Sentire Cum Ecclesia

Many of you will remember (not always fondly) the ABC Radio National program “The Religoin Report”. Amongst other programs to be reinstated by Radio National in 2012 is a new edition of the Religoin Report, this time with Andrew West as the host.

In the new schedule that will come into effect on 23rd January 2012, the new Religion Report will air at 5:30pm on Wednesday afternoons.

To get a taste of what to expect, listen to this interview with the new presenter on John Cleary’s Sunday Nights program. (nb. I haven’t listened to this yet myself).

We all know the saying that there is nothing to fear but “fear itself”. On the feast of the Immaculate Conception, Pope Benedict gave the Church a line that is far more helpful and spiritually insightful: “The only threat the Church can and must fear is the sin of her members”.

And don’t we know it. The Church need not fear being ridiculed or attacked for her witness to the Gospel, to the Truth. The Church need not fear persecution, for the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. The Church need not fear heresy or dissent, for the Truth is its own defender. The Church need not fear poverty or lack of numbers or any other such thing.

But when her members commit sin, the Church is wounded to her core. This is true even where the sin has not (as so often disastrously happens) becomde publically known. Sin not only harms the authentic witness of the Church, but harms the very Body of Christ – it drives the nails into Christ’s flesh all over again. And the truth of it is, tragically, that all Christians know themselves to be sinners: our witness is wounded by our sin.

But our reaction to this fear should never be to try to hide the truth of our sin. Our sins must be admitted and brought into the light so that can there be healing. This is the great wisdom of our practice of confession and absolution. When our witness – our martyrdom – is damaged by our sin, the only path to take is the path of repentance – itself a frightening path in what it asks of us. St Peter himself was a “broken martyr”. Jesus said to him:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:31-32)

Yes, we must indeed fear our sin – for it has the power not only to kill the body, but also to kill the soul (cf. Luke 12:4-5). But thanks be to God – as St Paul would have said – that sin no longer has final power over us. The cleansing power of God can heal the wounds to the Church caused by our sin and the sin of our brothers and sisters.

Advent is a time – like Lent – for the healing of the wounds of our sins. I was pleased to see in the bulletin for the Parish of St Philip in Blackburn North that the parish priest has greatly extended the opportunities for confession leading up to Christmas. Mary received the extraordinary prevenient grace of being rescued from sin at the very moment of her conception. She is, for us, a model of hope for the Church. It is by the same the sanctifying power of God’s forgiveness that the Church and all her members are set free from the only fear we need truly fear: sin itself.

Yesterday, Cathnews highlighted an article by Andrew Hamilton in Eureka Street, in which he attempts to provide an explanation of why he never preaches about abortion. Fr John has commented on this – with a good deal of charity, IMO. I don’t think I can match his charity.

Which is to say that Fr Hamilton’s piece demonstrates remarkably well the core problem with much contempory Catholic homiletical practice today.

He starts of by saying that the popular perception of “preaching” is a form of discourse that is “boring, moralising and bullying”.

He writes

that sermons are an asymmetrical form of communication. Preachers stand in a hierarchy. They must be licensed by their churches to preach and stand in a position of power over their hearers. During the sermon preachers speak, the people listen and rarely speak back.

I must say that, as a preacher myself for more than ten years, and both before and since then as listener to sermons on a weekly and even daily basis, I have never experienced the act of preaching as an exercise “of power”. Viewing preaching in such a way might – in itself – explain why Fr Hamilton has an aversion to preaching on difficult or controversial subjects. I do sometimes reflect on the readiness of Catholic homilists to choose “difficult or controversial” subjects which they know before hand are in fact neither difficult nor controversial for their hearers. For instance, the topic of “asylum seekers” – a topic on which I have heard many sermons – might seems to be a “difficult or controversial” issue in some quarters, but generally not at your average Sunday parish liturgy. A priest who wants to tackle “difficult and controversial” issues in the homily is actually playing it quite safe when he chooses this topic.

In contrast to the popular understanding of what preaching is, Fr Hamilton explains how he sees as the purpose of the homily at mass:

In sermons to people who are drawn together by faith, the betterment will normally consist in their exploring their faith more deeply, recognising unseen possibilities in it, or finding encouragement in living it. That is normally done by reflecting on the deeper meanings and implications for contemporary life of the scriptural texts set for the day.

