The Crisis of a Second Obama Administration
Nov 14, 2012
George Weigel
President Obama’s re-election and the prospect of a second Obama administration, freed from the constraints imposed by the necessity of running for re-election, have created a crisis for the Catholic Church in the United States. In the thought-world and vocabulary of the Bible, “crisis” has two meanings: the conventional sense (a grave threat) and a deeper sense (a great moment of opportunity). Both are applicable to the Church in America these next four years.
The immediate threat, of course, is the HHS (Health and Human Services) mandate requiring Catholic institutions and Catholic employers to include coverage of contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs in the health insurance offered to their employees. The legal challenges mounted against this obvious violation of the first freedom, religious freedom, may well be vindicated. But with Obamacare now seemingly set in concrete, the Church will face a host of such implementing “mandates” and it will be imperative to contest those that are morally unacceptable, time and time again. Authentically Catholic health care in America is now in mortal danger, and it is going to take a concerted effort to save it for future generations.
A further threat comes from the gay insurgency, which will press the administration to find some way to federalize the marriage issue and to compel acceptance of the chimera of “gay marriage.” Thus it seems important to accelerate a serious debate within American Catholicism on whether the Church ought not pre-emptively withdraw from the civil marriage business, its clergy declining to act as agents of government in witnessing marriages for purposes of state law.
If the Church were to take this dramatic step now, it would be acting prophetically: it would be challenging the state (and the culture) by underscoring that what the state means by “marriage” and what Catholics mean by “marriage” are radically different, and that what the state means by “marriage” is wrong. If, however, the Church is forced to take this step after “gay marriage” is the law of the land, Catholics will be pilloried as bad losers who’ve picked up their marbles and fled the game—and any witness-value to the Church’s withdrawal from the civil marriage business will be lost. Many thoughtful young priests are discussing this dramatic option among themselves; it’s time for the rest of the Church to join the conversation.
Yet another threat to the integrity of the Church comes from the re-election of a vice president of the United States who has declared “transgender discrimination” to be “the civil rights issue of our time;” who has openly celebrated the abortion license; who has grossly misrepresented the Church’s teaching on the life issues; and who is, in myriad ways, an ecclesial embarrassment. So are Catholic members of the House and Senate who not only vote against truths known by moral reason, but then have the gall to justify their irresponsibility by a faux commitment to “pluralism” or, worse, by recourse to what they are pleased to call “social justice Catholicism.”
Thus pastors and bishops must continue to explain why the life issues are “social justice issues,” and indeed priority “social justice issues.” And some effective way must be found to make clear, publicly, that men and women like Vice President Joe Biden and Representative Nancy Pelosi are living an auto-defined Catholicism so incoherently that their communion with the Catholic Church is severely damaged. Absent such clarity, ill-catechized Catholic voters will continue to misunderstand both the nature of discipleship and the responsibilities of citizenship.
As for the opportunity embedded in this crisis, it is nothing less than to be the Church of the New Evangelization, full-throttle. Shallow, tribal, institutional-maintenance Catholicism is utterly incapable of meeting the challenges that will now come at the Catholic Church from the most aggressively secular administration in American history. Only a robustly, unapologetically evangelical Catholicism, winsomely proposing and nobly living the truths about the human condition the Church teaches, will see us through the next four years. Radically converted Christian disciples, not one-hour-a-week Catholics whipsawed by an ever more toxic culture, are what this hour of crisis, in both senses of the term, demands.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
11.14.2012 | 6:52am
Reader John says:
The question about the Church (including the Orthodox, of which I'm a part) withdrawing from the civil marriage business is when, not whether.
We're really too late for "pre-emptive," and we would look less like sore losers if our withdrawal were accompanied by apologies for not having discerned the signs well enough to withdraw back at "no-fault divorce."
We're really too late for "pre-emptive," and we would look less like sore losers if our withdrawal were accompanied by apologies for not having discerned the signs well enough to withdraw back at "no-fault divorce."
11.14.2012 | 7:01am
Booxe says:
Seems a necessary first step is for the members of Catholic Church to clearly pick a side that supports life and marriage. As an outsider looking in I fear that those "ill-catechized" Catholics constitute a majority who apparently favor Mr Biden's views over those of the bishops.
11.14.2012 | 7:07am
Pr. Dan Biles says:
In connection with this, everyone should read "The New Secular Moral Majority" in the latest issue, which describes the trends in our society we are facing.
11.14.2012 | 7:23am
Dan C says:
The Catholic Worker movement has been talking about this for decades.
You can take the US flag off the altar at any time, too. Conservatives got the vapors whenever such was suggested in the past.
You can take the US flag off the altar at any time, too. Conservatives got the vapors whenever such was suggested in the past.
11.14.2012 | 9:15am
harry says:
I watched some of the USCCB Fall General Assembly televised on EWTN. Doing so didn't exactly fill me with confidence that the American Bishops are men who have taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, and are dealing directly with a "crisis" or with "threats" of any kind. They were nitpicking the wording of documents of which most Catholics will never know were promulgated by the USCCB, and will not be read by most of those Catholics who are at least aware of their existence. Maybe I missed those televised meetings where they dealt directly with the very real threats Christianity in America is currently facing. Or maybe those meetings were not televised. I certainly hope that is the case.
When are we going to hear something from the USCCB that realistically deals with contemporary threats to Christianity and unashamedly declares that it will cost us something to defend Christianity from the assaults of the atheistic, radically secularized establishment? When are we going to hear a message from the bishops the flock can wholeheartedly respond to with “Deus vult!”? Or do they think the flock is simply no longer capable of that? We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.
When are we going to hear something from the USCCB that realistically deals with contemporary threats to Christianity and unashamedly declares that it will cost us something to defend Christianity from the assaults of the atheistic, radically secularized establishment? When are we going to hear a message from the bishops the flock can wholeheartedly respond to with “Deus vult!”? Or do they think the flock is simply no longer capable of that? We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.
11.14.2012 | 9:20am
bierce says:
If pre-emptively withdrawing from the "civil marriage business" would be to act prophetically, how much more prophetic would it be for Catholic healthcare and Catholic Charities to pre-emptively refuse to accept Federal money - or perhaps at least HHS money - used heretofore in furtherance of those ministries.
11.14.2012 | 9:55am
John Harmon says:
I would suggest to George Weigel that using the phrase "the gay insurgency" to describe supporters of gay marriage undercuts the Church's attempts to "winsomely propose" the truths about the human condition that the Church teaches.
11.14.2012 | 10:18am
joe bissonnette says:
It might be a bit facile to to assume that the second meaning of crisis - a great moment of opportunity - will be met and exploited rather than avoided and squandered. As an act becomes a habit and then becomes a character we may be too deeply habituated in avoidance to rise up and pay the price. Maybe we will die with a whimper. Maybe The Church in the West will go the way of The Church is Ephesus.
I think George Weigel is right in pointing to the need to go on the offensive. The Church should formalize the excommunication which Biden, Pelosi and all public promoters of abortion have already achieved. The Church must publicly stand firm and push back rather than negotiate and minimize costs because it is politically expedient to do so but more importantly, because by embracing this cross The Church will grow closer to Christ and will be seen by the weary faithful as embracing the cross.
I think George Weigel is right in pointing to the need to go on the offensive. The Church should formalize the excommunication which Biden, Pelosi and all public promoters of abortion have already achieved. The Church must publicly stand firm and push back rather than negotiate and minimize costs because it is politically expedient to do so but more importantly, because by embracing this cross The Church will grow closer to Christ and will be seen by the weary faithful as embracing the cross.
11.14.2012 | 12:11pm
David Nickol says:
George Weigel speaks of "a serious debate within American Catholicism on whether the Church ought not pre-emptively withdraw from the civil marriage business."
Has there ever been any pressure by the state on the Catholic Church to marry couples one of whom was previously divorced and had no annulment? Has there ever been pressure by the state on the Catholic Church to marry *any* two people the Church declined to marry? Even if same-sex marriage is legalized in every state, I would guess that the total number of same-sex couples seeking to be married will always be smaller than the number of heterosexual couples the Church would decline to marry. I really sincerely doubt that the "homosexual insurgency" will ever be able to use government to pressure a Catholic priest to marry a same-sex couple or any other couple the Church, for religious reasons, did not want to marry.
