountable problems, divorce remains a viable and likely option open to them.  The presence of such an understanding or belief would render any attempt at marriage null and void from the beginning.

I agree with Pope Francis' original declaration that "the great majority" of marriages celebrated in the Church should be presumed to be null and void because the parties to these marriages have been so inculcated into the secular values of society today that they are simply incapable of understanding and fulfilling the responsibilities and obligations of sacramental marriage.

After over a decade of experience as a tribunal judge myself, I must confess that I left this particular ministry wondering if the only valid marriages that existed were the ones which were never brought to the attention of a Church court.  

Though the very idea is shocking and disturbing, I believe that Pope Francis has put his finger on a truth, an inconvenient and uncomfortable truth.  The Church has lost its influence upon modern society and culture which, in turn, are weakened by the absence of the Church's vision and understanding of the dignity and beauty of Holy Matrimony.

What will it take to restore the presence and influence of a Catholic culture on modern society?  Certainly, the answer to this question will be constitute both the mission and the labor of the Church for generations yet to be born. 

May the Holy Spirit inspire future Popes and bishops, as well as future generations of the Catholic faithful to both proclaim and live according the truths imparted to the Church by Christ Himself and nourished by His Grace.

Pope Francis: The Vast Majority of Marriages in the Church Are Invalid -- Part Two

In Part One of this post, it was demonstrated clearly that, for a culture or society to endure, each succeeding generation must be initiated into its common values and tenets.  If the culture is not conveyed to and acquired by succeeding generations, it will collapse or be conquered.  Moreover, individual members or groups  may become dysfunctional, and perhaps even be enslaved by a counter or contradictory culture.

With this truth in mind, let us now examine the findings of recent studies which give us insight into the present state of the Church in the United States today and much of the civilized world today.

In a survey of adults conducted in English and Spanish between June and September, 2014, the Pew Forum found that the total number of Catholics in the United States dropped by 3 million since the previous study it conducted in 2007.  Catholics in the United States now comprise approximately 20 percent - or just one-fifth - of the total population.

Even more troubling, however, is the fact that, 
for every one Catholic convert, more than six Catholics leave the church.  The Church loses more members than it gains at a higher rate than any other denomination, with nearly 13 percent of all Americans describing themselves as “former Catholics.”

Overall, the share of Christians in the United States dropped to an all-time low of just under 71 percent, down about 7 percentage points from the 2007 study.


The big winner in terms of growing numbers appears to be the unaffiliated, or the so-called “nones,” shooting up to about 23 percent of the total population from the prior seven year period. 

There are 56 million adults who admit that they do not belong to any faith tradition.  This group outnumbers both Catholics and mainline Protestants.  Only Evangelical Christians comprise a larger share of the population.

And if this rate of decline of the Catholic population in America is troubling, Catholicism in Europe and other civilized countries around the world is in crisis with numbers of persons who admit affiliation with the Church only in single digits.

Worldwide, more than a third of all millennials - those born between 1981 and 1996 - claim no church affiliation, and just 16 percent identify themselves as Catholic.  Yet, this is precisely the group of individuals who comprise the "succeeding generations" of the Church. 

Clearly, the ability of the Church to have a significant influence and impact upon society in the future has been severely diminished.  

Additional studies indicate that these negative trends have had a significant affect upon rates of divorce.

“Although the Catholic ‘divorce rate’ is lower than the U.S. average, it is still a daunting figure,” said the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University in a study conducted in 2014.  

The research group explained that divorce among Catholics represents more than 11 million individuals.

The report seemingly touts the fact that,  “Catholics stand out, with only 28% of the ever-married having divorced at some point,” compared to more than 40% of those with no religious affiliation, 39% of Protestants and 35% of those of another religious faith."  And yet, the same CARA study found that less than 8% of weddings among American Catholics took place in the Church.

In Europe, the numbers are even more staggering with less than 2% of weddings among Catholics taking place in Church and the rate of divorce among Catholics ranging from 35% to 45%.

Clearly, the Catholic culture is not being conveyed to or being acquired by succeeding generations in the civilized countries of the world.  

But what of those who do retain and admit affiliation with the Church?  How does the lessening of the Catholic culture affect them in their ability to contract a valid marriage even as they seek to marry according to the teachings and discipline of the Church.

In the next and final part of this post, we shall consider this question in greater detail.

