| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A serious re-evaluation of annulment policy is
vitally important if we are
serious about our sacramental beliefs.
An uncommon policy
regarding marriage
By Michael P. Orsi
n President Clinton’s behavior in the “Sexgate Scandal” is really
consistent with the baby-boom generation, which is not usually known for commitment. His
post-World War II cohort came of age in the 1960s therapeutic society that nurtured
feel-good relativism. This philosophy has so dominated our cultural attitudes that the
most fundamental institutions of society have been undermined, the first and foremost
being marriage and the family. At the moment the dissolution of marriages is well
documented at 50%. Civil government and churches are duly concerned since the impact is
taking its toll, causing high degrees of poverty, delinquency, depression, and suicide in
society.
To stem this trend, both civil and church authorities have tried new initiatives. The
state of Louisiana has enacted an alternative to regular marriage known as “Covenant
Marriage” which, for those choosing it, makes their marriage much more difficult to
dissolve, mandating counseling before divorce papers can be filed. The churches have tried
to develop programs and policies forcing couples to be better prepared upon entering
marriage, as well as programs to save marriages on the verge of divorce. Many dioceses
have introduced FOCCUS, a program designed to help couples identify and discuss basic
issues which are key to a successful marriage and RETROUVAILLE for troubled marriages.
Yet, the basic flaw of both the civil and religious programs is that they are being built
on sandy foundations of diluted theology and junk pop-psychology which provide little
strength for when the winds blow and the rain falls.
Aristotle taught that people best learn by precept, exhortation and example. Following
this timeless and wise counsel the Pontifical Council for the Family taught in the Truth
and Meaning of Human Sexuality (1995) that strong emphasis should be placed on the remote
stage of marriage preparation beginning in early childhood, as the family leads their
children to discover themselves and their vocation. It focused on the primary role of
parents as educators of their children and the ancillary responsibilities of the Church,
school and civic organizations in forming children for future relationships. The frequent
abdication of this role of educator by the parents leads to children who are either
searching for guidance, often in wrong places, or who have given up on all authority. The
fact that many parents still have the ability to influence their adult children was the
point echoed in a recent challenging article, as a Generation X’er reminds the
baby-boomers that they continue to have formative power over their twenty-something
children, since people in their 30s, 40s and 50s shape the news and public opinion. He
chastises his parents’ generation for their lackadaisical attitude toward truth and
morality vis á vis the President’s behavior. He states, “Our values are still
being formed and we look to our elders and our culture to shape our futures” (Frank,
Philadelphia Inquirer, October 5, 1998, p. A11). This young adult highlights the
importance, too, of our mediating agencies such as Catholic schools, religious education
programs, youth groups and institutions of higher learning, which are invaluable when they
provide solid Catholic teaching in matters of faith and morals. Bishops and pastors should
be vigilant to see that this is indeed the case.
Sociologists tell us that the baby-boomers’ broken and troubled marriages are due to
the fact that they have been socialized differently from past generations (Kosmin and
Lachman, 1993). The therapeutic age in which they were reared promoted easy happiness
which militated against any delayed gratification, hard work or self-sacrifice that is
necessary to sustain a lifelong and faithful relationship (Whitehead, 1997). In Daniel
Goleman’s thesis Emotional Intelligence (1995) he demonstrates how an underdeveloped
emotional I.Q. does not develop the virtues of patience and perseverance which are
necessary to work through problems in order to achieve a higher good or be successful in
life. Indicative of this quick fix approach to problems is the unsound advice of
pop-psychologists who advise couples to divorce for their happiness and their
children’s good. In A Generation at Risk (1997), this radical approach is condemned
even by Amato and Booth, two left-of-center sociologists who have determined that, barring
physical abuse, the children of couples that stay together and struggle with their
marriage are better off than children of couples who separate. The reason for this is that
children often imitate their parents’ poor coping behavior and therefore have a
higher rate of divorce than those who come from intact homes. What can be done to break
this cycle of divorce now eroding the moral fabric of our society and even the credibility
of our Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of Marriage?
The present Sexgate crisis provides the Church with a unique opportunity to clarify some
of the fuzzy thinking and lax attitudes that are presently eroding the basic moral
principles of permanence and fidelity upon which the institution of marriage rests. In The
Empty Church (1997) Thomas Reeves documents the decline of preaching on the traditional
personal morality in favor of social issues and moral relativity. He contends that the
clergy’s failure to preach and teach these traditional biblical concepts is two-fold;
first, they themselves are captive to general cultural mores, and second, they are fearful
of offending the members of their congregations. Nevertheless, the Dominical command which
describes marriage as a permanent institution foreordained by the Creator demands clear
enunciation.