Has there ever been any pressure by the state on the Catholic Church to marry couples one of whom was previously divorced and had no annulment? Has there ever been pressure by the state on the Catholic Church to marry *any* two people the Church declined to marry? Even if same-sex marriage is legalized in every state, I would guess that the total number of same-sex couples seeking to be married will always be smaller than the number of heterosexual couples the Church would decline to marry. I really sincerely doubt that the "homosexual insurgency" will ever be able to use government to pressure a Catholic priest to marry a same-sex couple or any other couple the Church, for religious reasons, did not want to marry.
11.14.2012 | 1:11pm
Tim MacGeorge says:
What Mr. Weigel (and most commentators, I daresay) fail to recognize is that what "Catholics" (and most clergy, btw) believe about same-sex marriage and what bishops believe and are proclaiming as "the Catholic position" are very discrepant. Catholics -- lay and (lower) clergy alike -- recognize that the issues around same-sex marriage are about how we, as a Church, will recognize and uphold the full human dignity of God's LGBT sons and daughters. It is NOT about the rights and responsibilities of opposite-sex married couples; that is all settled. When the content of the Church's supposed "pro marriage" efforts are that in name only, doing so little to support marriage and so much to condemn homosexual persons in loving, committed relations, Catholics see the "leadership" of the bishops on this for what it is -- the wolf of bigotry in the sheep's clothing of "support."
When will the bishops remove the plank from their eye and see that their understanding of human sexuality is limited and incomplete? When will they recognized that being gay or lesbian is part of the natural spectrum of human seuxal experience -- i.e. part of God's plan -- and that how we live and treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ should reflect that recognition?
When will the bishops remove the plank from their eye and see that their understanding of human sexuality is limited and incomplete? When will they recognized that being gay or lesbian is part of the natural spectrum of human seuxal experience -- i.e. part of God's plan -- and that how we live and treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ should reflect that recognition?
11.14.2012 | 1:28pm
Richard says:
Regarding this writer's "freedom" issue, I can only say it is a manufactured issue. When Humanae Vitae came out in 1968 it caused a furor over a declaration of immorality on behavior that was common. Since then the majority of Catholics have ignored the moral proscription. I have read assertions of as much as eighty percent of practicing Catholics. My vasectomy was performed by a practicing Catholic physician. As for the other issues like gay marriage, it would behove the bishops to get out of politics, quit pushing the flock to vote Republican, and worry about the flock's souls on a much more spiritual plane. One could speculate that the reason they have abandoned the spiritual realm for the political is because they are far more of this world than the next. Pity.
11.14.2012 | 1:46pm
Fitz says:
George Weigel
"Thus it seems important to accelerate a serious debate within American Catholicism on whether the Church ought not pre-emptively withdraw from the civil marriage business, its clergy declining to act as agents of government in witnessing marriages for purposes of state law."
I think this is an important "pre-emptive" issue that the Church ought engage in. Importantly I believe it presents us with ANOTHER opportunity you may not have considered.
Lots of couples, especially amoung the lower classes, African Americans, Hispanics & working class whites are "defacto" married & live togther with their children.
However...because of the way various welfare & foodstamp programs opperate they dont want to formally get "married" under the law and risk losing the benifits that go to "single" mothers.
A Church not authorized to formally register such marriages with the State would be free to marry these couples and would have no business in their registering there marriagess with the State.
They would be married in the eyes of the Church and God and themselves but for purposes of state aid would not be putting their state subsidized incomes at risk.
I work with the poor and low-income & believe me this is a very real impediment to people getting married. Times are tough enough and no-one wants to risk a serious and reliable income, just to have a formal wedding.
Please...anyone...let me know what you think.
"Thus it seems important to accelerate a serious debate within American Catholicism on whether the Church ought not pre-emptively withdraw from the civil marriage business, its clergy declining to act as agents of government in witnessing marriages for purposes of state law."
I think this is an important "pre-emptive" issue that the Church ought engage in. Importantly I believe it presents us with ANOTHER opportunity you may not have considered.
Lots of couples, especially amoung the lower classes, African Americans, Hispanics & working class whites are "defacto" married & live togther with their children.
However...because of the way various welfare & foodstamp programs opperate they dont want to formally get "married" under the law and risk losing the benifits that go to "single" mothers.
A Church not authorized to formally register such marriages with the State would be free to marry these couples and would have no business in their registering there marriagess with the State.
They would be married in the eyes of the Church and God and themselves but for purposes of state aid would not be putting their state subsidized incomes at risk.
I work with the poor and low-income & believe me this is a very real impediment to people getting married. Times are tough enough and no-one wants to risk a serious and reliable income, just to have a formal wedding.
Please...anyone...let me know what you think.
11.14.2012 | 1:53pm
Fr. Tim Moyle says:
Bravo! The suggestion that the Church should withdraw its participation in registering civil marriages is something that I've been arguing for since the advent of civil gay marriage here in Canada. It will probably be the only way that we will be able to protect ourselves from being forced in solemnifying gay unions by the State.
Fr. Tim Moyle
Mattawa, Ontario
Canada
Fr. Tim Moyle
Mattawa, Ontario
Canada
11.14.2012 | 1:54pm
David says:
It's interesting. My dad hating going to church on the holidays because he'd be pilloried by the priest for not coming to Mass weekly. Now that I've returned to the Church and got to Mass weekly, that is apparently insufficient for the sanctimonious Mr. Weigel. I am your audience, George. I am the low hanging fruit for you. A centrist voter who could support a truly Catholic candidate. I've read two of your books and many of your articles. But when you tell me what I'm doing isn't enough, and what I'm doing is what I am able to, then I am not inclined to listen to you.
One thing I did not know - or was not forefront in my mind was that the clergy act as agents of the state in marriages. I don't see it as radical in the least to withdraw from that function. Frankly, it's rational and simple to do so.
One thing I did not know - or was not forefront in my mind was that the clergy act as agents of the state in marriages. I don't see it as radical in the least to withdraw from that function. Frankly, it's rational and simple to do so.
11.14.2012 | 1:58pm
Theresa says:
What the real fear is in this second Obama administration is the continued polarization of Catholics and the growing schism between the catechized Catholics and the marginalized Catholics. Is there any resolution of this dichotomy in the near future. Sadly, the Obama administration doesn't care and proudly touts the blind followers (like Pelosi; Sebellius & nuns on bus) who are willing to lead others on a path that is removed from the Gospel teachings. I think Cardinal Ratzinger is right when he wrote in 1969:
"The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.
She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members….
It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek . . . The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution . . But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.
And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death."
"The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.
She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members….
It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek . . . The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution . . But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.
And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death."
11.14.2012 | 2:19pm
Peg says:
Fitz,
Your idea would also help elderly people who want to re-marry but cannot afford to lose their survivor's pensions. I have heard of a few such cases, one couple married by a rabbi, another by a priest, etc. These people did not want to live in sin, but could not afford to lose the widows' pensions. I suppose the clergymen did not file a civil marriage license. I have been told in previous FT discussions that this is illegal. If churches step out of the license-issuing business entirely, maybe the legal problem disappears.
I was married overseas, by the way, and had two separate ceremonies, one civil and one religious. It was not complicated, and certainly set the two ceremonies and their purposes apart.
Your idea would also help elderly people who want to re-marry but cannot afford to lose their survivor's pensions. I have heard of a few such cases, one couple married by a rabbi, another by a priest, etc. These people did not want to live in sin, but could not afford to lose the widows' pensions. I suppose the clergymen did not file a civil marriage license. I have been told in previous FT discussions that this is illegal. If churches step out of the license-issuing business entirely, maybe the legal problem disappears.
I was married overseas, by the way, and had two separate ceremonies, one civil and one religious. It was not complicated, and certainly set the two ceremonies and their purposes apart.
11.14.2012 | 3:18pm
David Nickol says:
Fitz,
If rules for programs that provide public assistance to the poor actually do discourage marriage, would it not be far better for the Church and others who care both about the poor and about the state of marriage to push very hard for reforming the rules rather than supporting clandestine marriages? (Forgive me for generalizing, but my impression is that it is conservatives who want tight restrictions on public assistance programs, so I think they would be the ones to stand in the way of any rules that discouraged marriage.)
People (including gays) want legal marriage because it has benefits and safeguards. What happens when a clandestine marriage breaks up? There would be no legal divorce mechanism. People in clandestine marriages might not get spousal benefits from employers. What about Social Security for widows? Inheritance? I am no expert here, but there are no doubt many other legal benefits to a civil marriage.
In order for clandestine marriages not to be deceptive or dishonest, those in them would have to scrupulously avoid taking any benefits that came with civil marriage only. Otherwise, it would be a form of fraud.
