In regard to Catholic marriage, exactly how can we get our
house in order? The author
ventures
out into some very controversial space but his ideas are quite focused and down
to earth when you give them a few minutes thought. The intended application is
the good old USA but, hey, this is just as applicable and urgent in Canada,
especially since we have “progressed” further down the road of same sex “marriage”
than our southern neighbour. But, dear me, they are catching up at a very rapid
pace.
This article is a couple months old but it’s really a
ground-shaker in terms of envisioning our Catholic identity. The only problem is that it requires Bishops to be bold,
principled and disciplined.
And of
course if that were to happen, they’d already be very busy with
their
plan to end the legalized child killing in Canada.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marriage: Let’s Get
Our Own House in Order
Catholics must start treating marriage as though they
actually believed what the Church teaches
John Zmirak
The Supreme Court’s decisions last month to remove all
federal protection for natural marriage and deny the people of a state their
right to define it were the most momentous events for the Church’s safety since
the Russian Revolution. We will spend the next several years working out how
far the laws of our country will be turned against us.
How much of our freedom of religion, of association, of contract will survive
the rising demands for “equality,” “fairness,” and “tolerance” – words that
have been handily redefined to justify using the guns and jails of the state to
impose a secular standard on faithful citizens and their churches? Will
Catholic schools be forced to hire partners in homosexual couples? Will
seminaries? Will Catholic cemeteries be forced to bury same sex couples side by
side? Will churches themselves remain exempt from the social and legal pressure
to perform such ceremonies? (Already in England and Denmark, state churches are
being pressed by governments to conform. How long will Catholics there be
exempt?)
Americans are not immune to these threats. Some say that it’s outlandish to
imagine a future Supreme Court – duly packed by Democratic presidents with more
judges like Sotomayor and Kennedy – ruling that churches’ free exercise of
religion must be “balanced” against the interests of “fundamental rights” like
marriage, that refusing to marry same-sex couples is no more protected by the
First Amendment than Indian tribes’ use of peyote in their rituals. But then,
20 years ago, few would have predicted a Supreme Court overturning the Defense
of Marriage Act, either. We like to think of the Court as a solemn arbiter of
timeless principles and historic precedents, but in fact, it’s a more like a
lap dancer that chases elite opinion like a stray $100 bill.
What should we do to push back and
defend our institutions and our freedoms? I made an
extended
argument last week in The American Conservative that in the light of these
crushing defeats, we need an entirely new strategy – one which concedes the
fact that the public laws of marriage have utterly ceased to mirror the natural
law. That battle is lost for now and for many reasons, the chief one
being that few outside conservative Christian circles even believe in natural
law. We once thought that human nature was designed, by a Designer, and that we
were bound to respect the purposes mirrored in its design – for instance, the
fact that sex organs were intended to help us reproduce. Those who believe that
we are, like cancer cells, a random result of blind and meaningless mutations
will hardly defer to such “design.” We still think that we have “rights,”
though we’re hard put to say why or where they might have come from, and we’re
keen on Photoshopping the rights of the weak, the sick, and the young to match
our current convenience.
As long as a vulgar Darwinian “just so” story explains for people what humans
are and how we got here, we cannot expect to win the public over by pointing to
traces of natural order. In fact, I don’t believe we can use political means to
win the public over at all – not in our lifetimes. Instead, in the realm of
politics, we should switch gears right away and strive to limit the power of
the state to interfere in our lives and institutions. If we cannot win over
majority opinion, then we must fight like wildcats for the rights of minorities
– not so much ethnic minorities, whom the state defends well enough – but
religious and ideological minorities, like us. (Yes, I mean to include Muslims
and Mormons; we need all the friends we can get, and our principles must be
consistent.) We must carve out exceptions to anti-discrimination laws, to
protect all religious believers from the steamroller of the state.
We need to wean our institutions entirely off government aid. We ought to
abandon entirely the project of promoting “social justice” through the state –
this state, anyway, in its secular senile dementia – and become the most
aggressively
anti-government
force this side of bomb-throwing anarchists. The secular state is our
enemy, as the Communist Polish government was the enemy of its people, and the
larger and stronger it gets, the easier it will find the task of persecuting our
clergy, closing our churches, and re-educating our children. No, we don’t want
the government offering health care, or haircuts, or collecting one more penny
in tax than it takes to protect innocent life, guard the borders, and keep the
roads free of fallen meteorites.
Instead of using the Church’s money to lobby Congress to pass Obamacare, or
hire lawyers (as some dioceses do) to represent illegal immigrants, we ought to
pour every penny into keeping our school doors open, running our own soup
kitchens and hospitals, and fighting Leviathan’s tentacles wherever they try to
reach. (As a symbolic gesture and a nice payback for all that the U.S.
government is trying to do to our Church, the Vatican ought to offer asylum to
Edward Snowden.) Our enemy is the state – this state. We’ve seen that we cannot
ride the beast; it is time to break its kneecaps and bring it to heel. Just as
we once joined with Jews to fight religious teaching in public schools because
it was Protestant, now we must make common cause with libertarians to cripple
the state because it is Jacobin.
Our other task is harder: if we wish to
stand up for marriage, it’s time for our Church’s institutions to start
acting as if they believed in it. I have a simple, painful, five-point plan for
Catholics, which if undertaken would make of believers prophetic witnesses to
the reality of marriage in the face of the pale, pansexual temporary sex
contract that our laws call by that name. Consider this a gauntlet thrown down
before our bishops:
1. Each pastor should require of couples who wish to marry that
they be trained in the methods and moral underpinnings of Natural Family
Planning. This should be a non-negotiable part of Catholic marriage
preparation. (It would help with credibility if some NFP instructors could step
forth who have fewer than seven children; I’ve never met one, but I’m sure
they’re out there.)
2. A boilerplate “covenant” prenuptial agreement should be
drawn up by our bishops and provided to pastors, which binds Catholic spouses
to lifelong marriage, renounces divorce and remarriage, and awards all
community property to the wronged party in any civil divorce. In states where
“covenant marriage” is on the books – as it should be in all 50 – pastors must
require that couples contract one, or find some other fancy building for their
ceremony. I don’t know that our corrupt courts would enforce any such
agreements, but forcing people to sign them will weed out the unserious. Anyone
who objects is admitting in advance that he lacks sacramental intent. Give him
directions to City Hall.
3. A civil divorce should no longer be a prerequisite for an
annulment, but its legal aftermath. Catholics unsure of their marriage’s
validity should be required, on pain of excommunication, to await the Church’s
judgment before they seek the remedies of the state.
4. Annulment tribunals should, of course, be much stricter in
their application of canon law, especially with marriages contracted after
measures 1, 2, and 3 have been enacted. While the ease with which a Catholic marriage
can be annulled is scandalous, the state of catechesis and marriage prep has
been so abysmal for 40 years that many of the marriages our bishops are
annulling might really deserve it; if either party, going into a marriage,
secretly thinks that divorce and remarriage might be an option, that might be
enough to invalidate the bond. That’s the seed of the cancer which we must root
out; it’s not so much the annulments we approve that are scandalous farces, but
many of the weddings.
5. The party whose intent was found to be defective in any
annulment should have to wait 3-5 years before contracting a Catholic marriage,
complete a rigorous marriage prep that fully explicates the conditions of the
sacrament, and, of course, sign a “covenant” pre-nup so that this never happens
again.
In other words, put plainly, instead
of trying to direct traffic in the public square while our own house is in
disarray, we should fight off Caesar’s soldiers and make of our Church a beacon
and an example. I seem to remember that one major world religion spoke of being
a “city on a hill.” That sounds like a good idea.
