 |
| Jan Steen: Marriage of Tobias and Sarah |
Edward Schillebeeckx in his book "Marriage. Human Reality and Saving Mystery" makes the point that considered in relation to the marriage customs of the ancient near east and Phoenicia in particular,
"[…] it immediately becomes apparent that faith in Yahweh in effect “desacralised” or secularised marriage – took it out of a purely religious sphere and set it squarely in the human secular sphere."Historically, the restriction of the sacramental nature of marriage to the religious rite has the consequence that the state may then presume to exercise absolute control over the civil contract. However, Peter Elliot in his book "What God Has Joined" made an important and helpful distinction in response to Schillebeeckx, saying that we should:
"give a respectful regard to Marriage before Christ as a created reality, rather than a 'secular reality'."This applies also to marriages of non-Catholics (Christian or not) which are recognised by the Church if the couple have exchanged vows. The principle in Roman law was nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit. (Consent, not sexual intercourse makes marriage.) Similarly, in the Church, it has always been recognised that it is the consent which is the matter and form of the sacrament of matrimony and not the priestly blessing, and that the spouses minister the sacrament to each other. (Among the Orthodox, a different view has prevailed, especially since the 19th century, making the blessing the actual form of the rite, but there is evidence of many earlier Orthodox theologians accepting the older view that it is the consent which is essential.)
In the Catholic Church today, it is common for couples to be married even though one spouse is not baptised. In such a case, the priest applies to the Bishop for a dispensation from the (invalidating) impediment of "Disparity of Cult." This is routinely given when the Catholic has signed a form saying that they will do all in their power within the unity of their marriage, to have the children baptised and brought up as Catholics. They can then be married according to the rites of the Church. However, what is often forgotten (for example in the choice of prayers) is that this is not a sacramental marriage.
A non-baptised person is not capable of receiving any other sacrament. Nor are they able to minister the sacrament of matrimony. The sacrament cannot therefore be received by the Catholic party. This fact is recognised by the Church's legislation in that there are certain circumstances when such a marriage can be dissolved, whereas a valid (and consummated) sacramental marriage can never be dissolved. Nevertheless, a non-sacramental marriage is recognised as a valid union, a reality created by God at the beginning of the human race, natural and good.
(In the case of a mixed marriage between a Catholic and a validly baptised Christian who is not in communion with Rome, there is no invalidating impediment. The Parish Priest is required to obtain the same undertaking about the upbringing of the children and then formally give permission for the marriage to take place, but if he were to forget, it would not invalidate the marriage. The Catholic and the non-Catholic but baptised spouse would contract a valid and sacramental marriage.)
So there is no question of the Church retreating to "religious marriage" as opposed to "civil marriage." We simply don't accept that there is any such thing as a "purely civil marriage." Any valid marriage - whether sacramental or not - is a union created by God and subject to the jurisdiction of the Church as the Council of Trent teaches. (See: Luther, Trent and getting out of state marriage.)
This might sound an outlandish claim and indeed, for prudential reasons, the Church nowadays does not attempt to intervene in the civil jurisdiction which is exercised over marriage. However, there are common examples of where the Church does exercise her jurisdiction. For example, if Caius, an Anglican, wishes to marry Livia, a Catholic, but was previously married to Claudia, another Anglican, he can apply to the matrimonial tribunal of the Diocese for the first marriage to be investigated and the Church will often grant a decree of nullity. If Caius and Claudia were both non-baptised people married in the Register Office, a similar process might take place, or a case brought for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of the Pauline privilege. In such cases, the Church is exercising her jurisdiction over civil marriage without reference to the state.
It is true that currently, in these cases, the tribunals insist that a civil divorce be obtained. Again, this is a purely prudential decision on the part of the Church to prevent the tribunal being drawn into any subsequent civil litigation. The point is that the Church recognises sacramental marriages between non-Catholic Christians as well as natural, non-sacramental marriages where one or both spouses is not baptised - and exercises jurisdiction in relation to such marriages.
