Saint Mary of the Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic Church

Dear Good People of Saint Mary,

As naïve as it may sound, I think many people were taken by surprise last week. Many actually didn’t think that the Supreme Court would make such a judgement on something we hold so sacred as Marriage: It simply isn’t their jurisdiction, right? Since when can the courts speak authoritatively about something so clearly defined by the Church as a Sacrament?

At least, that is the question many Catholics seem to be asking.

Now that the ruling is done, we need reassurance of where it is going. It is true, I believe, it is another Roe v. Wade that will define for history the generations that are alive today. For clarity, we must talk about how our Church’s understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage and the common usage of the word “marriage” have very little in common, and how much confusion this has caused.

The conversation begins nearly 500 years ago with the Reformation. Many of those issues had to do with marriage, in particular, with divorce and remarriage. The Church was not any more willing then as it is now to allow for the dissolution of a bond that we believe is sacred, formed by God, not by men. By its nature, it is the witness of Jesus who lays down his life for us, the Church. A bride and a groom lay down their lives for each other, empty themselves of self, because of love. We see Jesus on the Cross as the bride and groom say to each other, literally, “This is my body, given for you.” Marriage isn’t about the self, it is about the other, thou, for whom I give away myself. Christ visible.

Anything less than that is not a valid Marriage. This is why the annulment process is possible, because there can be a true occurrence of Marriage that takes place sacramentally. If it is validly celebrated, it cannot be dissolved. The problem is, that so many people today have no idea what Marriage is really about, that valid Marriages may not be that common. For most people in our world today, marriage is something you do out of emotional desire for one’s own happiness. A sure recipe for an annulment is if someone says, “I can only be happy if I’m married…” Notice the emphasis is all on the “I,” and often it is not a person that they are in love with, but rather, the idea of being married. It is based, even trapped, in the self.

Today the Catholic Church is the only western form of Christianity that still defines Matrimony strictly as a Sacrament. Anyway, back to 500 years ago: When the Protestant churches broke from Tradition and began to recognize civil authority as a valid marriage, people gradually accepted civil marriage (out of a logical need for preserving a sense of human dignity?) to be something sacred. It has to be, right? Is it possible to have a real human marriage that is not sacred? People began to recognize the authority of the state as something more than it was, because of the vacuum that remained by removing Marriage from the sacramental life of the Church. (The same “vacuum effect” can be seen in those churches today who commonly hold a doctrine of the real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, though their founders blatantly rejected it. People have come to believe Jesus is truly there because none of it makes sense unless he is truly present...) Of course, it is not my intent to be arrogant about what we have, or judge any other church, we have done nothing to earn it. It is an effect that can be observed around us.

Today, with the exception of the Orthodox Churches, every other Christian church says that the authority of the state makes a marriage. Yet, it is vital to note that, for Catholics (and Catholic Canon Law only binds Catholics) even a civil marriage between a Catholic man and a Catholic woman is not recognized as valid. All arguments of natural law and validity with regard to same-sex marriage have even less of a basis in Tradition than do civil bonds between a man and a woman. With regard to civil unions and Catholics, we don’t have any comment at all, because the holy institution of Marriage is something that belongs to God’s creation, not ours, and we can’t change it any more than change our own DNA and still call ourselves human being.

A state authority cannot redefine the theology of a Sacrament. The state has no competence here. A Sacrament of Marriage can only be realized through the self-emptying consent (vows) given between a man and a woman who, by their physiological complementarity, are able to bring forth life in the same way that the divine Community that is the Blessed Trinity can breathe forth Life, new Spirit, new creation, according to God’s plan. A strict definition of Church Law in the lifetime of our grandparents and parents (for those of us who are older) even stated that if, for some reason, people were proven incapable of having children the Marriage could not be valid, therefore, not celebrated. Impotence was considered a diriment impediment to Marriage. Not just the lack of intention to bring forth life, but the actual incapacity. In the modern age we have reinterpreted this canon more liberally considering the possibility of adoption (fertility procedures generally are not considered moral alternatives).

The USA (I think) is the only nation where the clergy are both civil (“bonded”) officials and religious officiants witnessing, “receiving” the Marriage vows of a bride and groom. Everywhere else the couple must first go to the courthouse for the civil ceremony, then come to the Church for the wedding. It has provided a clear delineation between the powers of the state and the powers of the Church. As a civil official, I could see where the state might have the ability to force me (according to their definitions) to marry anyone who comes to me, perhaps as they have done with bakers of cakes or florists. The clergy has always had the ability to decline marrying someone: we can’t say “You can’t be married,” but we always have freedom to say, “I, in conscience, can’t marry you.”