If rules for programs that provide public assistance to the poor actually do discourage marriage, would it not be far better for the Church and others who care both about the poor and about the state of marriage to push very hard for reforming the rules rather than supporting clandestine marriages? (Forgive me for generalizing, but my impression is that it is conservatives who want tight restrictions on public assistance programs, so I think they would be the ones to stand in the way of any rules that discouraged marriage.)
People (including gays) want legal marriage because it has benefits and safeguards. What happens when a clandestine marriage breaks up? There would be no legal divorce mechanism. People in clandestine marriages might not get spousal benefits from employers. What about Social Security for widows? Inheritance? I am no expert here, but there are no doubt many other legal benefits to a civil marriage.
In order for clandestine marriages not to be deceptive or dishonest, those in them would have to scrupulously avoid taking any benefits that came with civil marriage only. Otherwise, it would be a form of fraud.
11.14.2012 | 3:40pm
Citizen Jerry says:
A question. If homosexuality is "part of the natural spectrum of human seuxal experience -- i.e. part of God's plan," why did God condemn it in no uncertain terms throughout the Holy Scripture? In which do you place your faith -- God's eternal Word or liberal politics? Sadly, too many, in all denominations, have chosen the latter to their eternal detriment.
11.14.2012 | 5:30pm
WJ says:
I appreciate this article, for it highlights more than usual the contradictions and inconsistencies that inform most of Weigel's essays.
On the one hand, Weigel is right about the position of the Church in American culture. He is right that the Church needs seriously to consider prophetically disengaging from social and legal institutions which, as presently constituted, are incompatible with her own mission in the world. He is right that the "Church of the New Evangelization," as he calls it, must be legitimately and consistently counter-cultural.
He is wrong - and quite obviously so - in his assumption that what has precipitated this state of affairs is a second Obama Presidency. Weigel makes Obama much more important than he actually is - he unhelpfully casts a kind of apocalyptic fog around the man - and this prevents Weigel from confronting a truth about American liberalism that many others have been confronting for over the past three decades, and longer. I refer, of course, to Alasdair MacIntyre, Stanley Hauerwas, and, at a greater contextual remove, Dorothy Day, George Bernanos, Charles Peguy, and others.
For what all these writers see clearly is that the logic of the liberal capitalist state moves in a direction that is antithetical and hostile to the Church. On their account, the neoliberal bureaucratic technocracy that is Obama's dream (if not perhaps his father's) is in fact the realization of the American Dream, once it is denuded of its fanciful mythology - a mythology in which Weigel continues to believe. His is the definition of a false consciousness in this respect. (At the risk of polemics, I note that this false consciousness is probably not unrelated to Weigel's being economically dependent upon an organization whose sole purpose is the perpetuation and defense of choice bits of this mythology).
That Weigel is at odds with his own best insight may be demonstrated by a brief look to history and the posing of one simple question.
Weigel is the man, after all, who spoke of President Bush's particular "charism" in being able to lead the American-led war against Iraq, all for the sake of the (American) ordo tranquillitatis, of course. (Weigel, to his credit, later acknowledged that leaders of pagan capitalist states do not possess such a charism, at least not one that is recognized by the Church.) So much has changed in ten years! It's quite remarkable, isn't it, that the same American culture which produced such a righteous and moral leader as George W. Bush should become transmogrified in the course of a decade to necessitating the Church's radical separation from its social and legal institutions. As Weigel himself might put it, such a rapid collapse of virtue in American culture should concern morally serious Catholics.
And the question: Would we be treated to whatever kernels of truth there are about American political culture in Weigel's essay had Romney - that great and principled defender of unborn life and "limited government"- been elected?
On the one hand, Weigel is right about the position of the Church in American culture. He is right that the Church needs seriously to consider prophetically disengaging from social and legal institutions which, as presently constituted, are incompatible with her own mission in the world. He is right that the "Church of the New Evangelization," as he calls it, must be legitimately and consistently counter-cultural.
He is wrong - and quite obviously so - in his assumption that what has precipitated this state of affairs is a second Obama Presidency. Weigel makes Obama much more important than he actually is - he unhelpfully casts a kind of apocalyptic fog around the man - and this prevents Weigel from confronting a truth about American liberalism that many others have been confronting for over the past three decades, and longer. I refer, of course, to Alasdair MacIntyre, Stanley Hauerwas, and, at a greater contextual remove, Dorothy Day, George Bernanos, Charles Peguy, and others.
For what all these writers see clearly is that the logic of the liberal capitalist state moves in a direction that is antithetical and hostile to the Church. On their account, the neoliberal bureaucratic technocracy that is Obama's dream (if not perhaps his father's) is in fact the realization of the American Dream, once it is denuded of its fanciful mythology - a mythology in which Weigel continues to believe. His is the definition of a false consciousness in this respect. (At the risk of polemics, I note that this false consciousness is probably not unrelated to Weigel's being economically dependent upon an organization whose sole purpose is the perpetuation and defense of choice bits of this mythology).
That Weigel is at odds with his own best insight may be demonstrated by a brief look to history and the posing of one simple question.
Weigel is the man, after all, who spoke of President Bush's particular "charism" in being able to lead the American-led war against Iraq, all for the sake of the (American) ordo tranquillitatis, of course. (Weigel, to his credit, later acknowledged that leaders of pagan capitalist states do not possess such a charism, at least not one that is recognized by the Church.) So much has changed in ten years! It's quite remarkable, isn't it, that the same American culture which produced such a righteous and moral leader as George W. Bush should become transmogrified in the course of a decade to necessitating the Church's radical separation from its social and legal institutions. As Weigel himself might put it, such a rapid collapse of virtue in American culture should concern morally serious Catholics.
And the question: Would we be treated to whatever kernels of truth there are about American political culture in Weigel's essay had Romney - that great and principled defender of unborn life and "limited government"- been elected?
11.14.2012 | 5:35pm
merkn says:
It seems to me that the real problem underlying your concerns that must be addressed is the leadership of the bishops, and not the President. The election may highlight the need to get our own house in order, but it really did not change much. The President can do nothing to threaten the integrity of the Church. Our integrity belongs to us. It can be surrendered, but not taken.
11.14.2012 | 5:41pm
Fr John Boyle says:
I have to own up to echoing the opinion of an eminent canonist, and that is that clergy do not so much act as agents of the State. Rather, the State accords recognition to marriages celebrated in the presence of a duly authorized Church minister. If the State wishes to accord such recognition, why reject it? It is good for the couple and for society that the marriage receives such recognition.
As for celebrating marriages that would not receive recognition from the State (e.g. of those without legal papers), Canon Law prohibits this without the permission of the Local Ordinary. There are all sorts of reasons why the Local Ordinary might withhold permission, in which case there are ways and means for the couple themselves to celebrate the marriage without the intervention of a duly delegated minister (who, however, should be present but not intervening). Canonists will be familiar with Can. 1116. Non-canonists: beware. This canon requires careful interpretation. Such a marriage would be sacramental (if both baptized) but would not enjoy civil recognition. The couple would enjoy the Church's blessing upon their union and would, therefore, be able to receive Holy Communion, be godparents, etc. They would not, however, benefit from any state recognition.
All this goes to show that the Civil and Ecclesiastical are separate spheres. One offers civil benefits. The other offers spiritual goods. If both can work together, why tear them asunder?
I feel that the most urgent matter at hand is to deal with those Catholics in public life who promote intrinsic evils. Their diocesan bishops should issue them with the warnings that Canon Law foresees (precepts) and, should they fail to come into line, notify them that they fall under Canon 915. Further penalties can also be considered.
Then we must address the issues affecting the Church's proclamation of the Social Gospel including, but not limited to: the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage, the care offered to the stranger (i.e. immigrants - has the Church lost Latinos as a result of this election campaign) and the poor.
A renewed catechesis to be offered to all Catholics who attend Mass, and a public campaign of information on the Church's teaching on various issues.
Homosexuality: However hard it might be, we also need to present our compassionate approach to those who experience same sex attraction, without compromising on the Divine Law concerning marriage and the purpose of human sexuality. We will, like Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Scotland, receive "bigot of the year" awards from organizations such as Stonewall, no doubt, but we might at least reach those with open hearts and minds.
I feel this political campaign has divided us so much. The Holy Spirit might show us some ways of healing these divisions.
