The pope’s most recent comments on marriage point in a disturbing direction but let’s address two important matters first.
Point One. Cohabitation is not marriage.
Largely overlooked amid the furor caused by Pope Francis’ rash claim that “the great part of our sacramental marriages are null”—an assertion reckless if false (which it is) and brimming with despair if true (which it is not), a claim followed not by an apology, an official retraction, or even a bureaucratic ‘clarification’ but instead by an Orwellian alteration of the pope’s words in Vatican records—overlooked, I say, in this greater mess was the pope’s later but equally problematic comment about his being “sure that cohabitating couples are in a true marriage having the grace of marriage”. Though multi-facetedly wrong (theologically, canonically, pastorally, socially) the pope’s equating cohabitation (‘faithful’, whatever that means) with Christian marriage did not, mirabile dictu, get edited down to a platitude or deleted completely: his words are still there, “in queste convivenze … sono sicuro che questo è un matrimonio vero, hanno la grazia del matrimonio…”
Let’s be clear: marriage is marriage but cohabitation (as that word is nearly universally understood in social discourse) is only cohabitation. Where to begin?
Everybody starts off single. One stays single unless one goes through a ceremony called a wedding, at which point, one is (presumptively, at least) married. People who are married get to do certain things that people who are not married don’t get to do, like, say, submit a married-filing-jointly tax return with a certain someone and have sex with that same certain someone if they both so choose. In addition, though, married couples who are baptized get something else at their wedding, they receive a sacrament called Matrimony, and with that sacrament come very powerful graces put there by Jesus to help Christian couples living the difficult and wonderful thing called marriage.
But, if one is not married, one does not get to submit a married-filing-jointly tax return with anyone and one does not get to have sex with a certain no-one or with anyone else. Moreover, even if one is baptized (and regardless of what other sacramental or actual graces might be wonderfully at work in one’s life) a single person does not get the specific graces of Matrimony. Why? Because cohabitation is NOT marriage, let alone is it “true marriage”, and cohabiting couples do NOT share in the graces of Matrimony.
Point Two. Civil-only marriage might, or might not, be marriage.
While asserting that couples cohabiting ‘faithfully’ (?) are in a real marriage (which they aren’t) the pope also said that merely civilly-married couples are in real marriages (which they might or might not be). To understand what is at stake here we need to distinguish more carefully.
Couples, neither of whom is Catholic (i.e., most of the world), even if both of them are baptized, can marry (the Church would say, “validly”) in a civil-only ceremony. To that extent, Francis would be right to say that civilly married couples have a true marriage. But if the pope thinks that merely civilly married Catholics—and given the context of his remarks this is likely whom he had in mind—are, just as much as cohabiting couples (supposedly) are, in real marriages and enjoying the graces of Matrimony, then I have to say No, that’s wrong—even though I wish he were right. Once again, the requirement of “canonical form” (a cure that has long out-lived the disease it was prescribed to treat) seriously complicates the Church’s message on the permanence of marriage.
Because Catholics (let’s just talk Romans here) are required for validity to marry in (still keepin’ it simple) a Catholic religious ceremony, those tens of thousands of Catholics who ‘marry’ civilly-only are (outside a few rare exceptions) no more married than are couples just cohabiting (‘faithfully’ or otherwise). Moreover, because of the inseparability of the marriage contract from the sacrament, if one is invalidly ‘married’ (and ‘marriages’ among Catholics who disregard canonical form are invalid) then one does not receive the sacrament of Matrimony either nor any of its graces. Why? Because, No marriage means no Matrimony.
Here’s the rub: as virtually all of the rest of the world, including baptized non-Catholics, can marry civilly-only, they are bound to such marriages if they enter them. So, even though a civil wedding might be just as much of a lark for some non-Catholics as it is for some Catholics, only Catholics have, in virtue of the requirement of canonical form, a “Get Out of Marriage Free” card to play. And play it they do. Lots. Hence, the complications that I (and some sterling canonists going back 50 years) have been warning about in regard to Church teaching on the permanence of marriage in the face of canonical form. Thus I say, one of these days, form has to go—but this is for another discussion.