Pope Francis: The Vast Majority of Marriages in the Church Are Invalid -- Part One

According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, marriage is presumed valid (a true marriage) until it is proven otherwise in the Church's court of law by way of a decree of nullity declared by a properly constituted ecclesiastical tribunal. (Canon 1060).

Once a marriage has taken place, neither party may remarry in the Catholic Church, unless one party dies or the marriage is declared to have been null and void from the beginning. Otherwise, a second marriage is considered to be invalid.

Catholics living in invalid marriages are not permitted to receive Holy Communion (Canon 915).

This traditional teaching and canonical discipline was reaffirmed by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts on June 24, 2000.

Yet on June 16, 2016, as he addressed the Diocese of Rome's Pastoral Congress, Pope Francis stated, during unscripted comments in answer to questions from the audience, that "the great majority our our sacramental marriages are null" because couples do not enter into them with a proper understanding and acceptance of permanence and commitment.

The very next day (June 17), the Vatican released an official transcript of the exchange which redacted the Pope's statement to say that "a portion of our sacramental marriages are null".  In the Vatican blog "Il sismografo", Father Frederico Lombardi explained that the change was a revision which Pope Francis himself had approved for publication.

Still, Pope Francis seems to have thrown a wrench into the traditional understanding of the Church regarding the Sacrament of Marriage.

And, while many still were shocked by the redacted version of the Pope's comments, I believe his actual response the day before was more accurate and reflects the true situation regarding sacramental marriage in the Church today.

 There seems to be sufficient evidence which affirms that the overwhelming majority of sacramental marriages celebrated in the Church today are factually null and void from the beginning.

Permit me to offer the following observations and facts which I believe support and defend this proposition.

Let us first consider the role which culture plays in the formation of a human being as a moral and religious person.  Culture is understood to be “common way of life” of a given society, composed foremost by the intellectual and spiritual dimension which in turn defines the formal and material interactions by which members of society interact with each other.

Culture can further be understood as a standard of learning, a patrimony of history and accomplishment, established by the collective labor of the members over successive generations.

Consequently, for a culture or society to endure, each succeeding generation must be initiated into "the common way of life".  If the culture is not conveyed to and acquired by succeeding generations, it will collapse or be conquered.  Moreover, individual members or groups  may become dysfunctional, and perhaps even be enslaved by a counter or contradictory culture.

The process by which the history, tradition, belief and practice is passed from one cultural generation to the next is known as enculturation.   It takes place first and most effectively in the experience of the family, which introduces the child to the wonders and workings of reality and the heritage of the common culture.

This effort is further enhanced and perfect by the process of education by which knowledge and behavior is imparted to and impressed upon the younger members of the community through particular institutions of successively higher learning.

When either the family or the social institutions of education fail in their efforts, the culture and the society it has developed and supported are put in jeopardy.

What applies to human society applies equally to the Church in its cultural expression as a community of believers, members of a spiritual, a mystical body united to each other and to Christ as their head.

From the earliest times, the Church herself has understood the unique and essential role of the family in the building up of the Body of Christ.  In the very Rite of Baptism, the Church reminds the parents that they are "the first teachers of their child in the ways of faith".

 No person or institution can supplant the role and influence which the parents play in the formation of the personality and character of their child.  When the parents fail to provide adequate instruction supported by practical example, the cultural values which form the society of which they are a part fail to be handed on to the next generation.  As a result, the culture is diminished and perhaps weakened beyond any ability to rehabilitate or reassert itself.

Likewise, the Church traditionally has placed a strong emphasis on the role of education in safeguarding her culture and influence upon society.  The pulpit was considered to be the place where the Catholic faithful were instructed in the tenets of the faith and encouraged in the practice of Catholic virtues and traditions.  Moreover, Catholic schools were seen to be handmaids to the sacred pastors in the Catholic cultural formation of the young, the future generations of the Church.

For centuries, strong family ties, an abundance of clergy and a dedication to the education of the young in a Catholic school environment provided the Church with a clearly identifiable cultural influence upon society and ensured that such an influence would continue seemingly until the end of time.

But, when the Church found herself threatened by the proponents of the Protestant Reformation, her response came in the form of dictates and precepts forcefully enunciated and unrelentingly imposed upon society.  The Council of Trent, the Church's answer to Luther and other heretics of his day,  would establish a stranglehold on Catholic culture which allowed for no innovation or development in Church doctrine or practice for the next five centuries.