As we listen to a sermon we might hope to see the love and power of God at work in the messiness of our lives, and to find courage to live generously in the face of our discontents and the claims made on us by our world.

He speaks about priests “choosing a topic” to preach on. As he points out, the Catholic tradition wisely recommends as a general rule that the readings of the liturgy are to provide the basis for the sermon, so “choosing a topic” should not always be the starting point of the priest’s homiletic preparations. Nevertheless, is preaching really about talking on “topics”? Is the purpose of preaching (with apologies to St Augustine) really to help us to live our lives “better”?

I would like to propose that there is a world of difference between “reflecting on the deeper meanings and implications for contemporary life of the scriptural texts set for the day” and, as I was taught when I was training to be a preacher, “proclaiming the whole Word of God”. The true task of the preacher is to proclaim God’s Word to the assembled community. That is why preachers must be “authorised”. This authorisation is a kind of power, I guess, but it is the power of a herald to proclaim only what and all that his master has given him to proclaim. As the old saying goes, “the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth”.

Two texts come to mind here. First: Romans 10:14-17:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (ESV)

Replace the word “preach” above with “proclaim”, and you will see that what St Paul is talking about is the role of the herald or the prophet. The “Good News/Gospel” is the announcement that the herald has been commissioned to make known on behalf of his master (the Lord). It is for this alone that the preacher has been “sent” (commissioned/apostled).

The other text is from Ezekiel, the parable about the watchman. First, at the beginning of his ministry, Ezekiel is commissioned as a “watchman” for Israel:

And at the end of seven days, the word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul.” (Ezekiel 3:16-21, ESV)

If Augustine was right about preaching being “to make people better”, then surely it was in relation to this: the duty of the preacher to call the wicked to turn from his wickedness and to warn the righteous person not to sin.

Ezekiel takes up this metaphor again later in Chapter 33:

“The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, speak to your people and say to them, If I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from among them, and make him their watchman, and if he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people, then if anyone who hears the sound of the trumpet does not take warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet and did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life. But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.

So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, that person shall die in his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. (Ezek 33:1-9, ESV)

I would strongly recommend all preachers, Fr Hamilton included, to reflect on the above passage when they decide on what “topic” to preach. The duty of the preacher is not to tickle the ears of the faithful, or to give them little tips on how “to live their lives better”, or even to help them in “exploring their faith more deeply”, but to “declare the whole Word of God” to them – both the warnings concerning righteousness and wickedness and the Good News of the salvation of Jesus Christ.

Thanks to Sonitus Sanctus, I recently found my way to the webiste of the excellent “Institute of Catholic Culture” in Virginia in the US.

You can read all about them here on their website, but the page I want to direct you to is their media librarywhere they have recordings of all their lectures to download. Many of these lectures are both excellent and informative.

Their latest offering is “Music and the Soul: Destroying or Restoring the Inner Man” by Dr John Cuddeback. Dr Cuddeback is, as far as I can gather, a Thomist in his theology and philosophy, and thus he is well read in Plato and Aristotle as well as St Thomas, and has a particular grasp of the theology and philosophy of virtue. For Dr Cuddeback, “good” and “bad” (or “evil”) are not simply categories in the eye of the beholder, but correspond to objective reality.

Perhaps this point of view makes him a good choice to speak to us on the matter of music and culture – or perhaps not. I found myself following him in the initial part of his lecture, where he presents Plato’s conviction that there really is such a thing as “right” and “wrong” music, and the education of the young in “right” music was an essential part of a full education in virtue. But he began to lose me towards the middle of the talk when he began to apply his perceptions to “modern” music. He lost me completely when he suggested in a question time at the end that “polka” is “good” music!

You can download Dr Cuddeback’s handout of quotations on music here. As you can see: Plato, Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, Second Vatican Council, Confucius, John Lenin, Little Richard, and John Paul II. See if you can pick the odd ones out. Yes, my complaint is that while Dr Cuddeback has relied upon thoughtful reflections of classical philosophy, he has generally failed to quote any correspondingly thoughtful reflections from modern philosophers on music. Little Richard’s throwaway line about “Rock’n’Roll” being “demonic” is juicy, but milked far beyond its capacity to provide any helpful substance.