In short, if the pope had in mind non-Catholics, he would be right to say that their civil-only wedding would count toward marriage (though why he would discuss such persons with cohabiting couples escapes me); but if he had in mind Catholics (as he probably did) then he is wrong to say that such persons are truly married and are drawing on the sacramental grace of Matrimony (though it would explain why he mentioned such persons in the same breath with cohabiting couples, as neither are married).
Now, these two points being addressed, and with the debacle of assertions of massive nullity supposedly plaguing Christian marriage still reverberating, something deeper may be emerging here. Consider,
Marriage, like pregnancy, is one of those ‘either/or’ situations—either you are or you aren’t. Others’ opinions, even your own opinion, about whether you are or aren’t, are irrelevant to whether you are or aren’t. Marriage is an objective fact, not a subjective (however sincere) feeling or attitude. Continuing,
The pope’s most recent statements on marriage were not slips akin to getting the date of a meeting wrong, they are not hearsay shared by a prelate known for a flexible attitude toward accuracy or stories shared by relatives from Argentina, and they are not hints of his views left ambiguous by some obvious omission. Instead these latest assertions were calmly offered by the pope before a large and sympathetic audience, with expert advisors readily at hand, in an extended manner, all of which factors point, I think, in a consistent if disturbing direction.
And what direction is that?
This one: Pope Francis really—and I think, sincerely—believes:
(A) most marriages (at least, most Christian marriages) really aren’t, deep-down, marriages (and so the annulment process has to be sped up to dispatch of what are, after all, probably null marriages anyway, and the consequences of post-divorce marriages need to be softened because most people in those second marriages probably weren’t in true marriages the first time, and so on); and,
(B) lots of things that aren’t marriages (like cohabitation and civil-only weddings between Catholics) really are, deep-down, marriages (so we need to affirm them and assure them that they enjoy the same graces as married people, and so on).
That this is pope’s view can, I suggest, be directly determined from his own words (expunged and otherwise) and, if I am right, would explain many things, from his favoring Cdl. Kasper and side-lining Cdl. Burke, rolling out several problematic tribunal “reforms” in Mitis Iudex, and leaving ambiguous several crucial points that sorely needed clarity in Amoris laetitia. The irreducibly objective, ‘either/or’, nature of marriage would not sit well with someone who prefers subjective, flexible approaches that allow for ‘this and that’ responses, but, whatever problems the principle of non-contradiction poses here, a conviction that most marriages are not marriage but lots of non-marriages are marriage, would explain a lot.
That said, I see no way to avoid the conclusion that a crisis (in the Greek sense of that word) over marriage is unfolding in the Church, and it is a crisis that will, I suggest, come to a head over matrimonial discipline and law. If so, a key fact to keep in mind will be this: No sacrament owes so much of its theology to Church discipline as marriage owes to canon law.
Perusing the pages of, say, Jesuit Fr. George Joyce’s classic study of Christian Marriage (1933), one is repeatedly struck by how deeply indebted the development of Catholic doctrine on marriage is to the practical work of canon lawyers handling marriage matters. That the latest crisis over marriage depends so much on how canonical terms like “valid” or “null” are used, on how “marriage” and “Matrimony” are defined, or on what legally constitutes “objective grave sin” and “repentance”, should surprise no one. Catholic theology of marriage and Catholic canon law on marriage are deeply, deeply interwoven. This heavy presence of law in marriage matters even explains, I think, at least in part, why some proponents of “softening” Church discipline on marriage so often berate canon lawyers as Pharisees with stony hearts who care only about rules (oblivious to the irony that it was, after all, the Pharisees who tried to derail God’s plan for marriage.) By their defense of Church discipline on marriage canon lawyers have long been crucial in the defense of Church doctrine on marriage. And I hope we remain so.
To conclude, and prescinding from what other questions might face the Church under Francis, I think the marriage crisis that he is occasioning is going to come down to whether Church teaching on marriage, which everyone professes to honor, will be concretely and effectively protected in Church law, or, whether the canonical categories treating marriage doctrine become so distorted (or simply disregarded) as essentially to abandon marriage and married life to the realm of personal opinion and individual conscience. History has always favored the former; disaster lurks behind the latter.