We need also to recognize that there is a choice to be made: Christ or the World. We are in the world but not of it. Let the world go its way, if it insists. Let us be faithful to the Lord. If the State deprives us of our freedom, it does so unjustly. It will not be the first time Christians experience injustice. But nothing can deprive us of our inner freedom of conscience and will: even if we must withdraw from those areas that, traditionally, were the initiative of Christian missionaries: schools, hospitals, etc. Naturally, we should not do so without seeking to vindicate our rights before the civil courts. It is ridiculous for the State - on the pretext of the separation of the Church and State - to want to kick the Church out of these areas and institutions which were founded, in large part, by Catholic and other Christian missionaries. But if it does, so be it.
Oh, and if we lose tax exempt status, fine.
Sorry this has turned out to be more of a blog post than a comment. I see now that excessively verbose comments might be deleted. I'll keep a copy and maybe post it somewhere.
Fr John Boyle
Gwinn, MI.
As for celebrating marriages that would not receive recognition from the State (e.g. of those without legal papers), Canon Law prohibits this without the permission of the Local Ordinary. There are all sorts of reasons why the Local Ordinary might withhold permission, in which case there are ways and means for the couple themselves to celebrate the marriage without the intervention of a duly delegated minister (who, however, should be present but not intervening). Canonists will be familiar with Can. 1116. Non-canonists: beware. This canon requires careful interpretation. Such a marriage would be sacramental (if both baptized) but would not enjoy civil recognition. The couple would enjoy the Church's blessing upon their union and would, therefore, be able to receive Holy Communion, be godparents, etc. They would not, however, benefit from any state recognition.
All this goes to show that the Civil and Ecclesiastical are separate spheres. One offers civil benefits. The other offers spiritual goods. If both can work together, why tear them asunder?
I feel that the most urgent matter at hand is to deal with those Catholics in public life who promote intrinsic evils. Their diocesan bishops should issue them with the warnings that Canon Law foresees (precepts) and, should they fail to come into line, notify them that they fall under Canon 915. Further penalties can also be considered.
Then we must address the issues affecting the Church's proclamation of the Social Gospel including, but not limited to: the sanctity of life, the dignity of marriage, the care offered to the stranger (i.e. immigrants - has the Church lost Latinos as a result of this election campaign) and the poor.
A renewed catechesis to be offered to all Catholics who attend Mass, and a public campaign of information on the Church's teaching on various issues.
Homosexuality: However hard it might be, we also need to present our compassionate approach to those who experience same sex attraction, without compromising on the Divine Law concerning marriage and the purpose of human sexuality. We will, like Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Scotland, receive "bigot of the year" awards from organizations such as Stonewall, no doubt, but we might at least reach those with open hearts and minds.
I feel this political campaign has divided us so much. The Holy Spirit might show us some ways of healing these divisions.
We need also to recognize that there is a choice to be made: Christ or the World. We are in the world but not of it. Let the world go its way, if it insists. Let us be faithful to the Lord. If the State deprives us of our freedom, it does so unjustly. It will not be the first time Christians experience injustice. But nothing can deprive us of our inner freedom of conscience and will: even if we must withdraw from those areas that, traditionally, were the initiative of Christian missionaries: schools, hospitals, etc. Naturally, we should not do so without seeking to vindicate our rights before the civil courts. It is ridiculous for the State - on the pretext of the separation of the Church and State - to want to kick the Church out of these areas and institutions which were founded, in large part, by Catholic and other Christian missionaries. But if it does, so be it.
Oh, and if we lose tax exempt status, fine.
Sorry this has turned out to be more of a blog post than a comment. I see now that excessively verbose comments might be deleted. I'll keep a copy and maybe post it somewhere.
Fr John Boyle
Gwinn, MI.
11.14.2012 | 6:02pm
A Reader says:
Douglas Farrow is at great pains to explain to all who will listen that the family is, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states, the natural and fundamental unit of society.
Professor Farrow writes: "... when a family of some description is founded by a same-sex couple ... it deprives the child, whether in the same way that divorce does or in some more innovative technological way, of its prima facie right to its own father and mother."
"By excising sexual difference, with its generative power" same-sex marriage is ... a legal construct. Its roots run no deeper than positive law. ... it is a creative of the state, generated by the state's assumption of the power of invention of re-definition. " In fact, when same sex marriage became law in Canada, ... the language of 'natural parent' was removed from all Canadian laws. It was replaced by 'legal parent'. Also removed was 'blood relationship' replaced with 'legal relationship." The aim and the effect of these changes is "to de-naturalize the family," ... "making every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state's gift and disposal."
Children's "prima facie" rights to their own father and mother, unless prevented by death or some form of the severest of crises - this is the matter at issue for people of good will.
Adults have every right to privacy. People of good will respect and honor this fact. Among people of good will, this is considered simple, common decency. Legal arrangements honoring matters of medical visitation, inheritance, and such things are in place and are respected.
Children's rights, particularly their right to a father and mother and a stable home, are almost never mentioned in these discussions. It is as if marriage no longer has any particular connection to their coming into existence and their care and nuturing. I find this terrifying.
Professor Farrow writes: "... when a family of some description is founded by a same-sex couple ... it deprives the child, whether in the same way that divorce does or in some more innovative technological way, of its prima facie right to its own father and mother."
"By excising sexual difference, with its generative power" same-sex marriage is ... a legal construct. Its roots run no deeper than positive law. ... it is a creative of the state, generated by the state's assumption of the power of invention of re-definition. " In fact, when same sex marriage became law in Canada, ... the language of 'natural parent' was removed from all Canadian laws. It was replaced by 'legal parent'. Also removed was 'blood relationship' replaced with 'legal relationship." The aim and the effect of these changes is "to de-naturalize the family," ... "making every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state's gift and disposal."
Children's "prima facie" rights to their own father and mother, unless prevented by death or some form of the severest of crises - this is the matter at issue for people of good will.
Adults have every right to privacy. People of good will respect and honor this fact. Among people of good will, this is considered simple, common decency. Legal arrangements honoring matters of medical visitation, inheritance, and such things are in place and are respected.
Children's rights, particularly their right to a father and mother and a stable home, are almost never mentioned in these discussions. It is as if marriage no longer has any particular connection to their coming into existence and their care and nuturing. I find this terrifying.
11.14.2012 | 6:07pm
c matt says:
Homosexuality is undeniably part of the natural spectrum of human sexual experience in the sense that some, obviously, engage in it. But then, so is adultery. Being part of the spectrum of experience says nothing about morality.
11.14.2012 | 7:34pm
TJ McMAHON says:
Galway, Ireland:
Savita Halappanavar, 31, was 17 weeks pregnant when she began to experience severe back pain. She was admitted to University Hospital Galway where she was told she was miscarrying. According to her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (via The Irish Times):
“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.
But the next day, nothing had changed and Savita was now experiencing excruciating pain. When she asked for the failed pregnancy to be terminated, she was refused on the grounds that the fetus’ heartbeat was still detectable and, as a Catholic country, nothing could be done. Two days later, the heartbeat finally stopped and the hospital performed the procedure but it was too late. Savita died of septicaemia (blood poisoning) four days later on October 28.
===============
why secular intrusion into religious-based practice can be better, not worse.
Savita Halappanavar, 31, was 17 weeks pregnant when she began to experience severe back pain. She was admitted to University Hospital Galway where she was told she was miscarrying. According to her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (via The Irish Times):
“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.
But the next day, nothing had changed and Savita was now experiencing excruciating pain. When she asked for the failed pregnancy to be terminated, she was refused on the grounds that the fetus’ heartbeat was still detectable and, as a Catholic country, nothing could be done. Two days later, the heartbeat finally stopped and the hospital performed the procedure but it was too late. Savita died of septicaemia (blood poisoning) four days later on October 28.
===============
why secular intrusion into religious-based practice can be better, not worse.
11.14.2012 | 8:26pm
Don Roberto says:
I'm with Fitz, Reader John, joe bissonnette, Theresa , Peg, and Citizen Jerry. This nation has degenerated into one ruled by a coalition of (1) those who think prosperity is to be had by obtaining as big a slice of a fixed pie as they can, and (2) those who believe society can flourish without an agreed-upon morale anchor. (The foolish and the wicked.) The Church must consider how its inclination toward sitting down with sinners must have a limit. Christ told the Apostles to shake the dirt from their sandals and depart when people rejected their message (the Pearl of Great Price). Love does not require that we agree with our neighbors or allow them the opportunity to harm our children (e.g., to teach them that evil is good). Love requires Truth, e.g., that those who kill their children and defy God's messengers make themselves His enemies. (Forgiveness is always available, but only to those who ask.)