Critiquing music is a lot harder than critiquing literature (itself a difficult task), because music doesn’t always come with words. Dr Cuddeback makes a good point that when critiquing popular songs, we should do more than look merely at the words – it is the combination of words and music that makes a song and gives the song its character. And I agree absolutely with Dr Cuddeback (and by extension, with Plato) that music has a profound effect upon the soul by virtue of its ability powerfully to stimulate (and indeed simulate!) the state of one’s emotions. I am of the opinion that the diversity of one’s taste in music relates more or less to the diversity of one’s readiness to enter in particular states of the soul. When we put a piece of music on in the car or the home stereo or the ipod, we choose it according to the state of soul that we seek to stimulate in ourselves at that point in time.

Hence I am curious about the limits of one’s musical taste. I have a very large and eclectic collection of music. It is strong on Gregorian and Early Renaissance, on Baroque and Mozart, on hymns and spiritual songs (“ancient and modern”), on contemporary pop, jazz, folk, electronic and choral music, and even a fair smattering of what is collectively known as “alternative music”. It is a bit light on in the Classical department – I can see that Beethoven and Hayden were good composers, I just don’t find myself often wanting to listen to it. I own no Wagner or country music or heavy metal rock. I particularly enjoy modern film soundtracks (which, given the nature of the genre, is very good at encouraging a wide range of emotive states). I own many recordings of musicals, from Gilbert and Sullivan to Andrew Lloyd Webber.

My complaint with Dr Cuddeback’s presentation is that he is dismissive of “modern music” as “bad” music on a rather sweeping scale. He seems to have a very limited appreciation of the breathtaking breadth of genres and qualities of “modern music” – beyond popular rock’n’roll. I am glad to say that in general, my children are very happy to listen to my music with me just as I am happy to listen to their music with them. Shared music-listening often takes place in the car, where we discuss the composition of the music, its meaning and its effect upon our feelings. Abba and The Beatles are a shared genre, as are the four (so far) soundtracks and scores of the Twilight films (okay, now you might laugh, but if you haven’t listened to these collections, I strongly recommend them even if you can’t stomach the novels or the films).

I can pretty safely say that Abba, The Beatles, and the Twilight soundtracks would not be on Dr Cuddeback’s list of “good music”. There is indeed some “bad music” in these collections, but there is also some very, very good music. John Lennon wasn’t a Christian (do we need to be reminded?) but together with Paul McCartney they put together some truly great material (I have several collections of orchestral versions of the Beatles – stirring stuff indeed!). Dr Cuddeback objects to music that is “sensual” or appeals to the “lower senses” and sometimes the “lower body parts”, to music that stirs up strong sensual feelings. Do I detect a little bit of Manichaeism at this point? Am I wrong to think that sensuality has a good and proper place in music, just as it has a good and proper place the human psyche? And he warns against music that stirs up feelings of anger or disturbance, recommending instead music that calms and soothes, but do not the stronger emotions also have a place in our lives?

Of course, this relates to the kind of music we use in liturgy. Dr Cuddeback gives a particularly funny example of what would happen if the strains of a Mozart clarinet concerto were suddenly to find its way onto the play list of a nightclub, by way of illustrating how music with a “rock’n’roll” beat is incompatible with divine worship. I fully concur, as I have said elsewhere, with the opinion that Gregorian chant is most appropriate to the Roman liturgy for its prayerfulness and ability to engender a contemplative mode for worship – but a good rousing (eg. “We stand for God”) or emotive (eg. “Sweet Sacrament divine”) hymn also have their place.

In the end, while there is much valuable material in Dr Cuddeback’s reflections on “music and the soul”, I find his presentation limited by his lack of appreciation of the breadth of available genres and qualities of “modern music”, and by his tendency to dismiss music that stirs up deep passions. Take the time to listen to his presentation, and tell me what you think.

Okay, this is going to be a short post on the continuing topic of “same-sex marriage”.

Some bishops (eg. Archbishop Vincent Nichols and Bishop Greg O’Kelly) have seen something of a life-line thrown to them by “civil unions” as alternative to “same-sex marriage”. A bit of caution here from the Vatican’s own directives on the matter.

The first step in clarity for Catholics (including bishops) in discussing this issue should be to refuse to use the word “unions” to describe the cohabitation of same-sex couples. These are NOT “unions”, but partnerships. The idea that marriage is a “union” is, if I am not mistaken, a specifically Judeo-Christian one, following on texts such as Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5. As such it is appropriate to discuss the question of “union” in relation to marriage as a religious concept, and not a legal, secular concept.