Sts. Thomas More and Raymond Penyafort, pray for us.
In a day fraught with canonical confusion may I offer a few observations on some journalistic issues I noticed along the way?
First, I find John Allen’s pooh-poohing of widespread concerns that Francis’ remarks, yet again, needed to be “walked-back” by Vatican spin doctors off-putting in several respects. Ignoring Allen’s patronizing tone and his caricaturing of Vatican critics as emitting “howls of outrage” over mere “retouching” of the pope’s words, from several passages let’s consider these.
Allen writes: There’s nothing objectionable about a pope correcting what he said, as long as we’re sure it’s actually the pope making the corrections.
Of course there is nothing objectionable about correcting mistakes: the objection is to pretending the mistakes were never made. No matter who is doing the pretending.
The alternative would be for a pope to never open his mouth until his utterances have been vetted by a team of theologians and spin doctors.
A false dichotomy: our only choices are to keep a pontifical editing intervention team on call 24/7 or to suffer a pope who never opens his mouth except to read a prepared manuscript? What about simply having a pope who understands the main issues coming before him, defers on those he is not equipped to speak on at the time, and thinks about his response to others before he discusses them? Is that so utterly unimaginable? Oh, and by the way, spin doctors are not involved in simply reporting papal utterances; they only get involved when deliberately re-writing them.
Pope Francis is hardly the first churchman to suggest that incomprehension of permanent commitments in the modern world may render many marriages contracted in church “invalid” by the traditional test of informed consent.
No, Francis is not the first churchman to make this suggestion and, given the widespread lack of canonical understanding among prelates these days, he will doubtless not be the last to leap wrongly from one’s deficit understanding of certain aspects of marriage to the nullity of one’s attempt marriage—an error Allen incorrectly describes as “the traditional test of informed consent”. (Francis’ leap, which Allen apparently shares, fails for having its having omitted the canonically crucial middle term, as discussed here.)
Second, a Vatican spokesman said Friday it’s normal practice for the pope or his aides to review transcripts of his impromptu remarks, and to make small changes before releasing an official version.
Small changes? Are we tweaking a pope who said Minneapolis when he meant Minnesota or, to use Allen’s example, simply repairing a pope’s confusion about the date of some meeting? Good grief, the pope said “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null”; but he is now reported as saying “a part of our sacramental marriages are null.” This changes his statement from one portending shocking problematics into a truism that any sapient observer could utter or agree with. Small changes, my foot.
By the way, the notion of “impromptu” or “off-the-cuff” remarks conjures in my mind, say, a busy man who, being stopped on his way to lunch and engaged in conversation with a friend, says something he wishes he had phrased differently. But does that fairly describe Francis’ recent marriage remarks? He was the guest of honor at a major clergy conference, speaking with fellow clerics into recording equipment during a scheduled Q&A, all the while surrounded by experts and advisors. If even that setting qualifies remarks as “impromptu”, then I can only imagine that everything a pope says outside of a prepared speech read from a teleprompter must be malleable as “off-the-cuff”.
In this case, Francis and his advisers probably realized that the phrase “vast majority [of our sacramental marriages are null]” could be taken to suggest that faithful Christian marriage today is a near-impossibility …
Nooo, the pope’s advisors probably realized that the pope’s phrasing could be taken to suggest that Francis thinks “the vast majority of our sacramental marriages are null”. That’s what provoked the fire storm.
As a result, they walked the quote back to make it clear that what the pope really meant is simply that because of cultural pressures, many couples don’t fully understand what they’re getting into at the beginning. Phrased that way, most spouses – this one certainly included – would probably concur.
Nooo, the pope’s advisors watered-down the pope’s words into a safe platitude about many couples not ‘fully understanding’ what marriage is at the beginning—as if, you know, that is essentially the same thing as saying that most of their marriages are null.