Mr. Weigel, I'm with you, but think you go too easy on the bishops, e.g., you defended Cardinal Dolan's overly friendly dinner with Obama, which almost certainly gave borderline Catholic voters the sense that it was okay to vote for the leader of a party that scoffs at traditional values and even booed God at its convention. The bishops listen to you. Keep up the loving encouragement/challenge.
Tim MacGeorge, Richard: I imagine you're well-intentioned, but the views expressed above are not in accord with the Magisterium. I suggest you do some reading and prayer. (I will do the same.)
Mr. Weigel, I'm with you, but think you go too easy on the bishops, e.g., you defended Cardinal Dolan's overly friendly dinner with Obama, which almost certainly gave borderline Catholic voters the sense that it was okay to vote for the leader of a party that scoffs at traditional values and even booed God at its convention. The bishops listen to you. Keep up the loving encouragement/challenge.
Tim MacGeorge, Richard: I imagine you're well-intentioned, but the views expressed above are not in accord with the Magisterium. I suggest you do some reading and prayer. (I will do the same.)
11.14.2012 | 10:09pm
Alan Aversa says:
Focus should be placed on how acts of sodomy are grave sins. Very, very few U.S. Catholic churchmen have publicly said this.
11.15.2012 | 1:51am
Rick says:
WJ has cut through much of the fog surrounding the issue of the Obama administration, liberalism, and American capitalism:
"Weigel makes Obama much more important than he actually is - he unhelpfully casts a kind of apocalyptic fog around the man - and this prevents Weigel from confronting a truth about American liberalism....the logic of the liberal capitalist state moves in a direction that is antithetical and hostile to the Church. On their account, the neoliberal bureaucratic technocracy that is Obama's dream (if not perhaps his father's) is in fact the realization of the American Dream, once it is denuded of its fanciful mythology..."
Amazingly insightful! Liberalism and capitalism are not the antithetical enemies that superficial conservatives would have us believe. Capitalism has always been liberal, progressive, and revolutionary in spirit and has systematically destroyed traditional cultures everywhere in the world that it has gone.
I have another question, though, about the opposition to the "gay insurgency" that Wiegal brings up. I'm not Catholic, but I married an Irish-American Catholic who once mentioned a friend of hers from Holy Cross who entered a Catholic seminary, intent on becoming a priest. He dropped out after one year because he felt he just couldn't fit in. He was, it seems, the only straight member of his otherwise entirely gay class.
Later, we invited a lay worker in our Catholic church and his wife to dinner at our house. (Yes, I attend, and my sons are being raised Catholic.) Over dinner, Bill explained that he had originally planned on being a priest and had entered a seminary in Illinois. But sometime in his first year his spiritual advisor called him in for a conference. He explained that sometimes difficult issues needed to be discussed and gotten out in the open. "And, well, you know...what we have here is basically a gay community," he explained, "and you seem to be straight, and do you think you will fit in?" As it turned out, he didn't fit in, which was why he and his wife were sitting at our dinner table.
Yes, I know that it wasn't a sin for these men to be gay (although there is abundant evidence of actual homosexual liaisons in seminaries), but isn't there at least something strange in an organization so opposed to the gay agenda comprising such a high percentage of homosexuals?
"Weigel makes Obama much more important than he actually is - he unhelpfully casts a kind of apocalyptic fog around the man - and this prevents Weigel from confronting a truth about American liberalism....the logic of the liberal capitalist state moves in a direction that is antithetical and hostile to the Church. On their account, the neoliberal bureaucratic technocracy that is Obama's dream (if not perhaps his father's) is in fact the realization of the American Dream, once it is denuded of its fanciful mythology..."
Amazingly insightful! Liberalism and capitalism are not the antithetical enemies that superficial conservatives would have us believe. Capitalism has always been liberal, progressive, and revolutionary in spirit and has systematically destroyed traditional cultures everywhere in the world that it has gone.
I have another question, though, about the opposition to the "gay insurgency" that Wiegal brings up. I'm not Catholic, but I married an Irish-American Catholic who once mentioned a friend of hers from Holy Cross who entered a Catholic seminary, intent on becoming a priest. He dropped out after one year because he felt he just couldn't fit in. He was, it seems, the only straight member of his otherwise entirely gay class.
Later, we invited a lay worker in our Catholic church and his wife to dinner at our house. (Yes, I attend, and my sons are being raised Catholic.) Over dinner, Bill explained that he had originally planned on being a priest and had entered a seminary in Illinois. But sometime in his first year his spiritual advisor called him in for a conference. He explained that sometimes difficult issues needed to be discussed and gotten out in the open. "And, well, you know...what we have here is basically a gay community," he explained, "and you seem to be straight, and do you think you will fit in?" As it turned out, he didn't fit in, which was why he and his wife were sitting at our dinner table.
Yes, I know that it wasn't a sin for these men to be gay (although there is abundant evidence of actual homosexual liaisons in seminaries), but isn't there at least something strange in an organization so opposed to the gay agenda comprising such a high percentage of homosexuals?
11.15.2012 | 5:25am
edmond says:
Too many debates that have led to a "negotiable" image of the church position on non-negotiables. Coming to the bargaining table by USSCB Bishops has not achieved much except posturing. At least one or two of the clergy hit the streets when it was still early. Church teaching is non-negotiable, much more the practice of values. But then again, we began to believe our own lofty ideals, we pushed the envelope and now feel betrayed because the freedom we seduced ourselves into is not really the liberty we hoped for, we have fallen on our own sword as it were.
11.15.2012 | 11:28am
nobody.really says:
“O, is there not one maiden’s breast that seems to see the moral beauty
Of making worldly interest subordinate to sense of duty?”
Polls regularly show that large majorities of American Catholics use birth control. Thus I suspect that most American Catholics are Catholic in the Joe Biden sense: they grew up with, and identify with, a certain tradition – whether or not they embrace a given doctrine. To the extent that Biden is a hypocrite, his repeated election suggests that his hypocrisy matches popular hypocrisy. The number of Catholics in the Weigel sense – people who adhere to every tenant espoused by every member of the church hierarchy – may be vanishingly small.
And yet, the Roman Catholic Church IS a hierarchy. To the extent that Catholics are failing to conform to church edicts, they seem to be engaged in a kind of passive-aggressive protest. The English language has a word for people who protest against the church’s teachings: “Protestant.” Perhaps it is well and truly time for the Catholic laity to come out of the closet and publically acknowledge that they do not embrace Roman Catholicism. It’s time to own the label “protestant.”
The net effect of Weigel’s suggestions may be 1) a decline in membership for American Catholic churches, 2) an increase in the number of unchurched Americans, 3) a shot in the arm for mainline protestant churches (especially Episcopalians, I suspect), and 4) a welcome reduction in hypocrisy all around. The Catholic hierarchy would be free to speak credibly about the views of their members – and would have influence on public policy in proportion to its then-diminished membership.
Yeah, the transition would be painful, but there is a Promised Land. Know the truth; the truth will set you free.
Of making worldly interest subordinate to sense of duty?”
Polls regularly show that large majorities of American Catholics use birth control. Thus I suspect that most American Catholics are Catholic in the Joe Biden sense: they grew up with, and identify with, a certain tradition – whether or not they embrace a given doctrine. To the extent that Biden is a hypocrite, his repeated election suggests that his hypocrisy matches popular hypocrisy. The number of Catholics in the Weigel sense – people who adhere to every tenant espoused by every member of the church hierarchy – may be vanishingly small.
And yet, the Roman Catholic Church IS a hierarchy. To the extent that Catholics are failing to conform to church edicts, they seem to be engaged in a kind of passive-aggressive protest. The English language has a word for people who protest against the church’s teachings: “Protestant.” Perhaps it is well and truly time for the Catholic laity to come out of the closet and publically acknowledge that they do not embrace Roman Catholicism. It’s time to own the label “protestant.”
The net effect of Weigel’s suggestions may be 1) a decline in membership for American Catholic churches, 2) an increase in the number of unchurched Americans, 3) a shot in the arm for mainline protestant churches (especially Episcopalians, I suspect), and 4) a welcome reduction in hypocrisy all around. The Catholic hierarchy would be free to speak credibly about the views of their members – and would have influence on public policy in proportion to its then-diminished membership.
Yeah, the transition would be painful, but there is a Promised Land. Know the truth; the truth will set you free.