In Christian thinking, marriage between one man and one woman is a “union” because man and woman are fundamentally orientated towards one another. This is a biological fact, but one that goes much deeper, according to Jesus’ teaching, to include a union at the level of being (ie. REALITY). The Genesis text makes it clear that God created humans “in his image” precisely as “man and woman”. Analogies help here: such as knives and forks and nuts and bolts. A nut and a bolt are oriented to one another in a fundamental fashion such that you can’t build a structure with only bolts or only nuts. “Man and woman” can form a unity in just the same way that “nut and bolt” form a union. Two nuts or two bolts form a pair, not a unity.

If (IF) it is believed beneficial to the State to regulate in some way the personal affairs of cohabiting persons of the same sex, fine. Personally, I would be supportive of any legislation that makes it possible for any two people (without any reference at all to the sex or sexual activity of the partners – how can you make a legal contract dependant upon what people do in “the privacy of their own bedrooms”?) to form a binding partnership with legal protection. But we should under all circumstances avoid calling them “unions”, since to do so is the equivalent of calling them “marriages”. Only marriage forms a “union”.

Bradley Hatter chose the first day of AFL season to launch his new initiative: a truly inclusive football club: the “Melbourne All Football League”.

“I want it to be a welcoming place for all footballers – not just for AFL players. The true sporting spirit doesn’t exclude anyone, but is inclusive. We want to include all codes of football in Australia, including soccer, in our club. In fact, we plan to go even further than that: this will be a club for any sport whatsoever.”

Mr Hatter recently resigned as coach of the Dinglybell Football club in Melbourne’s outer east. He said that he was fed up with the restrictive, exclusive rules that were imposed on the club by the Victorian AFL Association.

“That’s not the sporting spirit. The sporting spirit says everyone is welcome, with no limitations or expectations. We won’t turn anyone away. We won’t put demands or set limitations on who could or could not be part of this club.”

One of the members of his new club, Jenny Simonsez, demonstrates just how seriously Mr Hatter takes that position. Ms Simonsez said that she doesn’t even like football.

“I’ve always felt excluded as a football hater in Melbourne,” she said. “Now at last, I have found a football club that I can join and not be expected to like football or even follow it. Brad is a true visionary. This is the way of the future.”

Mr Hatter says that his new football club also welcomes basketballers, cyclists, and table tennis players.

“I don’t ask questions about what sport you follow. We don’t use brand names in the new Melbourne AFL”.

Nor do they have club colours. According to Mr Hatter and his club members, team colours are just another way of creating difference and excluding “the other”.

“We don’t have a uniform, or colours, or team outfit. Everyone is an individual here. If anyone wants to adopt colours for our inclusive Football club, then I guess the most appropriate would be a rainbow!” he joked.

The new club is having some difficulty getting recognition as an Incorporated Body by Consumer Affairs Victoria, as they steadfastly refuse to appoint officers such as President, Secretary or Treasurer.

“We don’t want anything to do with hierarchy in our club. If you turn up, and its your first time, you have as much say in how this club is run as those who come every Saturday.”

The Melbourne All Football Club doesn’t play against other teams – part of their policy is not to be involved in competitive games. So what do they do on Saturday mornings?

“We do everything,” says Johnny Star, an enthusiastic member of the new inclusive club. “We get a whole lot of balls, footballs, soccerballs, cricket balls, volleyballs, and even a few racquets and bats, and throw them into the ring and everyone can do what they like. No one keeps score either. It’s really liberating. An opportunity to express your individuality without the constrictions of having to be a team player.”

At this stage, there has been no response from the Victorian AFL Association. Off the record, however, one highly placed AFL official has said: “It’s stupid. It’s self-centred. It won’t last because they are just a bunch of individuals doing their own thing.”

Mr Hatter says that’s the point.

For more information about the new club, click here.

That seems to be the gist of this post at Fr Chadwicke’s site.

