Sentire Cum Ecclesia

I don’t know what I have been thinking, but today I was faced with a startling realisation.

In discussion with a group of theologians and ethicists over lunch, we fell to talking about the question whether – should the marriage laws in Australia be changed to include the the possibility of “marriage” between persons of the same sex – the Church’s clergy ought to continue to act as legal marriage celebrants. 

My interlocutors referred me to the recent John Millbank essay on the (yes, once again) Religion and Ethics website of the ABC, “Gay marriage and the Future of Human Sexuality”. In this article, Millbank argues:

The deep reason for the reportedly rather inchoate and intemperate wrath of Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien in the face of the proposed alteration in marriage law is no doubt his sense that a supposed “extension” of marriage to gay people in fact removes the right to marry from heterosexual people.

This can seem like a perversely contorted claim, but its logic is quite straightforward: the intended change in the definition of marriage would mean that marriage as traditionally defined no longer exists. Thus heterosexual people would no longer have the right to enter into an institution understood to be only possible for heterosexuals, as doubly recognising both the unique social significance of male/female relationship and the importance of the conjugal act which leads naturally to the procreation of children who are then reared by their biological parents.

In effect, if marriage is now understood as a lifelong sexual contract between any two adult human persons with no specification of gender, then the allowance of gay marriage renders all marriages “gay marriages.” Given such a situation, were it not for the space afforded by canon law (namely, the possibility of church marriage) a resort to cohabitation – which has hitherto been understood as “common-law marriage” – would be the only logical path for clear-thinking Christians.

I have added the emphases in the above passage. The underlined sections spell out the logic:

1) If the definition of marriage is changed to “a lifelong sexual contract between any two adult human persons with no specification of gender”
2) this would mean that “marriage as traditionally defined no longer exists” (at least according to the law of the land)
3) leaving only two options for “clear-thinking Christians”, namely:
a) cohabitation
b) a “church marriage”

The irony is that, in order to be “inclusive” of a small minority, such a change to the law would be exclusive of a very large sector of our society. It isn’t just that Catholic clergy could no longer act as registered marriage celebrants according to the law (since the law would define “marriage” in a way completely incompatible with the Church’s teaching), but that Catholics (and other “clear-thinking Christians”) would be conscience-bound to avoid entering into the state of legal “matrimony” since “matrimony” as legally defined by the state would no longer be marriage as recognised by the Church.

It is commonly claimed by supporters of same-sex “marriage” that the Churches will not be “forced” to comply with the new laws. They won’t have to celebrate same-sex marriages, so what’s the problem? The problem is that marriage is not defined on a case-by-case basis, but as a single institution encompassing all who enter into that estate. If the laws governing marriage are redefined, all marriages are redefined.

This makes me doubly uncomfortable given the fact that the Church has always recognised the validity of “natural marriage”. That is, although we recognise that when two baptised Christians marry, their baptismal status raises what would otherwise be a “natural marriage” to the level of a “sacrament”, nevertheless, we recognise that in its native state, marriage is something that belongs to natural human society. In the event of the State defining marriage out of existence, we are left with Millbank’s idea of a “church marriage” as opposed to a “state marriage”. We should recognise that there has never, in Catholic doctrine, actually been such a thing. The origin of the Church’s “Rite of Marriage” is in the ancient practice of the clergy of the Church granting blessings to marriages conducted according to the accepted mores of the society. In Roman society, marriages were celebrated by the bride’s husband. In Christian households, the priest or bishop was invited to attend the marriage feast and give his blessing to the couple who had been married. Over time, instead of the priest going to the wedding feast, the couple went to the priest at the door of the church building for their blessing. Later still, the blessing shifted from the narthex of the church into the sanctuary of the itself. From there, the nuptial blessing developed into the full rite of marriage as we know it today.

We must never forget that the Church recognises the binding nature of natural marriage (even though, under very specific circumstances, such a marriage can be dissolved – eg. the Pauline or Petrine Privilege). And a sacramental marriage can exist outside a “church marriage” (eg. the marriage between two baptised non-Catholics or a marriage between a Catholic and a baptised non-Catholic given the proper dispensations). Distinguishing between a “church marriage” and a “state marriage” is really not a part of Catholic dogma, however enshrined it may be in practice in some jurisdictions.