11.15.2012 | 12:38pm
David says:
Edward Peters recently wrote about whether it is even possible for the church to "withdraw from the civil marriage business" - he doesn't think so: http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/some-first-thoughts-on-weigels-call-to-reconsider-civil-consequences-for-catholic-weddings/
This line is especially important: "In short, I’m not sure how the Church can “withdraw” civil recognition of its ceremonies or, for that matter, demand it."
This line is especially important: "In short, I’m not sure how the Church can “withdraw” civil recognition of its ceremonies or, for that matter, demand it."
11.15.2012 | 12:51pm
John Howard says:
Fitz: "They would be married in the eyes of the Church and God and themselves but for purposes of state aid would not be putting their state subsidized incomes at risk.
I work with the poor and low-income & believe me this is a very real impediment to people getting married. Times are tough enough and no-one wants to risk a serious and reliable income, just to have a formal wedding.
Please...anyone...let me know what you think."
Terrible idea. First of all churches respect state authority, if they disagree with it they fight to change it, they don't ignore it. They see legitimate governments as being installed by God and to be respected.
Second, what they celebrate is the legal marriage, the civil marriage, the fact that when the couple leaves the chapel and goes home, they will be legally married and allowed by society to live and have sex and conceive offspring. If being legally married negatively impacts a couple's money, then we need to change that, not work around it.
All we need to do to allow churches to practice their religious beliefs is stop same-sex marriage. And all we need to do to stop same-sex marriage is recognize that same-sex couples should not be allowed to attempt to create offspring together because it is stupidly unethical and expensive and ricky and unnecessary and there is no right to do it, and that marriage always should approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together, and that prohibiting same-sex conception using stem cells or however it might be attempted would enable us to resolve the marriage debate with Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights."
I work with the poor and low-income & believe me this is a very real impediment to people getting married. Times are tough enough and no-one wants to risk a serious and reliable income, just to have a formal wedding.
Please...anyone...let me know what you think."
Terrible idea. First of all churches respect state authority, if they disagree with it they fight to change it, they don't ignore it. They see legitimate governments as being installed by God and to be respected.
Second, what they celebrate is the legal marriage, the civil marriage, the fact that when the couple leaves the chapel and goes home, they will be legally married and allowed by society to live and have sex and conceive offspring. If being legally married negatively impacts a couple's money, then we need to change that, not work around it.
All we need to do to allow churches to practice their religious beliefs is stop same-sex marriage. And all we need to do to stop same-sex marriage is recognize that same-sex couples should not be allowed to attempt to create offspring together because it is stupidly unethical and expensive and ricky and unnecessary and there is no right to do it, and that marriage always should approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together, and that prohibiting same-sex conception using stem cells or however it might be attempted would enable us to resolve the marriage debate with Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights."
11.15.2012 | 2:07pm
Mike M says:
Civil marriage has never been an instrument of Catholic-approved marriage. The vast majority of American marriages are ones that would NEVER be approved by the Catholic Church:
-Marriages among non-Catholics
-Marriages of Catholics who've been divorced (and their prior marriages not annulled by the Church)
-Marriages of Catholics who haven't gone through the (varying) Church-mandated pre-marriage requirements
And, of course, civil marriage divorce is itself not approved by the Church (fault, no-fault, etc. -- anything less than an annulment and the divorce is not Church-sanctioned).
So NOW, Mr. Weigel expects the Catholic Church to make some grand statement by getting out of the civil marriage business. The vast majority of civil marriages (and divorces under civil marriage) are -- and have always been -- contrary to Catholic Church doctrine. So now that some tiny proportion of the population is getting to participate in civil -- not Church -- marriage, it's time to get out?
If Mr. Weigel wanted a theocratic state where marriages (and divorces) can only be approved if the civil process matches what the Catholic Church approved, he should've gotten in on this a long time ago. Maybe about 240 years ago.....
-Marriages among non-Catholics
-Marriages of Catholics who've been divorced (and their prior marriages not annulled by the Church)
-Marriages of Catholics who haven't gone through the (varying) Church-mandated pre-marriage requirements
And, of course, civil marriage divorce is itself not approved by the Church (fault, no-fault, etc. -- anything less than an annulment and the divorce is not Church-sanctioned).
So NOW, Mr. Weigel expects the Catholic Church to make some grand statement by getting out of the civil marriage business. The vast majority of civil marriages (and divorces under civil marriage) are -- and have always been -- contrary to Catholic Church doctrine. So now that some tiny proportion of the population is getting to participate in civil -- not Church -- marriage, it's time to get out?
If Mr. Weigel wanted a theocratic state where marriages (and divorces) can only be approved if the civil process matches what the Catholic Church approved, he should've gotten in on this a long time ago. Maybe about 240 years ago.....
11.15.2012 | 2:27pm
Michael PS says:
Fitz says
“A Church not authorized to formally register such marriages with the State would be free to marry these couples...”
In most European countries, this would constitute an offence against the civil status of persons, Thus, the French Code Pénal (433-21) provides that “Any minister of religion who habitually conducts religious ceremonies of marriage without being presented beforehand with the marriage certificate received by the officials responsible for civil status is punished by six months' imprisonment and a fine of €7,500.”
“A Church not authorized to formally register such marriages with the State would be free to marry these couples...”
In most European countries, this would constitute an offence against the civil status of persons, Thus, the French Code Pénal (433-21) provides that “Any minister of religion who habitually conducts religious ceremonies of marriage without being presented beforehand with the marriage certificate received by the officials responsible for civil status is punished by six months' imprisonment and a fine of €7,500.”
11.15.2012 | 3:04pm
KC64 says:
It might not be the worst thing in the world for everyone to understand that what the Catholic Church means by marriage and what the state means by marriage are two entirely different things. The priest does act as an agent of the state in signing a marriage certificate/license. If the priest did not sign, then the couple would simply need to go to the courthouse or some other place and fill out the proper paperwork and so through some sort of meaningless civil ceremony. The couple, and society in general, would understand that they have done two different things in being sacramentally and civilly married.
11.15.2012 | 3:13pm
D.M Ruth says:
"Polls regularly show that large majorities of American Catholics use birth control. Thus I suspect that most American Catholics are Catholic in the Joe Biden sense: they grew up with, and identify with, a certain tradition – whether or not they embrace a given doctrine" (Nobody.really).
Shortly after the election I had a conversation with a cherished much older sibling who attends Mass and is involved in parish life. As we spoke, this sib revealed a very strong preference for Obama. I pointed to Obama's record on partial birth abortion and the fact that in the last 10 years there have been approximately 10 million abortions of convenience. The sib was unfazed and trotted out the mother, rape, incest argument. I offered logic about the less than 1% that this demographic represents, still leaving 9.9 million abortions in 10 years. Still unfazed. It quickly became clear that this could turn nasty, and even threaten our relationship. And it struck me that if we had true conversations with many "Catholic" family members and friends, it could indeed quickly turn nasty. We have maintained a veneer of niceness, so as to keep relationships afloat. It strikes me this veneer will soon be stripped.
This sibling has been in the Church for a long lifetime, yet holds to that strong opinion. Of course this speaks of a deplorable lack of teaching from the pulpit.
Shortly after the election I had a conversation with a cherished much older sibling who attends Mass and is involved in parish life. As we spoke, this sib revealed a very strong preference for Obama. I pointed to Obama's record on partial birth abortion and the fact that in the last 10 years there have been approximately 10 million abortions of convenience. The sib was unfazed and trotted out the mother, rape, incest argument. I offered logic about the less than 1% that this demographic represents, still leaving 9.9 million abortions in 10 years. Still unfazed. It quickly became clear that this could turn nasty, and even threaten our relationship. And it struck me that if we had true conversations with many "Catholic" family members and friends, it could indeed quickly turn nasty. We have maintained a veneer of niceness, so as to keep relationships afloat. It strikes me this veneer will soon be stripped.
This sibling has been in the Church for a long lifetime, yet holds to that strong opinion. Of course this speaks of a deplorable lack of teaching from the pulpit.
11.15.2012 | 3:47pm
daisy says:
Bastards get the same rights as children of civil marriages and mistresses get a share of estates and long time lovers get it all. Stepping away from civil marriage wouldn't endanger wives and children at all.
11.15.2012 | 4:46pm
GeneOssining says:
C.S.Lewis, in 1952:
"There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
-- MERE CHRISTIANITY (chapter "Christian Marriage")
By "the Church" Lewis was referring primarily to the C of E, but we can say much the same, having in mind the RCC.