In effect, the culture of the Church would become frozen in time.  Church doctrine, customs and rituals were taught as immutable eternal truths which were so essential to her mission that, to alter them in anyway, was to deny that the Church was the sure means of salvation imparted to mankind by Christ Himself.  Any change in language, gesture, wording or thought was considered anathema.

For the next five hundred years, no matter where on the face of the earth, Catholics prayed in the same language, praticed the ritual gestures, sang the same hymns, and listened to the same sermons.  Latin was the universal language.  The Catechism was universally taught in every school.  Questions or disagreements with official Church teachings were dismissed as somehow disloyal and unfaithful to the eternal truths bequeathed to the Church directly from Christ Himself.  To question the Church was to question the Lord.  Such arrogance and infidelity was unthinkable and unacceptable.

This was the culture which gave rise to Catholic Europe.  This was the culture which advanced Western Civilization far beyond the borders of the Continent to the New World and Third World missionary countries ripe for conversion.  In America, this was the Catholic culture which helped give rise to a vibrant and wealthy middle class, raising European immigrant peoples to a lifestyle they could never have imagined.

Yet, even as the Catholic culture took comfort in reaffirming ageless and timeless truths which nourished the spiritual needs and aspirations of its members, science and technology began to impact modern society in ways that the Church could never envision.  More and more, the world became increasingly secularized, looking for practical solutions to the difficulties and demands of daily living.  So much so that in the present digital age in which we find ourselves today, the impact and influence of the Church has been diminished to such a degree that it has become seemingly irrelevant as society today seeks to define and express itself.

In the next part of this series, we shall examine the present state of Catholic culture in the world today in terms of the steady decline in the numbers of those who actively practice their faith, the crisis in the number of ordained clergy, the ever increasing divorce rate among Catholics and the impact which these broken marriages and homes are having upon present and future generations of the Church.

In the third and final part, we shall consider the negative consequences which this weakened Catholic culture has had upon the ability of couples to validly marry according to the teachings and canonical disciplines of the Church.

Divorce, Remarriage and the Sacraments: The Latin Church vs the Orthodox Church Theology and Practice -- Part II

In Part I of this two part post, we considered the differences in theology between the Orthodox Church and the Latin Church regarding the nature and essence of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.  We shall now consider how these distinct theological teachings have account for the different pastoral practices of the two Churches in the care of the divorced and remarried members of their respective communities.

In the Latin Church, the Sacrament of Marriage is understood to be essentially a legal contract which binds both spouses to promises they make to confer and accept from each other certain rights and obligations:  (1) the right to offspring; (2) fidelity; and (3) permanence until death.  In the Latin Church, therefore, the couple are the ministers of the sacrament.  The ordained minister only acts as the official witness of their act of mutual consent.  Once this contract has been duly ratified by observance of the canonical prescriptions by which their consent is witnessed and consummated in an act of conjugal love, the marital bond cannot be dissolved by the intervention of any human agency, civil or ecclesiastical.  Marriages which have been ratified and consummated only end in the death of one of the spouses.  Since Marriage in the Latin Church is considered primarily to be a legal contract, a judicial investigation can determine that factors were present at the time of consent which rendered the contract invalid.  In such a case, a marriage is declared to have been null and void from the beginning and the parties are no longer bound to the union.  Only in the event of death or a declaration of nullity can spouses in the Latin Church legitimately and morally attempt a second marriage.  Outside of these two circumstances, those Latin Catholics who do attempt marriage enter into a perpetual state of grave sin (adultery) which renders them incapable of efficacious sacramental absolution and thus prohibits them from the reception of Holy Communion.

In the Orthodox Church, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is considered to be a sacred commitment on the part of the spouses, already join in civil marriage, to commit themselves to Christ Who sanctifies their marital union with His Grace.  Since marriage is essentially a sacred act, it is the blessing of the proper ordained minister of the Church which constitutes its sacramental character.  The priest, therefore, is the minister of the sacrament not the couple. For the Orthodox Church, marriage is a sacrament received, not a contract established by mutual consent.  It is a sacrament which perdures forever, a union of persons which mirrors the relationship of Christ to the Church which endures forever.  Neither death nor the intervention of any civil or ecclesiastical authority can dissolve the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

So how does the Orthodox Church provide pastoral care for its members who do experience the sadness of the death of a spouse or the tragedy of a civil divorce?