As some have suggested, perhaps the solution now is for clergy to renounce their power as civil officials, remaining practitioners of Sacraments only, and remain faithful to our identity as priests. If that is what it takes, may the confusion end.

It remains vital that all of us—clergy, ministers in service to God’s creation, lay faithful—remain compassionate and loving when faced with this confusion in our world. Whatever you say, say only what Jesus would say, in the manner that makes him clearly the motive of your loving dialogue and witness. Jesus is irresistible to anyone whose heart is open, and if they can see him in you, then you have done your work. Adding ugliness to ugliness makes no progress, provides no kindness nor welcome. Remember whose we are, and whom we represent. Ultimately real love will prevail.

God bless you.

Dear Good People of Saint Mary,

By the time you read this, I’ll be in the air on my way back to Saint Mary! Right now, I’m writing this article last Sunday, as I am packing the last things in my luggage to leave for Rome this afternoon. I’ll write this in the past tense with the hopes that it makes sense.

About three months ago, Pope Francis declared that we start a dialogue between Buddhists and Catholics in the United States. Many people wonder why he would do this, as “dialogue” between churches and religions usually represents in suspicious minds some diplomatic motive. It isn’t the work of unity we seek (as we might seek between the baptized in Christian churches) or even the process of trying to find agreement. It is “dialogue” in the simplest sense of the word, a seeking of relationship, friendship, to correct misunderstanding and discover what we share and what is different. Often it results in resolutions for activities, social programs, public statements that speak to our common life in society with regard to justice and peace.

If we had more attempts at understanding and friendship in the world, we would have a lot less hatred and discrimination, this racism that should have long ago become an absurdity to people who knew each other.

The problem is, we don’t know each other, and we find comfort in keeping a distance. Distance leads to isolation, isolation leads to extreme behavior. We all know the rest of the story: it plays itself out every night on the evening news.

So this week 12 Catholics and 12 Buddhists were called to the Vatican. Three of each from Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and Washington, DC. The meeting was originally planned to take place in the United States, but Pope Francis asked that we come to Rome, presumably to make clear the priority that he places on this conversation. And this time, it isn’t a dialogue that takes place among academics only (this is why I’m a part of the dialogue): Pope Francis wanted pastors to be a part of the cohort, too, so that the work of bringing it home and making it happen at home might be more successful. We have so many dialogues that have taken place these past 50 years that you wouldn’t believe it, actually. But the people never find out about it because it remains in scholarly journals and upper levels of leadership, not making its way into the pews and the hearts of everyday people who wish the Church would do something about these things.

Just visit the website of the Conference of Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/) to see how many, many of these dialogues have been going on for years… but people don’t ever go looking for papers. They look for the proof of it in the daily life of the Church.

Anyway, I will be giving a paper on Tuesday morning: “Relational Suffering between Persons: The Teachings of Jesus Christ.” The theme is “Suffering, Liberation, Fraternity.” I’m pretty excited. If you want to read it, a link to the paper has been added to the Saint Mary home page. I think it has a pretty nice presentation of the Blessed Trinity. Without understanding how Catholics believe God is self-emptying out of love, we will never get to the realization that suffering united to Christ is redemptive. It has a purpose, and a good effect.

If all goes according to plan, we will attend Pope Francis’ Wednesday audience in St. Peter Square, then go to a private room where Pope Francis will speak to our group alone for about an hour, what he hopes to come out of our dialogue, such things. Then we will have a nice “Vatican lunch” (can’t wait) and a private tour of the highlights of the Vatican. Sounds like an amazing opportunity. I will tell him that Saint Mary says, “Hola.”

Our papers and discussions will continue through Saturday, and then we will fly home on Sunday. I won’t get home until late on Sunday evening.

Say a prayer for us that it goes well, that we begin this dialogue with a wonderful spirit of fraternity and grace. What we are doing is unprecedented with Eastern religions. Maybe you saw in the Arlington Catholic Herald a couple of weeks ago, that our diocese was pivotal in helping make happen a new dialogue with the Hindu community in the United States, which found its beginning in a simple friendship in Fairfax County. All it took was a little courage: one day I stopped at Durga Temple, took off my shoes, went inside and introduced myself. We became friends, and now there is a dialogue where before, there was nothing.

So may it be, and so may it be so simple, in reaching out to those with whom we find ourselves at odds, or strangers. May families, communities, and world religions find peace.

God bless you.