To save you trawling through the whole post, here are the relevant paragraphs:

Several things have come to light in two letters written by Archbishop Hepworth – to his clergy (to which I belong as a priest) and to the College of Bishops. He firstly announces his intention to resign as Primate of the TAC when it is known which bishops will resign and become Roman Catholics and which will remain to constitute the TAC College of Bishops. Those who will resign and become Roman Catholics do so with the Archbishop’s blessing and encouragement. Secondly, Archbishop Hepworth recognises, in the absence of dispensations of his canonical irregularities, that he cannot even become a lay member of the future Australian Ordinariate. His only avenue to becoming a Roman Catholic layman is through the Archdiocese of Adelaide. He might as well wear a cassock and pectoral cross in Saudi Arabia!

He informs us that he intends to remain the Bishop Ordinary of the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia. He will also assume the small Nippon Kirisuto Sei Ko Kai in Japan under his jurisdiction. We have as yet little idea of the number of Australian clergy and faithful wishing to follow him. “I remain the Bishop Ordinary in Australia and Japan, and under legislation of the Canadian General Synod, Primate of the ACCC. Those positions will be untouched by the forthcoming resignation”. He has told me personally that I would remain licensed as a priest under his jurisdiction. Whether that would be the Patrimony of the Primate or some kind of new “personal” jurisdiction, I do not know.

I’m not quite sure about Fr Chadwicke’s conclusion that “in the absence of dispensations of his canonical irregularities, that he cannot even become a lay member of the future Australian Ordinariate” but that “His only avenue to becoming a Roman Catholic layman is through the Archdiocese of Adelaide”. Why would becoming an lay Catholic in the Ordinariate – something which has actually been offered to him – be impossible? Wouldn’t he need “dispensation of his canonical irregularities” to become a lay member of the Adelaide Diocese also? Canonical lawyers reading this post may have more information.

In the mean time, it seems that Moses has led his people to the banks of the Jordan once again.

I’m going to respond to the lengthy discussion in the combox to my post on the possibility of “civil disobedience” in relation to same-sex “marriage” laws here rather than there, where my comments would get somewhat lost (and we don’t want that, do we?). I want to respond to three issues: Perry on the kind of civil disobedience I am advocating; Tony on how my comments relate to divorce law; and Clara on whether or not we should institute a “Church only” marriage.

Perry calls my bluff by asking just “what kind of civil disobedience?” I had in mind – beyond the refusal of the Church to bless or solemnise such partnerships. [Note: Same-sex relationships, legalised or not, cannot be called “unions” – civil or otherwise – any more than they can be called “marriages” because the whole “one flesh” thingy relates only to what happens when a man and woman are “united”. One of the central reasons that marriage between two people of the same sex cannot take place is the simple matter that the “two remain two” at a very deep and real level: the “miracle” of marriage in which “the two become one flesh” does not and cannot take place whatever they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.]

It is a good question, and on reflection, I realise that I had not thought this through very deeply. I think the most effective kind of civil disobedience on the part of those who defend true marriage must come in the form of words: what we say, preach, teach, write, print, publish, discuss etc. in the public square. It is in the sphere of rhetoric that such battles are fought, won and lost for the hearts and minds of people in our society today. The most effective kind of civil disobedience that we can mount is a refusal to use the new vocabulary in the way the social re-engineers demand. We must refuse clearly and publicly to call any kind of same-sex partnership “marriage”. We must teach that, the laws not-with-standing, such partnerships are NOT “marriages” (or even “unions” civil or otherwise). We must not do anything that would accord such partnerships the dignity of marriage. And above all, we must clearly proclaim and teach what marriage really is (more on this in a moment).

We should not be misled into thinking that we will be let off lightly for taking such a stance, or that to take such a stance will not require a great deal of courage. Not only will we be the victims of all kinds of hate speech (being called ourselves “hate-speakers”) for such a stance, but it may well become illegal to make such claims (since after all, the law will stand against us precisely in defining such relationships to be what we deny them to be).

And here is where I mean that we must do more than simply refuse to solemnise or bless such relationships. For my part, I share Andrew Bolt’s and Paul Kelly’s lack of faith in assurances that Churches and other religious communities will remain free to make such a refusal (Kelly says: “Only a fool would accept this at face value.”) How is it possible that this will not be regarded as “discrimination”? The passing of same-sex “marriage” laws would require more legal “exceptions”, such as that which currently “allows” the Church to continue to “discriminate” in matters relating to ordination and employment (although even these “exceptions” are currently under attack). The problem with such “exceptions” to the law are that they are precisely “exceptions allowing discrimination”. The exceptions put the Church on the back foot rhetorically and legally from the start. The mere fact that these ARE “exceptions” highlights the point of view that the Church is, legally, guilty of “discriminating”.