But in the main, I can’t help but think that Millbank is correct. “Clear-thinking Christians” will realise that they enter into a relationship the very definition of which is antithetical to the Christian faith. The economic and legal hardship that this would bring for such conscientious objectors is hard to fully comprehend, but even harder to comprehend is the existence – for the first time in human history – of societies in which the timeless instituion of marriage no longer actually exists.

I am left with the extremely uncomfortable conclusion that, should marriage be so redefined, I might never have the honour of walking my daughters down the aisle.

Today the Lutheran Community in Melbourne, and especially those at my wife’s and daughter’s parish (St Paul’s Box Hill), mourn the death of their beloved pastor, the Rev. Allan Heppner, after a very short but sharp battle with cancer.

As fate would have it, I was giving a lecture at the John Paul II Institute this afternoon on Ratzinger’s Eschatological Anthropology, and had just gotten to the subject of the “the body and soul after death” when Cathy rang with the news. We prayed for the repose of his soul there and then, thanking God for his ministry and life. Dr Adam Cooper, who was my “baby sitter” for the class and who also knew Allan as a colleague in the Lutheran ministry, read a beautiful translation of the Dies Irae to conclude our prayers.

Allan and I did not always see eye to eye on matters liturgical and theological, but as Cathy said to me this evening, he was an examplar of humble servant leadership in his time as pastor at St Paul’s. He was the celebrant at our marriage, and baptised our second daughter Mia, so, with these family celebrations, it isn’t surprising that we have a couple of photos of Allan around the house.

Please pray for Allan, for his wife Deborah and his daughters in their grief, and for all who were close to Allan and benefited from his pastoral care. There were so very many.

Requiem æternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei.

This time, on abortion, by Fr Dr Anthony Kelly of Australian Catholic University: “Abortion and the Selective Compassion of Our Time”

It is written in an eirenic tone (of the “come let us reason together” type), and while very well stated, I fear (taking the uniformly negative comments as evidence) that Fr Anthony has failed to achieve his objective. Nevertheless, I applaud him for his attempt.

This article does appear to fall into the same basket as the previous one I linked to about “Catholic Voices” and the push for “same-sex marriage”. It is an issue which, from a Catholic point of view, is not specifically religious, but rather about what is necessary for human flourishing. Yet that is precisely the point, I think – this point of view on human flourishing IS a precisely a characteristically Catholic point of view. Although you will find the occasional protestant or Muslim or Jewish or even non-theistic voices raised with us along the same lines, it is nevertheless true that it is a position almost uniformly represented in our society today by Catholic voices.

Which causes me to wonder, whether Kate Edwards might not be partly right in her recent comments about how we represent our position in the media. We can and do and must argue from reason and natural law when we take our stand in the public square. We cannot expect much gain from appealing to authorities which non-Catholics do not recognise. And yet perhaps we will only advance in convincing others of our vision for human flourishing in so far as we are ultimately able to convince them of God’s love for humanity and that it is his will that human society and individuals prosper.

In other words, we will succeed in evangelising our society only in so far as we are able to convert hearts and minds to God’s vision for his creation.

…that I have read in the whole debate.

The ABC Religion and Ethics webpage – a truly terrific forum for the discussion of both religious and ethical issues for which the ABC deserves our congratulations and thanks – has published an article from Catholic Voices in Britain, which articulates several key points:

1) Although the opposition to “same-sex marriage” has been almost entirely from religious communities, in raising their objections, religious communities are serving the common, public good, not their own interest

2) That, despite the temptation to do otherwise, when we engage in the debate we should focus on the true nature of marriage, rather than on issues of sexual morality or homosexuality.

3) That we should recognise and expose the conviction held by influential sectors of our Western society that religious communities and individuals should be excluded from debate in the public square precisely because they ARE religious.

I do highly recommend reading this reflective essay, and even more highly recommend the briefing paper which Catholic Voices has produced, including survey results that support the thesis that, in speaking up for the protection of conjugal marriage, the Church is speaking for the silent majority in our society today.