And so on, and so on…
Meanwhile another veteran Catholic journalist, Phil Lawler, makes several good points along these lines with which I largely agree (especially where he quotes me). I pause, though, over Phil’s suggestion that the Crux reporter who claimed that Francis referred to certain priests as “animals” might not have understood the pope’s jumbled remarks correctly. Apparently, suggests Lawler, the pope “intended to say that some priests treat children (or possibly their unwed mothers) as ‘animals.’ He did not aim that insult at the priests themselves.”
Sorry? Would I console my insulted friend by saying to him, “No, no, Phil, I did not say that you were an animal. I said you treat some people as if they were animals. Okay? Feel better now?” Ummm, no, I would not feel better, not if the description were still false or unfair.
Well, enough journalistic musing. Back to canon law.
For some twenty years I have responded to charges that American tribunals are lax in upholding marriage by, among other things, correlating the jump in American annulment numbers to several changes put into canon law by Rome itself and, more importantly, by arguing that, if pervasive social and catechetical decay really is the danger that intelligent people think it is, then annulment numbers should be rising in response to it. My thesis has earned grudging respect among some very tough tribunal critics—at least among those who think about hard issues instead of simply emoting about them—but, I need hardly say, all of this is complex stuff requiring careful analysis by qualified persons.
Yesterday, however, Pope Francis waded into one part of this long-standing controversy with the preposterous claim that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null” ostensibly because people do not understand what permanence is. As happens so often when amateurs plunge into technical areas that they do not understand, Francis has taken a very narrow but plausible point—namely, that a rise in marriage nullity can be linked to a drop in social commitment to permanence—and so grossly exaggerated it that, not only has he damaged his credibility in this regard, he risks contributing to the very downward spiral of failed marriages he decries by, in effect, telling struggling Christian couples that their efforts to save difficult marriages (i.e., frankly, just about every marriage I’ve ever seen) are effectively doomed given that the great majority of Christian marriages are (allegedly) already null!
As we have seen before during this papacy, some claim the pope’s remarks were “off-the-cuff” (a description belied by the video of his remarks) and the Vatican Press Office offers an Orwellian rewriting of what the pope plainly said (suggesting how severe the backlash is this time), but the bottom line is, I fear, that the pope has now given the “All Is Lost” crowd exactly what they suspected: proof that the Church is distancing itself from Christ’s hard teaching on the permanence of marriage.
May I offer amid this mess two preliminary points and a more important third?
1) Being pope makes Francis the “Legislator” but it does not make him a lawyer. Francis apparently has no training in canon law beyond whatever seminary courses he took some 60 years ago. He does not like law or lawyers and shows little awareness of the positive role that law plays in the life of any society including that of the Catholic Church. His opinions about what does or does not constitute technical things like matrimonial ‘validity’ or ‘nullity’ simply cannot be taken at face value.
2) Francis shows little understanding of how tribunals actually go about their difficult and largely thankless mission and he has apparently never experienced a functional tribunal system. Those of us who have experienced functional tribunals do not understand the mean descriptions of tribunal operations and personnel that Francis regularly offers.
Now, about that “middle term”.
3) Setting aside the bleak anthropological and theological assumptions that must underlie the claim that “the great majority” of Christian adults have failed to enter the state in life that all of them are suited for by nature and that baptized persons are especially equipped for by sacramental grace, Francis’ point that a general lessening of appreciation of ‘permanence’ is negatively impacting marriage would be generally accepted by qualified observers. But his suggestion that people’s ignorance of “permanence” (assuming that ignorance can be shown to exist on the massive scale that Francis opines, and for many reasons it cannot be), would, even if true, still fail to prove his claim of rampant marriage nullity because it skips the vital middle term of the pro-nullity argument: very briefly, ignorance and/or error about something like ‘permanence’ does not nullify marriage unless it sufficiently damages an individual’s will to enter marriage. That claim, folks, while possible to prove in specific cases, requires a demanding inquiry by persons who know and respect marriage doctrine and law, and hardly constitutes the stuff of which sweeping pronouncements about pan-Christian marriage collapse can be made. In short, even if Francis is right about growing, society-wide deficits in understanding about ‘permanence’, he is wrong to suggest that such deficits routinely (nay, he holds, in the great majority of marriages!) result in marriage nullity.