"There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
-- MERE CHRISTIANITY (chapter "Christian Marriage")
By "the Church" Lewis was referring primarily to the C of E, but we can say much the same, having in mind the RCC.
11.15.2012 | 5:37pm
nobody.really says:
“Shortly after the election I had a conversation with a cherished much older sibling who attends Mass and is involved in parish life. As we spoke, this sib revealed a very strong preference for Obama…. This sibling has been in the Church for a long lifetime, yet holds to that strong opinion. Of course this speaks of a deplorable lack of teaching from the pulpit.”
Perhaps. Then again, I’ve heard that in the New Testament one out of every 16 verses is about the poor. In the Gospel, it’s one out of every ten. In Luke, one of every seven. In James, one of every five. Perhaps these verses played some role in corrupting your sibling’s perspective.
I read that the Catholic hierarchy clamped down on nuns because they’re giving insufficient attention to issues of abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. Apparently these nuns had been focusing on something the hierarchy called “the social gospel” – something the rest of us call simply “the Gospel.” If even nuns are so easily corrupted, what hope did your sibling have? Or any of us?
Because from my perspective – and perhaps from the perspective of your sibling, or the nuns -- Weigel’s concerns seem to bear only a tangential relationship to anything Jesus ever said or did. I don’t doubt that learned people will disagree with me. But I also don’t doubt that learned people agree with me, too.
Perhaps. Then again, I’ve heard that in the New Testament one out of every 16 verses is about the poor. In the Gospel, it’s one out of every ten. In Luke, one of every seven. In James, one of every five. Perhaps these verses played some role in corrupting your sibling’s perspective.
I read that the Catholic hierarchy clamped down on nuns because they’re giving insufficient attention to issues of abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. Apparently these nuns had been focusing on something the hierarchy called “the social gospel” – something the rest of us call simply “the Gospel.” If even nuns are so easily corrupted, what hope did your sibling have? Or any of us?
Because from my perspective – and perhaps from the perspective of your sibling, or the nuns -- Weigel’s concerns seem to bear only a tangential relationship to anything Jesus ever said or did. I don’t doubt that learned people will disagree with me. But I also don’t doubt that learned people agree with me, too.
11.15.2012 | 5:48pm
Fr. John Morris says:
When reading about V.Pres. Biden and Nancy Pelosi, I am reminded of the example of St. Ambrose of Milan who refused communion to Emperor Theodosius I until he repented of the massacre of 7,000 people in Thessalonica in 390. If the Catholic, an my own Orthodox Bishops had the same courage we could do a lot towards making it clear that you cannot support abortion and same sex marriage and be faithful to the teachings of the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches.
11.15.2012 | 5:51pm
Aeshmi says:
'A further threat comes from the gay insurgency, which will press the administration to find some way to federalize the marriage issue and to compel acceptance of the chimera of “gay marriage.” '
I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that the marriage issue has not already been federalised. The wording above leads me to think the author believes that marriage is still a state issue. But the door leading through to marriage as a federal issue was already opened with the Defense of Marriage Act. The current administrations refusal to defend in court has drawn criticism from both conservatives and some church leaders.
I don't believe the 'gay insurgency' can sneak marriage as a federal issue in through the back door. DOMA has already made it a federal issue and talk prior to the election of making it a constitutional ammendment were the Republicans to sweep the presidency and the senate show the importance of this issue.
Marriage has already been made a federal issue by DOMA. Once something has been placed within the preojative of the legislature it is fair game for any further changes. DOMA's existence makes federal legislation empowering gay marriage legitimate as opposed to removes the federal governments discretion to legislate on such matters. Without DOMA you could make a, in my view comletely accurate, argument that marriage as decided by the federal government is unconstitutional as its not one of the powers denoted to the federal government.
But DOMA changed that. You cannot claim the unconstitutionality of legislating on gay marriage while affording the federal government the powers to decide on 'traditional' marriage. The thing about legislative power is its not set in stone, power is rightfully restricted because theres a recognition that once its in the purview of the state to make law one thing, it is perfcetly within its right to change the law to the contrary.
Even laws restricting murder can be changed to justify killing in certain circumstances, such as by police or in defense of ones person, or even completely subverting it by making murder legal. It may seem unconciousable and unlikely, but once it becomes within the power of the state to legislate freely on a matter, thats the chance you take. DOMA has done that for federal marriage. Gay people can challenge that BECAUSE its law.
I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that the marriage issue has not already been federalised. The wording above leads me to think the author believes that marriage is still a state issue. But the door leading through to marriage as a federal issue was already opened with the Defense of Marriage Act. The current administrations refusal to defend in court has drawn criticism from both conservatives and some church leaders.
I don't believe the 'gay insurgency' can sneak marriage as a federal issue in through the back door. DOMA has already made it a federal issue and talk prior to the election of making it a constitutional ammendment were the Republicans to sweep the presidency and the senate show the importance of this issue.
Marriage has already been made a federal issue by DOMA. Once something has been placed within the preojative of the legislature it is fair game for any further changes. DOMA's existence makes federal legislation empowering gay marriage legitimate as opposed to removes the federal governments discretion to legislate on such matters. Without DOMA you could make a, in my view comletely accurate, argument that marriage as decided by the federal government is unconstitutional as its not one of the powers denoted to the federal government.
But DOMA changed that. You cannot claim the unconstitutionality of legislating on gay marriage while affording the federal government the powers to decide on 'traditional' marriage. The thing about legislative power is its not set in stone, power is rightfully restricted because theres a recognition that once its in the purview of the state to make law one thing, it is perfcetly within its right to change the law to the contrary.
Even laws restricting murder can be changed to justify killing in certain circumstances, such as by police or in defense of ones person, or even completely subverting it by making murder legal. It may seem unconciousable and unlikely, but once it becomes within the power of the state to legislate freely on a matter, thats the chance you take. DOMA has done that for federal marriage. Gay people can challenge that BECAUSE its law.
11.15.2012 | 6:06pm
Torin93 says:
The Catholic Hospitals and Catholic Church will continue to loose the fight because they accept federal money.
It is really simple, do not accept Federal Monday and the Health Care mandates will not apply. My Mama told me, If you take the money, you gotta take the other stuff.
It is really simple, do not accept Federal Monday and the Health Care mandates will not apply. My Mama told me, If you take the money, you gotta take the other stuff.
11.15.2012 | 6:47pm
gregory says:
I really like what “Fitz” wrote:
“A Church not authorized to formally register such marriages with the State would be free to marry these couples and would have no business in their registering there [sic] marriages with the State.
They would be married in the eyes of the Church and God and themselves but for purposes of state aid would not be putting their state subsidized incomes at risk.”
To welcome these struggling couples—who, from “Fitz’s” description, are attempting to make a go of it in a “common law marriage” while also eking out some help from the State—into the married state and into the Church seems like a great gain for all of us.
I still have this naïve hope that the poor want to do what is right, if only they could afford it….
“A Church not authorized to formally register such marriages with the State would be free to marry these couples and would have no business in their registering there [sic] marriages with the State.
They would be married in the eyes of the Church and God and themselves but for purposes of state aid would not be putting their state subsidized incomes at risk.”
To welcome these struggling couples—who, from “Fitz’s” description, are attempting to make a go of it in a “common law marriage” while also eking out some help from the State—into the married state and into the Church seems like a great gain for all of us.
I still have this naïve hope that the poor want to do what is right, if only they could afford it….
11.15.2012 | 8:57pm
R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. says:
It is obvious, from the Presidential election results, that there is no Catholic voting block. Catholics voted for Obama in the face of a law suit by dozens of Catholic Institutions, and others, who are challenging the Obama Administration on a Fundamental Constitutional issue, the First Amendment's Freedom of Religion. And voted for Obama in the face of numerous Bishop's warnings that Obamacare mandated abortion funding, and Gay Marriage are "grave evils". Yet any erudite American knows that the national leaders who pushed for these laws are prominent Catholics. The realpolitic result is a party whose prime political positions are against church teaching. Moreover, it is quite easy to find priests and religious who espouse that abortion is OK, and gay marriage is OK.
The government position is quite clear on both issues, the clergy is given a pass, but all laity involved in commerce related to these issues must kowtow to government dictates, or be broken financially, by fines. This could not have happened without millions of Catholics voting against the basics of their faith.
Would this sorry state have been avoided, if sermons on the reality of hell, eternal punishment for grave evil, and public excommunication of national leaders had been openly pronounced a number of years ago?