 Can a member of the Orthodox Church, a widow or widower, an innocent party in a divorce, be married to another person?  Very simply put, the answer is yes.

How is this possible?

All Orthodox theology rests upon the foundation set in place by the Early Fathers of the Church who established the fundamental principle of oikonomia, which has several meanings.

The basic meaning of oikonomia is “handling” or “management”.  More literally, the word denotes “housekeeping”, that is, a prudent handling or management of a particular issue or problem at hand.  More specifically, oikonomia provides for a discretionary deviation from the letter of the law in order to adhere to the spirit of law and to charity, the greatest of all the cardinal virtues.

Oikonomia stands in stark contract to akribia, which is a strict legalism to the letter of the law of the Church.

In Orthodox theology, oikonomia is used to describe two types "handling": (1) divine economy, that is, God's "handling" or "management" of the fallen state of the world and of mankind—the arrangements he made in order to bring about man's salvation after the Fall; and (2) what might be termed pastoral economy (or) ecclesiastical economy, that is, the Church's "handling" or "management" of various pastoral and disciplinary questions, problems, and issues that have arisen through the centuries of Church history.

Applying this principle of oikonomia in the situation of divorced person who wishes to remarry, the Orthodox Church provides the following pastoral solution.

In the Orthodox Church, there is a service of a second marriage, a penitential type of service in which a previously married person repents of the sins he or she may have committed as well as the fact that the first marriage was broken and did not persist.  This ritual follows a process of discernment involving one’s proper pastor who assists the couple in determining whether or not this second marriage could or is really working and whether the first marriage is, was and will always be a failure.

In this pastoral solution, the whole point is that people can repent.

The Orthodox Church (and Latin Church as well) recognizes the fact that a baptized person who has sinned, even gravely, can repent and re-enter into Holy Communion after a period of penance.  For the Orthodox, the principle of oikonomia provides that a divorced person who wants to remarry within the teachings of the Church could be considered as repenting of the sins committed in their first marriage and then be allowed to enter into a second marriage with proper ritual and be permitted to receive Holy Communion.

Historically, the justification for this pastoral practice can be found in the way the Church addressed the issue of a person who had sinned mortally and desired to be re-admitted to Holy Communion.  The Church provide that these persons could be re-admitted after a period of sufficient repentance.

Applying that same principle and practice, the Orthodox Church provides that a person can be remarried in church, have a second marriage, and then remain in holy communion in the Church. But there would have to be a second marriage in the Church for that to happen.

This second marriage is not considered to be a sacrament because the priest does not bless the marriage but acts simple as a witness to the repentance of spouse(s) for the break up of the first marriage and their desire to be re-admitted to Holy Communion in the Church.  The second marriage permitted in recognition of this repentance of sin and the desire of the person to continue to live his or her life in union with Christ and His Church through the reception of the sacraments.

Pope Francis, Cardinal Kasper, and recently the bishops of the Argentine Episcopal Conference wish to provide for the pastoral care of Latin Catholics who are divorced and remarried in much the same way that the Orthodox Church provides for its members in similar situations.

While their sentiments are commendable indeed, here’s the fundamental problem.

For the Latin Church follow the Eastern Orthodox Church pastoral practice, it would have to change its fundamental understanding of marriage in the first place, that it is not a juridical act, it’s not a contract that the couple establishes.  Rather, marriage is a union of love and a family and have children, a man and a woman—and this is only a man and a woman.   Spouses are fallible human beings.  They can repent if their first marriage was broken, and perhaps, if there’s really sufficient, authentic repentance over the fact that it’s broken.  They may be married a second time with the ritual for a second marriage, in order to maintain Holy Communion in the Church.

Such a change in the Latin Church’s theology of marriage would amount to a repudiation of teachings declared and considered to be infallibly true, part of the Deposit of Faith, the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

The Latin Church’s teaching that a ratified and consummated marriage is indissoluble, that one who abandons his or her spouse and remarries commits grave sin and is thus prohibited from the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ has been affirmed and re-affirmed by the extraordinary magisterium of Ecumenical Councils and Papal teachings for centuries.  To change or ignore this Sacred Tradition would be considered to be an act of heresy resulting in excommunication from the ecclesiastical communion of faith.  Those who would hold or promote such a change in teaching would be considered to be in schism against the Church and likewise excommunicated from the Mystical Body of Christ.