The crisis further highlights the importance of telling the truth in general and the truth
about marriage in particular. In Evil (1997), R. Baumeister points out that evil makes its
inroads in our personal and social relationships when our moral teaching is ambiguous,
i.e., susceptible to multiple interpretations, and confused by misinformation. First and
foremost, telling the truth about sacramental marriage is to attack divorce, and those
events that lead to it, as sinful. On the sacramental level, divorce besottes and rents a
sacred bond. It does violence to the image of Christ’s love that the married couple
proclaims to be. Instead of a source of grace for each other, their children and the
world, they become a scandal and a source of personal and social sin. Because their
behavior blocks out love, they give evil a chance to fill in the vacuum. As scripture
attests, all sin is social and passes its effects to others and future generations. No
amount of therapy or quality time with children can undo the damage. Not to name divorce
for what it is, SIN, only allows evil free reign to perpetuate itself and to continue its
deadly spread which undermines the moral fabric of society. Divorce is always a human
disorder; it is not part of the Creator’s plan and can never be acceptable for
Christians. Perhaps a pastoral from the bishops on this topic is long overdue.
For Catholics the foundational program for marriage preparation has been long in place.
Any policy designed to safeguard the sanctity of marriage must begin with a re-emphasis on
its sacramental nature. In Religion as Poetry (1995) Andrew Greeley presents conclusive
data that the Catholic sacramental imagination holds a powerful sway in Catholic
perception of reality. With this in mind, it would seem logical that the first step in
stemming the erosion of Catholic marriages is to begin a new catechesis on the sacraments
in general and marriage in particular. What seems to be missing is the conscious awareness
of transcendent relationships which sacramental life directly establishes. This union
entered into by the couple must be seen as including a divine dimension that reaches
beyond the individuals and participates in the very life of God who desires the personal
salvation of the couple as well as the good of humanity through the graces conferred by
the sacrament.
In Tell Me a Story (1991), Roger Shank relates the importance that stories play in shaping
human behavior. Ritual is recognized as a most powerful vehicle for story-telling due to
its didactic and affective qualities which effectively shape the reality of the
participant. The Church’s primary story for formation is the Mass. Because of this,
the Church mandates weekly attendance under pain of mortal sin. Recently, Bishop John
D’Arcy made regular Mass attendance a pre-requisite for couples preparing for
marriage (D’Arcy, 1998 p. 280) and, though this is a vital step in the formation
process, it will be fully effective only when the sacrificial aspect of the Mass is
emphasized, since a main cause for marriage breakdown is that our culture so promotes
self-centeredness that the concept of self-sacrifice has been all but lost (Carter, 1998).
If we believe that marriage is a sacrament, a mystical union between two people, filled
with deep personal meaning, it requires dying to oneself (Gallagher, New York Post,
October 5, 1998). To this end, the graces and story of the Mass are ideal for marriage
policy formation.
Because Catholicism envisions an anthropic world designed for humans called to an engraced
existence, the natural state of marriage and its design for holiness make the teaching of
Paul VI in Humanae Vitae (1968) endemic to Catholics’ married life. Thus, Humanae
Vitae should permeate all catechetical efforts from pre-school to marriage preparation. If
sacramental marriage is properly lived, taught and preached, fertility and the children it
can provide will be seen as a gift, not as the burden or disease it is thought to be
today. The natural method of spacing births will never seem odd, but rather it will be
assumed from the formation that has preceded from parents, Church and school. Not to live
and tell this story makes all other preparations just short of a waste of time. Priests
and couples who do not hold to the teaching of the encyclical effectively diminish the
success of those they prepare for marriage. The enunciation of marriage as a sacrament
implies living it in a manner consistent with the virtues of self-discipline,
responsibility, friendship, perseverance, loyalty and faith. The encyclical provides the
theological anthropology and practical application for this daily virtuous living. It
encapsulates a Christian worldview that teaches the Christian story of love, creation and
how we are to participate in God’s plan (Chaput, 1998).
One of the greatest sources of ambiguity on the Church’s teaching on marriage is the
current annulment process in the United States, which has 6% of the world’s Catholic
population and grants 78% of the universal Church’s annulments. The mixed message
that it sends erodes the traditional teaching that marriage is a permanent institution. It
also undermines the family. In What God has Joined Together (1998), Robert Vasoli views
the plethora of annulments granted in America as hypocritical. He points to three root
causes making the United States the annulment capital of the Catholic world: 1) a reliance
on the nebulous concept of “the spirit of Vatican II,” which enables theologians
and canonists to see what is not in the Council documents; 2) a pastoral sense which
focuses on healing, often at the expense of truth, i.e., the indissolubility of marriage;
and 3) an insidious theology which posits the right to a “community of life” as
being essential for sacramental validity. This concept, while enunciated as an ideal to be
strived for by Vatican II, is nowhere enunciated in the new code or the Catechism. With
these points in mind any marriage in America, he rightly contends, can be annulled. Any
kind of unhappiness, lack or imperfection which the tribunal can use against a background
of this questionable theology and the ever-changing vagaries of the “junk
science” used for psychological assessment will make, according to Vasoli, any
marriage suspect. This final point needs to be highlighted since it is indicative of a
broader trend whereby the authority of parents, Church, and lawgivers has been surrendered
to psychologizers who have carried many behaviors, once interpreted through a religious
frame of reference, to be viewed in terms of health. “The role of the new priest, as
such, depends in part on the redefinition of human behaviors in pathological rather than
moralistic categories,” (Nolan, 1998, p. 8). This cultural canard effectively
diminished the categories of sin, responsibility, right and wrong and religious belief in
general. A serious re-evaluation of annulment policy is vitally important if we are
serious about our sacramental beliefs. A first step must begin with an examination of the
training received by Judicial Vicars and tribunal personnel.
