Marriage and Truth

Twenty Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time

One of the most heart-rending statistics of our day is that there is a divorce taking place every 10 minutes in Malaysia. Regrettably, it is not much different among Catholics. What could be the cause of this spike in divorces? The answer lies in the manner in which so many view marriage. The permanency of marriage is today viewed merely as an ideal at best, or a silly naïve myth. Marriage is often entered into as a tentative enterprise, an agreement “until further notice.” But the Church upholds and defends marriage in a manner which is radically different. For us Christians, marriage is a unique contract. Unlike other contracts, marriage has no break clause. The permanency of the marriage bond is what sets it apart from any other contracts. As I’m fond of telling couples, it consists of burning the bridges behind you, removing all the reset buttons, throwing away the life boats. You swim or you sink together!

Perhaps, the world finds such an arrangement harsh and untenable. It does so because it seems that everything in this world is marked by a certain tentativeness, that’s why the inclusion of a break clause in most contracts to allow the parties to mutually exit the partnership when things turn sour. But the Catholic Church sees it differently. She takes a Catholic at his word when he makes his vows, freely and knowingly, at his wedding. The Church must likewise call him to lifelong faithfulness to that vow, for the marriage vows bring into existence a permanent union that is joined together by God. It is “God” who joins man and woman together,” and therefore only God who can put them asunder. The reason why the Church objects to divorce and would not allow a “second” marriage, is because the Church does not presume that it has the authority to erase the tape on someone’s marital history and then pretend to take him as his word when he makes his wedding vows a second time. Marriage either is what Christ taught us it is, or it means whatever you want it to mean.

The church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the ban against remarriage is not an invention of a harsh and demanding Church, a Church removed from reality. No, the Church’s teaching is none other than that of Christ himself. Jesus, in response to the question of the Pharisees about divorce, teaches that “from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. This is why a man must leave father and mother, and the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide.” Later, upon being questioned further by his disciples, Jesus lays down the law,” The man who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery too.” There is nothing tentative about the words of Christ. They are explicitly clear and there is nothing ambiguous about his teaching. So anyone who wishes to take a spin on the teachings of Christ and questions the Church’s fidelity to it, would have to either ignore this passage or come out honestly and admit, “I reject Christ’s teaching!” 

In the debate leading up to the October Synod on Marriage and Family, one of the proponents arguing in favour of the traditional position of the Church, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop of Bologna, spoke to an Italian periodical, Il Foglio, and explained the premise of the Church’s position on the indissolubility of marriage. “When I speak of the truth of marriage I do not mean some sort of normative ideal. I mean, rather, the truth that God in his creative act has inscribed upon the person of every man and woman… Here we are not talking simply about a norm that may or may not admit of exceptions, nor of an ideal after which we strive. We are talking about the very essence of marriage and the family …The indissolubility of marriage is a gift that is given by Christ ... Above all it is a gift, not a norm that is imposed. It is not an ideal after which they have to strive. It is a gift from God who never reneges on his gifts... It is God who unites, otherwise the definitively binding nature of the act would rest upon a desire that is yes, natural, but also impossible to achieve. God himself gives the completion of the act.”

Marriage is indeed a sacrament, a sign of the eternal love of the three Persons of the Trinity, a sign of Christ’s self-effacing and sacrificial love for his Bride, the Church. Marriage should remind us of that inseparable bond.

How about those who are already divorced and “remarried”? Is there no place for them within the Church? Pope Francis recently gave a general audience in which he discussed the situation of those who have divorced and remarried without an annulment. He stressed that “these people are not at all excommunicated, they are not excommunicated!” The mainstream media had another field day suggesting that our Latin American Pontiff had once again departed from the norms of the Church, a decision to be lauded. What the media and many failed to recognise was that the Pope was merely restating the position of the Church. Excommunication is a canonical penalty and it is true that divorcing and remarrying without an annulment does not incur excommunication. The Pope is absolutely correct. But then, the media forgot to mention the teaching of Christ. Such a situation, though not warranting excommunication, is a serious sin, the sin of adultery according to the words of Christ himself, which separates them from communion with God and the Church. Pope Francis himself acknowledges that such a situation “contradicts the Christian Sacrament.”

Pope Francis then echoed the message of his predecessors in calling upon the members of the Church to provide maternal and pastoral care to people who are in these situations. As Pope St John Paul II once wrote, “Indeed the problem of divorced and remarried persons is one of the great sufferings of today’s Church. And we do not have simple solutions. Their suffering is great and yet we can only help parishes and individuals to assist these people to bear the pain of divorce.” He went on to say: “As regards these people … the Church loves them, but it is important they should see and feel this love. I see here a great task for a parish, a Catholic community, to do whatever is possible to help them to feel loved and accepted, to feel that they are not “excluded” even though they cannot receive absolution or the Eucharist; they should see that, in this state too, they are fully a part of the Church.”