So, where does this all leave the Latin Church?

I believe we are at a crossroads of faith and practice, an experience within the Latin Church that is without precedence in its two-thousand year history.

Pope Francis has endorsed a pastoral practice whereby divorced and remarried Catholics may be re-admitted to the sacraments which is in clear contradiction to the Church’s Sacred Tradition.  He has not only endorsed this practice but has done so in such a way that would encourage other bishops to follow this same course.

Is Pope Francis a heretic?  Is he a prophet?  Are those who follow his lead in schism with the Latin Church?  Or are they faithful members of the Body of Christ in union with the Lord Jesus and His Vicar on earth?

Ironically, one thing is certain:  the future for the Latin Church is equally uncertain.
At present, the Latin Church finds itself divided.  Some bishops proclaiming that the re-admission of the divorced and remarried to the Sacraments is absolutely and clearly forbidden according to the infallible teachings of extraordinary magisterium.  Other bishops are clearly opposing these teachings and embarking upon a pastoral solution which finds no foundation or justification in the history of the Latin Church.

The Latin Church will not be able to live in such a crisis for long.  As Christ taught so wisely, “A house divided against itself, cannot stand.”

Will the Latin Church be fractured by this unprecedented moment in its history?  Will we see another schism in our lifetime?  Is there a solution to this dilemma that has yet to be revealed?

We need to call upon the Holy Spirit to guide us at this critical moment in the life of our beloved Church.  May Christ Jesus come to our aid and assist us in our sincere desire to minister to those who have suffered divorce, yet wish a life of love and family in union with the Lord and the Church.  Come, Lord Jesus, and do not delay.  Help us.  Guide us.  Protect the Church we love.  Give us Your Wisdom and Grace in this and all things.  Amen.

Divorce, Remarriage and the Sacraments: The Latin Church vs the Orthodox Church Theology and Practice -- Part I

Needless to say, a debate is growing (and will continue to do so) in the Latin Church regarding the admitting of divorced and remarried persons to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Communion.  Recently, Pope Francis enthusiastically approved the norms submitted to him by the Argentine Bishops’ Conference which allow for a pastoral response to this situation.  The problem is that a seeming majority of Latin bishops believe that such a practice is in conflict with the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Kasper, a German Roman Catholic Cardinal, a theologian and President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has been most vocal in advancing this unprecedented approach.  He justifies his position by pointing to the pastoral practice of the Orthodox Church.  Is Cardinal Kasper correct?  Is the solution that simple, namely, that the Latin Church adopt the Orthodox Church’s practice of allowing the divorced and remarried to continue to receive the Sacraments without having sought recourse to complex canonical procedures and judicial declarations of nullity?

I think not and, in this two part post, I shall attempt to explain why.

The Latin Church’s understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is radically different from that of the Orthodox Church.  There are diverse historical, political and religious reasons for this difference which are much too complex to address in this post.  Suffice it to say that I have taken a very broad and general view of this difference for the sake of both brevity and clarity.

In the Roman Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is considered to be essentially a legal or  judicial act in which the spouses enter into a contract with each other.  The terms (the bona) of the contract which each spouse agrees to fulfill are these:  (1) offspring; (2) fidelity; and (3) indissolubility of the marital bond itself.  Furthermore, the spouses themselves are the ministers of the contract which becomes valid when they declare (ratify) their marriage vows according to the prescribed canonical form sanctioned by the Church and seal (consummate) their union by the conjugal act of sexual intercourse.

 Such a ratified and consummated marriage is considered to be binding until death.  No human power, not even that of the Church, can dissolve a sacramental marriage which has been ratified and consummated.  Outside of the death of one of the spouses, a sacramental marriage remains binding upon both parties even in the event that the civil effects of their union should be dissolved by a decree of divorce.

Thus, in the Latin Church, a person who has established a valid bond of sacramental marriage is perpetually bound to his or her spouse until death.  Civil divorce does nothing to dissolve this sacred union.  Consequently, should a validly married person who has obtained a civil divorce attempt to enter into marriage with another, such a union would be considered to essentially be an act sacrilege against the sacredness of the existing valid marriage. The decision to enter into a state of permanent adultery in a second invalid marriage results in the person living in a continuing state of serious sin.