Having recently had an essay published in an anthology of articles in which I kept rather unusual company (Catholics and Catholicism in Contemporary Australia), I am pleased to annouce the publication of another essay by your host in rather more sanguine company.

For some years now, a group of us have been preparing an answer to Ray Galea’s book “Nothing in my hand I bring“, and it has finally reached publication stage. You can read about it and order it here: Answering the Anti-Catholic Challenge, edited by Robert Haddad. I did the final essay, responding to Galea’s “appendix” on “The New Catholicism”.

In short, his argument is with the activity of the Catholic Church in the area of interfaith dialogue. He especially focuses upon the statement by the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium 16 that:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

I struggled with precisely this teaching in the last days before I committed myself to the path of seeking full communion with the Catholic Church. My Lutheran mentors advised me that I could not in conscience join the Catholic Church because it was, not to put too fine a point on it, a syncretistic and universalistic religion which acknowledged other paths to salvation than grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone. The definitive turning point for me was the publication, in August 2000, of Dominus Iesus, a document which should put paid to any lingering doubts that the Catholic Church views the Christian religion as just one path among many of salvation.

Even when one looks at the statement in LG 16, one sees the very important phrase “moved by grace”. There is no doubt in my mind that the grace spoken of is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which reaches out to all human beings, even those who “through no fault of their own do not” explicitly “know the Gospel of Christ or His Church”. God’s grace in Christ is universal (contra strict Calivinism), and meant for all people. Catholics believe firmly that all human beings are in some relationship with God (hence the reference to conscience as the point of contact apart from the positive revelation of God in Scripture and Tradition) and equally reject the teaching of the Protestants that the fall of Adam so corrupted the souls of men that every effort of theirs to seek God will of necessity lead them away from rather than toward God. God is always reaching out to every human being, and he acknowledges their response, even if it is without explicit knowledge of “the Gospel of Christ or His Church”.

Of course, for those who do have such explicit knowledge, the situation is entirely different. The proclamation of the Gospel is always an experience of “krisis” in the human soul. The appropriate response is always faith in Christ – the rejection of Christ is a rejection of the grace that God extends to the human person.

Yet the path of salvation is not always smooth, nor is it necessarily always completed in this life. God looks at the heart of men, and judges each according to his grace. We therefore do not stand in judgement on any whose response to the Gospel appears to us to be negative. We cannot prejudge what is taking place in their hearts and how the Gospel has impacted. We also allow that in many cases, the fault lies with us, in the way we have presented or explained the Gospel, which can at times place greater stumbling blocks in their way.

Anyway, for my full treatment, buy the book. I haven’t seen all the other essays in this book and am looking forward to reading it when it arrives.

I am still reading and enjoying James L. Kugel’s “How to read the Bible”.

Yesterday I came across this footnote to his comment that “When most people speak about God nowadays, they mean the Supreme Being, the Master of the Universe, the one “than Whom none greater can be conceived.”

This follows the classic formulation of St Anselm (1033-1109). A later try: “A working definiton of God will help to focus both the claims of theologians and the problems of establishing the existence of this God: God is an omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal person who is pure spirit. He is both transcendant and immanent. He created the universe and human beings are his special creation. He loves them, interacts with them, and desires their love” – Diamond (1974:4). By citing this I do not mean to imply that this defintiion would meet with universal approval nowadays; many contemporary theologians would object to the use of the male pronoun, others to His being described as a “person”, interacting with or reacting to humans, still others to human beings thought of as His “special creation”. (A reasonable person might be forgiven for asking at this point, “What’s left?” But that is not our concern here.)

As my friend Fraser would say, “I like the cut of his jib”!

I think this is what Sir Humphrey would call a “courageous” decision. My one time neighbour at Luther Seminary, now President of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the Revd Matt Harrison, has appointed a member of the Sentire Cum Ecclesia commentary table as the National Director of Worship for the LCMS.