And that would be our challenge. That we should never lower the bar when it comes to defending the indissolubility and unity of the marital union, for if we failed to do so, we would not only be turning our backs on the teachings of Christ but falsifying the truth about God, a God who never reneges on his promises. At the same time the Church must never close its doors on those who have suffered separation and divorce. The Church remains a mother to both – those who struggle with much courage, patience and perseverance to remain faithful to their marital bond, and those whose lives have been torn asunder by dereliction of their vows and now attempt to pick up the pieces. She remains a loving Mother as she continues to guide, to lead, to comfort, to heal and even to admonish when necessary, in order that all her children may find peace, a peace that can only be found when the truth of one’s lives conforms to the truth of one’s communion with God.

Beyond the Pale but never beyond Truth

Twenty Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Times Year B

A friend of mine recently introduced me to the expression “beyond the pale.” The term “Pale” is derived from the Latin “Palus,” which means pole or stake. It has come to refer to a space that is fenced in by poles. The term eventually came to be associated with the part of Ireland that was directly under the control of the English government in the late Middle Ages, an area marked out by a picketed fence – thus the Pale. As far as the English were concerned civilisation extended only to the end of the Pale and never beyond. Anyone or anything beyond the Pale was considered savage and dangerous. Today the expression “beyond the Pale” refers to anything unacceptable or beyond the limits of accepted morality or conduct.

Today’s readings seem to have shattered the security of the Pale. Both the action of God in generously pouring out his Spirit in the first reading and that of Christ in the gospel accepting the complimentary ministry of one not found among his inner circle, imply a God whose actions are not confined within the Pale. By sidestepping the orthodox and accepted human means both stories illustrate the utter unconventionality and freedom of God’s spirit. In commenting on a fellow miracle worker who was performing exorcisms in his name, Jesus says, “You must not stop him; no one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is for us.”

The readings here invite us to rethink the parameters within which God works. God is indeed a God of Surprises. He often works outside our familiar categories and beyond the parameters of expected normalcy. But we must avoid making the simplistic conclusion that this means that there are no basic differences between one ideology and the other, one religion and another, one denomination and the other. Notice that Christ’s words does not admit all and sundry but contain a caveat, only those who are “not against us is for us.” In other words, the recognition of the parallel ministry is posited on the fact that there is no contradiction between the teachings of Christ and the Church and that of the other. Immediately after challenging the “pale” mentality of his disciples, Jesus begins to draw clear parameters and impose heavy penalties, including excommunication, for any infringement of the limits which he had set. The God of Surprises is not the God of confusion or chaos or “anything goes.”  

A popular myth among many non-Catholics and even Catholics, is that the Church since Vatican II no longer teaches that she is necessary for salvation, in other words, that the Church is just one of many equal paths of salvation. These statements have become unofficial dogmas, “You have your beliefs and I have mine.” “Everyone has a right to his or her own opinion and religious beliefs and these should be respected.” “Everyone can get to heaven as long as one is true to oneself and tries to be a good person.” The notion that there are other equal paths of salvation apart from Christ and his Church is called religious indifferentism. This ideology teaches that the divisions between Christians and others are simply man-made constructs, irrelevant in the pursuit of larger, mutual goals. That faith is from God, and religion is made by man. Differences, if any, are mostly trivial. The Pale just doesn’t exist!

Although religious indifferentism has always been condemned by the Catholic Church, the argument seems quite tenable and acceptable in today’s religiously diverse world. In fact, many Catholics do feel overly embarrassed to assert the uniqueness of the Catholic faith. But is it arrogance to state the Truth about Christ or His Church? Or is it arrogant on our part to presume that we can alter and change the teachings of Christ so that our faith may fit in more “nicely” within the larger society and its expectations?

The Christian faith, the Catholic faith remains undeniably unique because Jesus remains undeniably unique – He is the Only Begotten Son of God. The best human teachers of wisdom are nothing like Him because He is both true man and true God. Because of His singularly unique nature, Christ is the unique and universal Saviour of the world, He cannot be one among many. The uniqueness of Jesus Christ in God’s plan of salvation must certainly extend to the Church which He founded. Thus the Church is unique because Jesus is, in fact, unique. It is precisely because of this intimate association between Christ and His Body that the Catholic Church continues to affirm the Latin maxim, “extra ecclesia nullam salus,” “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Our Holy Father, Pope Francis affirms this ancient maxim by saying, “It’s an absurd dichotomy to think one can live with Jesus, but without the Church, to follow Jesus outside the Church, to love Jesus and not the Church”. If Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, then the Church must too be necessary for salvation.