Unless the second union is renounced and the previous valid marriage re-established, such a divorced and remarried person is permanently incapable of receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation which requires contrition for sin, absolution by the Church’s minister, and an amendment of life.

Without such contrition and absolution, the divorced and remarried person is  unable to approach Holy Communion which requires the absence of serious sin for efficacious reception of the Body and Blood of Christ.

 It is this traditional understanding of the theology of Holy Matrimony which has been the basis for the Latin Church’s insistence that divorced Catholics, whose marriages have not been declared to be invalid contracts, may not attempt future marriages without entering into a state of perpetual adultery (grave sin) with its appropriate sacramental penalties of exclusion from the sacramental life of the Church.

Now let us compare the Latin Church’s understanding of marriage with that of the Orthodox Church, a theology of Holy Matrimony which is essentially and radically different.

For the Orthodox Church, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is not a legal or judicial act.  In fact, in the Orthodox marriage ceremony, there are no vows or promises declared.  They don’t exist.

A very quick look at the marriage ceremony itself in the Orthodox Church reveals that the actual ceremony for marriage developed and was formulated quite late, probably around the 10th Century, shortly before the Great Schism with the Western Church.  To be married in the Orthodox Church prior to this time, the couple had to come before their bishop and, after his determination that everything was in order, receive his permission to have them recognized as married, imparting his blessing  by saying some particular prayers over them.

In any case, in the Orthodox Church, no vows are expressed.  No terms of a contract are established and exchanged.  It is not a legal or judicial act.  Marriage is a Sacrament, a means by which Grace is conferred upon human beings through the ministry of Christ's Church.

Holy Matrimony in the Orthodox Church is patterned after the Sacrament of Baptism.  This may sound a bit confusing, but permit me to explain.

To be married in the Orthodox Church, the couple have to be one together already as far as the civil society is concerned.  Thus, the couple must contract a civil marriage first.  They present the civil license of marriage to show that they wish to offer themselves to Christ for this marriage not simply to be a human institution (of our fallen world) but one which has been touched by the Grace of Christ Himself.

There are no words in the Orthodox ceremony of Holy Matrimony.  No vows are declared.  The couple, already being professed to one another humanly, are met at the door of the church by the priest, and in the back of the church, the rings are put on as signs of betrothal.  Following this, the spouses are led into the middle of the church and, just like a person being baptized, they recite the Creed, and are baptized.

Well, the Orthodox marriage ceremony is akin to Baptism several ways.  The spouses come and give themselves to Christ in order to be one in Christ like Christ is one with the Church.  They seek to be submissive to each other’s needs, as they are to Christ and His Church.  The husband is expected to love his wife unto death, like Christ Who died for the Church.  The wife is to reverence her husband as she reverences Christ, the Head of the Church.  They are to stay together forever as Christ is forever with His Church.

It is very clear that, in the Orthodox ceremony of Holy Matrimony, the priest is the minister of the sacrament and not the couple.  It is the blessing of the priest which constitutes the essence of marriage.  The couple do not establish but rather receive the Sacrament of Marriage, a perpetual and sacred union of persons which mirrors the bond of Christ to His Church.

In keeping with this understanding, when a spouse dies, Orthodox theology expects that the surviving spouse will remain faithful to the marital union until death.

This is a critical difference between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches.

 Since marriage is not a legal or judicial act, but rather a sacred commitment to Christ and His Church, the sacred union cannot be negated by death, by a civil decree of divorce, nor be declared legally invalid.   According to Orthodox theology, the Sacrament of Marriage perdures no matter happens.  There simply exists no  circumstance which could extinguish the existence of this sacramental union or invalidate it by judicial decree.

The question naturally arises regarding the pastoral response of the Orthodox Church to spouses who are either widowed or divorced.  Can these persons remarry and still receive the sacraments?  And, if so, what is the teaching of of the Church regarding a second marriage?

We shall address these questions in Part II of this consideration of the differences between the theology of the Catholic Church versus that of the Orthodox Church regarding Holy Matrimony.  Perhaps, by considering such distinctions and differences, we may understand how the Latin Church may provide a broader pathway by which divorced and remarried Catholics may continue to receive the Sacraments.