Were such laws to be passed, the Church must mount and maintain a campaign of education and discourse which teaches the clear truth about the nature of marriage. I remain dubious about whether we will have the courage and determination to carry this out. I base my doubts upon the way in which we have failed to clearly convey the plain and simple truth about marriage in the face of other attacks on this fundamental estate of our society, attacks such as legalised re-marriage (which is more of an issue for the Church than legal divorce) and the recognition of temporary and private partnerships as “defacto marriages” (as opposed to permanent common law marriages which have traditionally been recognised largely for the sake of the children of such unions). The lengthy discussion in reaction to my previous post is a clear example of how even well-educated Catholics (such as most of the readers of this blog are) can be very confused about the true nature of marriage. It has been argued that one of the reasons why so many annulments have been granted in recent decades is because many people have attempted marriage without properly understanding what marriage is – that is, they are unable to contract a true marriage because they have not had a clear intention of what it means to marry in the first place.

Tony’s first question in the combox to my previous post was why my comments do not relate to the State’s laws concerning divorce. In part, they do, but I do not dispute the State’s right to govern the estate of marriage by governing the process of divorce. I think it is worth acknowledging that just as marriage itself has been a universal phenomenon in human society, so has divorce – even in religious communities, such as in Jewish and Muslim societies. It is not even true to say that the Bible forbids divorce – the Torah is a part of the Bible and it allowed divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Jesus, on the other hand, forbade it, and the Apostle Paul followed this up by explaining that marriage between baptised Christians must be permanent because it is a sign of the mystery of the relationship between Christ and his Church. The indissolubility of marriage in Christian teaching pertains particularly to what we call “sacramental” marriage between a baptised man and a baptised woman. States, on the other hand, have always had laws governing divorce, because it is necessary to have laws which govern the situation of marriage break-ups for the protection potential “victims” of divorce. I believe this is proper, and in accord with natural law, whatever position one may take on the issue of remarriage after divorce.

I believe that it would also be false move for the Church to invent something such as Clara suggests along the lines of a “Church only marriage”. Despite the fact that the Church proclaims marriage between two Christians to be a “sacrament”, the Church did not invent marriage. Rather, marriage – which is a natural estate – is raised to the dignity of a sacrament by virtue of Christ’s Paschal Mystery and by virtue of the status of the marriage partners as baptised Christians. The Church has the power to bless such marriages – it is the Church’s “nuptial blessing” of legally solemnised marriages which is the historical origin of the ecclesiastical celebration marriage. The State – in certain jurisdictions and because of historical context – gives the Church and (in places such as Australia) other “ministers of religion” the authority to legally solemnise marriages. In the final analysis, the State properly has the power to govern the circumstances under which it will recognise a legal marriage – short of actually defining marriage to be anything other than a union entered into for life between one man and one woman. (Note that laws legalising divorce do not change this definition – a marriage is not legal if it is deliberately entered into as a temporary or time-limited arrangement – the intention to remain married “as long as you both shall live” is a fundamental requirement for a legal marriage).

There are many other issues raised in the discussion on marriage in the combox to the previous post, which I cannot go into here without this becoming an overly lengthy post (“Too late!” they cried). So I will leave it at that for now.

UPDATE: One addendum. The discussion in the combox went into the quesiton of whether or not polygamy should or could be recognised in Australia. An interesting test case has just been decided in Canada. The ruling judge said: “The law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times… It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy.”

HT to the Ironic Catholic.

I wonder if the same effect can be achieved with a couple of crates of wine?

I like to support Melbourne Catholic Singles (not the least because they support me!), and so am happy to advertise this upcoming event they are organising. I have no idea what “speed-dating” is. If you do, and are single, and want to take part, here are the details:

Hi David.

Melbourne Single Catholics 35-55 are holding a Catholic Speed Dating event on Saturday, January 28th 2012 at 7pm. The cost is $45 per head and includes wine and cheese, The venue( to be confirmed) will be in Kew. The proceeds ( after expenses) will go to the Jesuit Mission. For more information please go to www.meetup.com/melbourne-single-catholics

We would be most grateful if you could give our event a plug on your blog and just spread the word about the event generally.

Thanks Catherine