Yes, we here at SCE all congratulate Pastor William Weedon on his new appointment. We say “courageous” because there was a time back in the 1990s when there was a distinct possibility that the LCMS would go the way of the Evangelical mainstream in the US and embrace the “Church Growth” methodology that treated worship as a tool for outreach and might well have gone the way of Willow Creek and Hillsong. Not so today! With the appointment of Pastor Weedon, Pastor Harrison has signalled a distinct shift in the direction of – not just the historical liturgy of Confessional Lutheranism, but a decidedly “catholic” (small c) direction in liturgy.

You can find out more about Pastor Weedon by visiting his blog – although, like your host here at SCE, Pastor Weedon doesn’t get as much time for blogging as he once did.

A search of “William Weedon” and “liturgy” on YouTube will throw up a lot of examples of Pastor Weedon’s liturgical preferences. Here is just one of them:

We should not assume that Pastor Weedon’s preferences for liturgical style are universal in the LCMS – although the same base that supported Pastor Harrison’s election as President will no doubt also support this appointment. The “worship wars” of the 1990s are far from over, however, so please pray for Pastor Weedon as he takes up this new appointment.

One of the fruits of the liturgical movement in the Catholic Church was the encouragement of a reawakening of liturgical sensibility among our Protestant brethren and sistern. As Catholics, we should view this development positively, as it emphasises the common Western liturgical heritage that they share with us. If we draw closer to one another in our way of praying, we can reasonably expect – according to the dictum lex orandi, lex credendi – that there will be a similar growing together in articles of faith. This can only be viewed as a good thing.

Vietnamese.

The Great Archdiocese of Melbourne was once almost entirely Irish. Our greatest Archbishop was as Irish as they come (Mannix). After the War, there was a great influx of Italians (I don’t think we ever had an Italian bishop in Melbourne). But today, the trend is most definitely Vietnamese – and we do have a Vietnamese Bishop. See this good news story here.

I was teaching today at the Catholic Adult Education Centre in Sydney, on the subject of “Christian Traditions”. Yesterday we worked on the Eastern traditions, and today we focused on the major protestant traditions.

Of course, I focused a good deal on Lutheranism, including showing a couple of YouTube videos of Lutherans teaching about their own faith – “in their own words” so to speak.

Of course, we let Martin Luther speak in his own words too, but during the coffee break I introduced the class to one of my favourite “Martin Luther” sites on the web: the Lutheran Insulter. While pointing out that the “site in no way represents Lutheranism, the Lutheran Confessions, or Martin Luther’s theology”, its creators do assure you that the insults included on this site are taken from Luther’s authentic works.

They really are great fun – many of them worth learning off by heart for use in situations in which the French Knights’ invective against King Arthur (from Monty Python’s Holy Grail) seems overused and tired. And why stop at just one? Press the button marked “Insult me again” for another round of abuse!

This is my current favourite: “You are admirable, fine, pious sows and asses.” (From On the Councils and the Church, pg. 54 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 41)

I have been using my iphone as my missal and breviary for some time now. I have the following all installed on my phone:

– iMissal
– Magnificat
– Divine Office
– iBreviary
– iMass
– AND Universalis

In the past, to get the whole mass – including the Ordinary and the Propers and the Lectionary – I had to use a combination of these apps. But thanks to the latest update on Universalis, it is now all in one place.

The new “Mass Today” option integrates the readings for the day (JB version, as for the current Australian lectionary with Grail psalms, and with the option of the Gospel in parallel Greek) with the ordinary of the mass AND now the proper collects, prayers and antiphons. At the preface and the Eucharistic Prayer, you are offered the choice of those which are allowable options for the day.

Thus everything that one could want in a printed missal is available in a single app on a single page. The only remaining problem is that the response to the Psalm and the Gospel Acclamation are not the same version as used in Australia.

On top of that, you get all the hours of the daily office provided.

Universalis isn’t cheap, but it is clearly now the best missal/breviary app for the English Roman Missal. I still use Divine Office when I want the audio of the Liturgy of the Hours, iMass when I want the Extraordinary Form (which does the same thing for the EF as Universalis does for the OF), iBreviary when I want the Latin of the Novus Ordo (includes propers but not readings) and Magnificat if I want the additionaly devotional materials, but I am deleting iMissal as redundant.