This unique identity of Christ and the Church, is reflected in the way the Catholic faith relates to all the other religions and philosophies in the world. Such a relationship is necessarily based on God’s Truth, it can never be the product of human opinions. It follows that any truth and any goodness to be found anywhere in creation owes its existence to God. However, with Truth comes its flipside, error. Error is always beyond the Pale because God is not and cannot be the author of error. Despite the commonality we find in other religious traditions, and despite the Church’s sincere respect for “all that is true and good” found in these traditions, anything which offends the Truth of Christ and His Church cannot be considered to be on the same page especially when this not only rejects the uniqueness of Christ and His mission but also negates the essence of the Truth which He came to reveal.

So how do we reconcile the seemingly contradictory notions that the Church is necessary for salvation and yet recognise that there are others who may be recipients of God’s grace and salvation who stand outside the visible Church? By recognising that these claims are complementary, not contradictory. The Second Vatican Council in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church though affirming the necessity of Christ and His Church for salvation also teaches 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… Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel... Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature," the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”

So all that lies beyond the visible Pale of our comprehension and perception need not be necessarily dangerous, neither those found there condemned to perdition. It may be humbling and more accurate to state that one does not know where the Pale begins or ends because, Christ, the Pole of our Lives on whom we stake everything, is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and End of all. In this way, the Pale is essentially “Catholic,” “Universal,” and one of the strengths of true Catholicity is that it affirms all that is beautiful, true and good, wherever it appears, but never merely contented with lesser versions, it always strives for the fullness and perfection of that which is beautiful, true and good. This too must be at heart of authentic ecumenism, authentic interfaith dialogue and genuine conversations with the world. It is a conversation that cannot and should not ignore the differences nor blur the lines between Truth and Error, but rather a dialogue that ultimately leads us to the fullness of the Truth in all its splendorous glory, a dialogue that leads us to God.

 

PostNote:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Extra Ecclesiam nullam salus"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.

“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

“847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

嫉妒怪物

乙年常年期第25主日         

嫉妒和野心是什么呢？它们是密切联系的。当我们觉得自己有不足的时候，它们就会出现。当自己缺少了点什么的时候，我们就会讨厌他人能拥有，或是要设法得到。其实嫉妒和野心老早已是人际关系中的一部分，只要看看圣经中的记载，我们就能知道这个说法的真实性。

原祖父母曾有野心要相似天主，这是因为他们嫉妒天主具有权威和知识。他们的嫉妒和野心促使他们犯了第一个罪，这原罪的最大后果是死亡。如果父母本性已坏，孩子必定更糟糕。加音要超越弟弟亚伯尔，向天主献上祭品尝试获取祂的欢心。然而，当天主惠顾了亚伯尔的祭献时，嫉妒之火导致加音犯了杀人之罪。还有，若瑟得到父亲的偏爱招惹了兄长们的嫉妒，结果被兄长们卖去当奴隶。另外，撒乌尔的嫉妒之心，导致他三番四次尝试刺杀达味，尽管达味救了以色列和她的君王。

 圣雅各伯在今天的读经二作了这样的结论：哪里有嫉妒和纷争，哪里就有扰乱和种种恶行……”

       

 在今天的福音中，门徒们争论着在耶稣新建立的王国里谁是最大的。他们想的只是权利和地位，都盼望成为耶稣新建立王国中的领导人，因为他们看到伯多禄、雅各伯和若望受到特别的尊重。其他门徒也被嫉妒、野心和竞争的心态困扰着。

耶稣看透门徒们的心思，便把他们叫过来，开始教导他们一个重要的道理。他并不斥责门徒们怀有野心，但却引导他们归回正途。他告诉他们要成为最大的，就是要谦卑地为他人服务。谁若想成为最大的，就必须积极地去寻找服务的机会，并非是为了掌权或接受人们的尊重，这就是为什么在教会的服务团体内从不讲权利，但讲求服务他人。如果门徒们想要在天主的国里成为最大的，他就得作众人中最小的一位；不是要做主人；而是做众人的仆役。

嫉妒、野心和贪婪的毛病，不仅在社会里存在，也出现在教会中。不过问题是，因为看不清自己的野心和嫉妒，所以大多数的人从来不会承认自己嫉妒。通常我们会找借口来掩饰自己的野心和嫉妒，我们的借口往往就是说要为团体做出最好的，或者说他人会危害团体。今天我们必须扪心自问，我们是否也有嫉妒和野心？我们是否让嫉妒破坏这个团体呢？在堂区服务团体和各项善功内，我们是否互相鼓励和支持？或是我们经常挑剔他人的做法？如果发生这种情况，那么我们必须立刻制止它。耶稣是这样对大家说的：“谁若想做第一个，他就得做众人中最小的一个，并要做众人的仆役。”我们是被召叫来谦卑服务的，被召来互相合作以建立天主的国，我们都被召叫要悔改。