In 1988, Pope St. John Paul II, reflecting a great tradition on this point, commented in his address to the Roman Rota that the Church understands that most people enter marriage with some psychological, emotional, and formational deficits in play; nevertheless they marry confident of the validity of their marriage (even if they don’t know that technical term). Married couples, especially Christian married couples, may be sure that Christ understands their difficulties and they should presume about their marriage, even in troubled times, what the Church presumes about their marriage: that it is valid, grace-laden, and fulfilling. + + +
Canon 868 § 1, n. 2, recognizing the gravity of the obligations that come with baptism and not wishing to see those obligations too-lightly assumed, states: “For an infant to be baptized licitly … there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion …”.
As is true of any pastoral matter involving infants, the situation of the parents is of special concern to ministers and Canon 868 has been used by pastors as the occasion to assist parents toward improving their ecclesial situation by, say, helping them to marry in the Church or arranging for others to play a special role in the child’s growth in faith. Obviously, such measures, being themselves important undertakings, require time to arrange and, consequently, can cause a delay in granting the request for infant baptism.
To outside observers, however, this delay may appear as a denial and such denial in turn seen as injustice, leading some to criticize not the spiritually irregular parental situation underlying the delay, nor even the canon that ties infant baptism to parental readiness to assume responsibilities for a baptized child, but instead the priests (who might be trying as best they can to help people manage their religious affairs in a world hostile to the idea that faith actually makes demands on people) by labeling them “pastorally cruel” or even, sadly, “animals”.
Among some 400,000 priests in ministry today, are there at least a few who, in violation of canon law and pastoral directives, actually deny a child baptism solely because the mother is not married in the Church? I suppose so—though I have never met one. Such priests should be corrected, of course, but not in terms so broad as to fuel contempt for priestly ministry and never, ever, in terms derogatory of a priest’s humanity. Priests, like everyone else on this earth, need instruction not insults.
Last time a ranking prelate (Cdl. Kasper) opined that half of all marriages were null his attribution of such a reckless assertion to Pope Francis himself could be dismissed as hearsay, deflected as referring to marriage in general and not Christian marriage in particular, or at least minimized as describing merely ‘many’ or even ‘half’ of all marriages. But none of those qualifications can be applied to blunt the impact of the pope’s startling claim “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null”.
If last time was bad, this time is very bad.
Consider: Marriage is that natural human relationship established by God as the normal way for nearly all adults to live most of their lives. God blesses marriage and assists married persons to live in accord with this beautiful state in life. When, moreover, baptized persons enter this quintessential human relationship, Christ adds the special graces of a sacrament and assists married Christians to live as signs of his everlasting spousal union with his Church.
To assert, then, that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null” is really to claim that the great majority of Christians have failed to enter the most natural of human states and have failed to effect between themselves the exact sacrament that Christ instituted to assist them in it. The collapse of human nature presupposed for such a social catastrophe and the massive futility of the Church’s sanctifying mission among her own faithful evidenced by such a debacle would be—well, it would be the matrimonial version of nuclear winter. I am at a loss to understand how anyone who knows anything about either could seriously assert that human nature is suddenly so corrupted and Christ’s sacraments are now so impotent as to have prevented “the great majority” of Christians from even marrying! How can anyone responsibly even posit such a dark and dismal claim, let alone demonstrate it?
But beyond the arresting scope of the claim that nullity is rampant, there is the debilitating effect that such a view can and doubtless will have on couples in difficult marriage situations. After all, if “the great majority” of Christian marriages are, as alleged by Francis, already null, then couples struggling in difficult marriages and looking for the bread of spiritual and sacramental encouragement may instead be offered stones of despair—‘your marriage is most likely null, so give up now and save everyone a lot of time and trouble.’