As an organization, the American church appears very confused as to its mission and practices. The election proves it is not working for most American Catholics, roughly half voted for grave evil. It is clear that practicing Catholics will face repression for their religious beliefs in the coming years. We have voted for an existential conflict in America.
The government position is quite clear on both issues, the clergy is given a pass, but all laity involved in commerce related to these issues must kowtow to government dictates, or be broken financially, by fines. This could not have happened without millions of Catholics voting against the basics of their faith.
Would this sorry state have been avoided, if sermons on the reality of hell, eternal punishment for grave evil, and public excommunication of national leaders had been openly pronounced a number of years ago?
As an organization, the American church appears very confused as to its mission and practices. The election proves it is not working for most American Catholics, roughly half voted for grave evil. It is clear that practicing Catholics will face repression for their religious beliefs in the coming years. We have voted for an existential conflict in America.
11.15.2012 | 10:37pm
Peg says:
"The Catholic Hospitals and Catholic Church will continue to loose the fight because they accept federal money.
It is really simple, do not accept Federal Monday and the Health Care mandates will not apply. My Mama told me, If you take the money, you gotta take the other stuff."
This is not true. The HHS mandate applies to all institutions, including those that receive no federal money.
It is really simple, do not accept Federal Monday and the Health Care mandates will not apply. My Mama told me, If you take the money, you gotta take the other stuff."
This is not true. The HHS mandate applies to all institutions, including those that receive no federal money.
11.15.2012 | 10:54pm
BobRN says:
Some thoughts on what others have commented:
First, David Nickol and others who think the state will not require of the Church to marry same-sex couples may be too optimistic. Denmark has already passed a law requiring that same-sex couples who wish to "marry" be allowed to do so in a Catholic Church, if they want, or the Church, should she refuse, will be required to obtain another venue. While it's not clear if this means that the state will require that the Church recognize the marriage, or provide a priest to witness the marriage, it's a first step.
Second, Mike M is incorrect in assuming that the Catholic Church does not recognize the marriages of non-Catholics. She does, indeed.
Third, Torina93 repeats that common error when she thinks the HHS mandate is connected to Catholic hospitals and other ministries receiving federal money. It is not. Catholic schools, which receive no federal funds, will be required to follow the HHS mandate, as will all Catholic institutions, except parishes (for now), whether they receive federal money or not. Should the Church start tomorrow to refuse federal money in support of her ministries (which I think would be wise), her institutions would still be required to follow the HHS mandate.
First, David Nickol and others who think the state will not require of the Church to marry same-sex couples may be too optimistic. Denmark has already passed a law requiring that same-sex couples who wish to "marry" be allowed to do so in a Catholic Church, if they want, or the Church, should she refuse, will be required to obtain another venue. While it's not clear if this means that the state will require that the Church recognize the marriage, or provide a priest to witness the marriage, it's a first step.
Second, Mike M is incorrect in assuming that the Catholic Church does not recognize the marriages of non-Catholics. She does, indeed.
Third, Torina93 repeats that common error when she thinks the HHS mandate is connected to Catholic hospitals and other ministries receiving federal money. It is not. Catholic schools, which receive no federal funds, will be required to follow the HHS mandate, as will all Catholic institutions, except parishes (for now), whether they receive federal money or not. Should the Church start tomorrow to refuse federal money in support of her ministries (which I think would be wise), her institutions would still be required to follow the HHS mandate.
11.16.2012 | 6:42am
Richard says:
I was raised a Catholic. I was a member of the Catholic Church for many years. The Church and its clergy supported many politicians who supported abortion because of other issues which seemed "more important" at the time. That support cannot now be revised or withdrawn just because one of those politicians got old and died. Now, and rather suddenly, the Church has discovered issues beyond getting state support for its activities and sees the result which will be state control of the Church. The Church worshiped the State first, and sought the political power it promised. Now you have State assertion of control of the Church. You signed up for that, it seems to me. That's but one of the many reasons I'm no longer Catholic.
11.16.2012 | 6:55am
Charles R. Williams says:
The Church recognizes the right of the state to regulate marriage but not to redefine marriage. The battle for civil marriage was lost in the 1970s. Unilateral no-fault divorce is fundamentally incompatible with marriage.
Theology recognizes natural marriage and sacramental marriage. Civil marriage has no such privileged status. It is policy to presume that a civil marriage is a natural marriage and not to grant that presumption to a cohabitation arrangement. It is time to change that policy.
When a person is received into the Church all of that person's cohabitations should be reviewed to decide if any of them were natural marriages. The same would be done for a non-Catholic when a non-Catholic and a Catholic wish to marry. Civil marriage then becomes irrelevant. Civil marriage status would be an option for a couple who wishes to marry in the Church - an option the officiating cleric can facilitate by doing the paperwork.
Theology recognizes natural marriage and sacramental marriage. Civil marriage has no such privileged status. It is policy to presume that a civil marriage is a natural marriage and not to grant that presumption to a cohabitation arrangement. It is time to change that policy.
When a person is received into the Church all of that person's cohabitations should be reviewed to decide if any of them were natural marriages. The same would be done for a non-Catholic when a non-Catholic and a Catholic wish to marry. Civil marriage then becomes irrelevant. Civil marriage status would be an option for a couple who wishes to marry in the Church - an option the officiating cleric can facilitate by doing the paperwork.
11.16.2012 | 10:53am
Alfred Owens says:
For those who feel that a person like the President or a King has control over your life and are coming unhinged because Obama is President. Let me remind you of Jesus’ response to Pilate's statement of power resting with the heads of government (John 19: 10-11).Governments and its leaders are not coincidental. Absolute Power comes from above and professing Christians should at least know that much. Obama was allowed to be chosen by God to lead the next four years for a purpose. Wake up you sleepers and pray for Obama while praising God as the world rushes forward under HIS's control. For Christians who are concern about the government’s laws regulating birth control and the defining of marriage. The Church is not obligated to follow the State or the World's laws concerning these issues. Even the atheists acknowledge the separation of church and state. The “True Church” has stood and still stands today against what is spiritual and what is worldly. Look up Saints, you redemption draws nigh
11.17.2012 | 1:57am
Matt B says:
I wonder what the past teaches us about a moment like this? Certainly Catholicism in America has been threatened before, if not by secular aggression, then by Protestant oppression. Recusant Catholicsm might offer a model for dealing with a new age of persecution. Scholars?
11.17.2012 | 7:27am
Michael PS says:
Charles R Williams wrote, "Unilateral no-fault divorce is fundamentally incompatible with marriage."
This is difficult to reconcile with Deut. xxiv. 1-4, as traditionally interpreted. St Augustine calls Indissolubility "bonum sacramenti" - the good of the sacrament, thus implying that it is something peculiar to Christian marriage
Otherwise, we are committed to holding that all Roman, Jewish and Islamic marriages are void, along with most customary systems of law, a position the tribunals of the Church has never adopted
This is difficult to reconcile with Deut. xxiv. 1-4, as traditionally interpreted. St Augustine calls Indissolubility "bonum sacramenti" - the good of the sacrament, thus implying that it is something peculiar to Christian marriage
Otherwise, we are committed to holding that all Roman, Jewish and Islamic marriages are void, along with most customary systems of law, a position the tribunals of the Church has never adopted
11.23.2012 | 5:20pm
John Spiers says:
Anyone defending any rights of the state ought to carefully read 1 Samuel 8, and then on through to 1 Samuel 12. The state is about punishing people who turn from God. The state gets its power from God to punish people who want the state to fight its battles, such as war and finding health care.
Wish that George Weigel made so much sense when he was pushing war. To prarphrase Weigel:
"who has grossly misrepresented the Church’s teaching on the just cause and just war issues; and who is, in myriad ways, an ecclesial embarrassment. So are Catholic members of the House and Senate who not only vote against truths known by moral reason, but then have the gall to justify their irresponsibility by a faux commitment to “self defense” or, worse, by recourse to what they are pleased to call “just war Catholicism.”
Wish that George Weigel made so much sense when he was pushing war. To prarphrase Weigel:
"who has grossly misrepresented the Church’s teaching on the just cause and just war issues; and who is, in myriad ways, an ecclesial embarrassment. So are Catholic members of the House and Senate who not only vote against truths known by moral reason, but then have the gall to justify their irresponsibility by a faux commitment to “self defense” or, worse, by recourse to what they are pleased to call “just war Catholicism.”
Retour vers le futur!