Finally, Catholics should be encouraged to marry each other. In a recent study, James D.
Davidson (1998) found that Catholics with interfaith marriages are more likely to
experience marital discord and divorce. They are, according to Davidson,
less likely to accept traditional beliefs (such as the Nicene Creed), agree with the
Church’s sexual and reproductive norms, and comply with the Church’s social
teaching. They are less likely to agree with canon law on matters such as the need to
attend Mass and to limit ordination to celibate males. This being the case, bishops and
pastors should encourage “same-faith” marriages as contributing to marital
stability, commitment to the Church, and one’s chances of passing on the faith to
one’s children (p.12).
The fragile environment of an interfaith marriage changes the perception of the Catholic,
weakening their resolve and often distorting the story that should frame their actions. At
the moment, 30% of marriages recognized by the Church fall into this category.
This essay was motivated by the bishops of the state of New Jersey who have requested a
meeting with Family Life Directors and others to review Common Policy programs for the
Pastoral Ministry of Marriage Preparation. Their concerns were centered on Pre-Cana,
Engaged Encounter, time with a mentor couple or parish priest. However, in this
author’s opinion, these programs, which may have worked for previous generations,
quite frankly, are now inadequate and will continue to be ineffective without a strong
foundation set from childhood. If we are serious about saving Catholic marriage, a radical
turnabout from the pastoral practice of the last 30 years which offers too little, too
late must be addressed first.
The first steps of reform should be:
1) A catechesis on marriage should be mandated from the pulpit.
2) All marriage preparation must have as their foundation Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968)
and The Theology of the Body (John Paul II, 1997).
3) Because of this foundation, bishops must mandate that all priests who moderate marriage
preparation programs embrace Humanae Vitae and be able to articulate why it is central to
marriage.
4) Also because of this foundation, bishops must mandate that all couples involved with
diocesan or parish marriage preparation must be living Humanae Vitae precepts or endorse
it as central to the couples’ understanding of marriage.
5) Therefore, Natural Family Planning must be articulated as the only acceptable method of
spacing births and it must be central to all marriage preparation programs as the living
out of the marriage covenant.
6) The primary focus of marriage preparation programs must be sacramental. Psychological
and sociological components must be peripheral.
7) Because of the sacramental nature of Catholic-Christian marriage, all marriage
preparation programs must articulate that the outward sign of marriage is the marital act
and it is the marital act which is the conduit of grace.
8) Along with sacrament and covenant, all marriage preparation programs must present
marriage as a vocation.
9) This is accomplished by instituting remote and proximate marriage preparation as per
The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality.
10) Marriage between Catholic parties should be encouraged as the acceptable norm.
11) Diocesan Tribunals should be examined and encouraged to better reflect the Catholic
understanding of marriage as an unbreakable bond that should not be undermined.
If we implement these steps we can put a break on the continuing erosion of the
institution of marriage and the damage that separation and divorce are causing our society
and the Body of Christ. n
References
Amato, P.R. & Booth, A. (1997). A generation at risk: growing up in an era of family
upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carter, S.L. (1998). Civility: manners, morals, and the etiquette of democracy. NY: Basic
Books.
Chaput, C. “Humanae Vitae: a misunderstood papal intervention.” 1998. Origins,
28 (14) p. 248-251.
Davidson, J.D. (1998). “Interfaith marriage: location, location, location.”
Commonweal, CXXV (15), 12-13.
D’Arcy, J.M. (1998), “Cohabitation: before you say ‘I do’.”
Origins, 28 (16) p. 279-281.
Frank, N. (1998, October 5). “Why are boomers so quick to shrug at the
President?” The Philadelphia Inquirer. p. A11.
Gallagher, M. (1998, October 5). “A double standard on privacy.” New York Post.
p. 23.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. NY: Bantam
Books.
Greeley, A.M. (1995) Religion as poetry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
John Paul II (1997). The theology of the body: human love in the divine plan. Boston, MA:
Pauline Books and Media.
Kosmin, B.A. & Lachman (1993). One nation under God. NY: Harmony Books.
Nolan, J.L., Jr. (1998). The therapeutic state: justifying government at century’s
end. NY: New York University Press.
Reeves, T.C. (1996). The empty church: the suicide of liberal Christianity. NY: The Free
Press.
Schank, R.C. (1990). Tell me a story: a new book of real and artificial memory. NY:
Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Vasoli, R.H. (1998). What God has joined: the annulment crisis in American Catholicism.
NY: Oxford University Press.
Whitehead, B.D. (1997). The divorce culture. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Reverend Michael P. Orsi is the Assistant Chancellor and Family Life Director for the Diocese of Camden, N.J. He is also an adjunct professor at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, Wynnewood, Pa. He has published articles in various journals and has co-authored three previous books on papal encyclicals. He is the founder and present coordinator of the John Paul II Consortium of Family Life Ministers.
Back
to Catholic Information Center On Internet's
Main Periodical Page
Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review - May 1999 - Table of Contents