This is just a blog post so, simply invoking the same extensive credentials to speak on Catholic marriage law that I invoked two years ago, let me just say that I believe that the great majority of Christian marriages are valid, that a matrimonial contract was therefore effected between the parties at the time of their wedding, and that by the will of Christ an indissoluble sacramental bond simultaneously arose between those spouses. To be clear, I also hold that many marriages are (and could be proven to be) canonically null and that the percentage of null marriages has indeed risen over recent decades, but I can and do reject anyone’s claim that the majority, let alone “the great majority”, of Christian marriages are null.
+ + +
Finally—and I make this point mostly to preserve it for future discussion—the pope, toward the end of these remarks, made some comments about cohabiting and/or civilly married Catholics being in “a real marriage [and having] the grace of a real marriage”. Canonically (if I may be forgiven for mentioning canon law) such a claim is incoherent. Whatever good might be going on in the life of cohabiting and/or civilly married Catholic couples, it is not the good of marriage and it is not the grace of matrimony, but this—and here is my point—largely because of the Church’s requirement of canonical form for marriage. I would be glad to see the requirement of canonical form eliminated, but unless and until it is, cohabitation and civil-only marriage is not marriage in the Catholic Church.
George Weigel has an excellent critique of Abp. Georg Gänswein’s weird theory of, of—of what, exactly?—a Janus-like, bifurcated, co-papacy featuring Francis as the ‘active’ member and Benedict XVI as the ‘contemplative’ member. It’s nonsense, of course, and I have little to add to Weigel’s call for firmly rejecting such malarkey.
But may I note, too, a passage from Bl. Pius IX: “Pax et unitas ipsius Ecclesiae in grave discrimen facile adducerentur, si, Apostolica Sede vacante, in electione novi Pontificis quidquam fieri contingeret, quod eam incertam ac dubium reddere posset.” Pius IX, const. Cum Romanis Pontifibus (4 dec 1869), Gasparri’s Fontes III: 39-41, at 39.
Granted, when writing these words Pius had in mind the dangers to ecclesial stability potentially arising from shenanigans during a papal vacancy and/or conclave but I suspect he would have offered the same sort of warning in the wake of a scenario he could scarcely have imagined: a pope resigning and then sitting quietly by while the man on earth probably closest to him provokes confusion about the finality and consequences of his resignation.
Francis is pope, God bless him. And us.
Some seem upset that I agreed with Pope Francis that the Eucharist is “powerful medicine” for sinners, a figure of speech the pope used in Amoris laetitiae fn. 351 (see also his Evangelii gaudium 47). May I suggest that those objecting to the pope’s phrasing, and my agreement with it, need to familiarize themselves better with the Church’s rich understanding of the Eucharist. Doing so will, I think, enable them not only to see what is profoundly right about the pope’s choice of words, but help them to articulate what is profoundly missing from it.
The bounteous effects of the Eucharist, specifically in regard to forgiveness of and preservation from sin, are laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1393-1395, 1436, and 1846. These passages amply support the pope’s phrasing in fn 351. But missing from the pope’s commentary here is an acknowledgement that, as is true of a “powerful medicine”, taking the Eucharist improperly can be harmful, even spiritually deadly, to the recipient.
CCC 1385 states: “[W]e must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: ‘Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself’ [I Cor 11:27-29]. Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”
Nor does the Catechism leave any doubt that this spiritual danger applies in cases of post-divorce civil remarriages (later scored as “a situation of public and permanent adultery” in CCC 2384). CCC 1650 states, “Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ—‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’—the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.” Emphasis added.
In sum, what one may question is not the pope’s comparing the Eucharist to “powerful medicine”, but rather, the failure to mention the warnings against improper consumption listed on the label.
A last note: Asking myself why so few Catholics today seem to be aware that receiving the Eucharist unworthily is spiritually gravely dangerous, it occurred to me to look at the readings proclaimed in Sunday and Weekday Lectionaries. St. Paul’s stark warnings against unworthy reception of the Eucharist are, it seems, never proclaimed at Mass. I think it fair to question the pastoral prudence of the decision to leave this vital Scriptural passage about the Eucharist out of the very celebration of the Eucharist.
UPDATE: This just came to my attention, from a couple days ago.