Paul Priest (On the Side of the Angels) has raised the question of whether it is now right for us to co-operate with the civil arrangements for marriage, since marriage likely to be re-defined in such a way that it would give scandal etc. if we were to to co-operate with it. It would not be formal co-operation, and I am of the view that it would be legitimate material co-operation, especially if we are given no option in civil law to conduct marriages without couples previously or subsequently going through the civil arrangements for marriage. In fact, we have for some time co-operated with civil arrangements for marriage that allow for "no-fault" divorce through mutual consent. That is clean contrary to the teaching of the Church but we accept that couples can register their marriages civilly, having completed the Catholic pre-nuptial enquiry and assented to the indissolubility of marriage. If the SSM Bill is passed, couples going through the civil registration would also have to assent, at least implicitly, to the truth that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Neil Addison (Religion Law Blog) helpfully pointed out that under s75 of the Marriage Act (1949) it is a criminal offence for anyone to solemnise a Marriage otherwise than in accordance with the Act. Paul Priest suggests that the (fairly common) process of convalidating invalid marriages (when the couples take the vows again in the canonical form) would therefore be illegal - though in fact no effort has been made to prosecute priests for solemnising such marriages. Perhaps this could be got round by saying that the state has already recognised the marriage. However, as Neil Addison pointed out even more pertinently, Muslims routinely solemnise marriages without the marriage being registered under the civil law. (See for example: Muslim Marriages (Again)). Neil is keen to insist that Muslims should conduct their marriages within the terms of the Marriage Act (1949), something that they could do without much inconvenience and without contravening the Islamic faith.
Now that marriage is being re-defined before our eyes, I think that the whole question is up in the air again. I would like to see a situation where a couple could celebrate their marriage (not "religious marriage", just marriage - for the reasons I have already given) and then afterwards sign the civil partnership schedule if they wish to benefit from the civil benefits that the state may make available from time to time. But this would require a change to the Marriage Act (1949) and to the Civil Partnerships Act (2004). The compromise I will probably have to put up with is de-registering the Church and having the Registrar come to do the civil registration - as happened before 1949.
A note for commenters
I am sorry that this is rather a long and complex post, but I thought is would be good to have something for people to refer to. Do by all means correct me if I am mistaken in civil or canon law, and add your own thoughts. However on this post especially, forgive me if I do ask that you read the post carefully before commenting. Marriage is a pitfall for the unwary theologian or canon lawyer. (And as ever, I insist proudly: I am not a canonist, I am a dogmatist.)
28 comments:
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I was trying to explain this to a convert today-about sacramentality and covenant. I shall send her this post.
Superb and how I wish other priests would stop fudging on these important points.
Of course, "civil marriages" were created by states after the Christian era, a la, the Reformation, in order to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church.
Thanks again. This post is a classic.
Indeed it is, Supertradmum. I shall certainly use it for reference as I find 8am not the best time to study such complexities! Thank you once again Father.
I agree with what you have outlined. Nevertheless the Church while recognising natural marriage is reticent about the matter. Even though natural marriage is created by God, yet the church claims the right to dissolve it, and would never permit two non-baptised people to conduct their marriage in Church notwithstanding the sacred nature of the marriage, i.e created by God. Neither, of course would it permit two baptised non-Ctholics to be married in our church even though it is a sacramental marriage. I have twice been asked to conduct such by non-Catholics, but have had to refuse.
I do think it is time for the Church to rethink the doctrine, and her practices.
I am not for a moment denying the rights of the Church in any way whatsoever. She has the right and power to change things.
A most interesting point, Father. As the Church of England begins to lose its status in the eyes of ordinary people, I find that I am also occasionally asked for services by simple people of good will.
Doubtless celebrating the marriages of non-Catholics would be something of a minefield - but that does not preclude looking at it seriously.
In the case of funerals, we can offer the corporal work of mercy, though the Requiem Mass itself would probably not be appropriate, given that it assumes the person to be a member of the faithful - we could probably extend Fortescue's delightfully named "Service on the Occasion of the Death of a non-Catholic Personage."
I have had occasion to bless people or things (such as wedding rings on an anniversary) with requests coming from ordinary people in the locality. Perhaps they are just aware of the traffic problems in the surrounding streets on a Sunday morning ;-)
"For example, if Caius, an Anglican, wishes to marry Livia, a Catholic, but was previously married to Claudia, another Anglican, he can apply to the matrimonial tribunal of the Diocese for the first marriage to be investigated and the Church will often grant a decree of nullity."
Are you familiar with the most famous case of this sort to have been initiated in the UK? In the then Diocese of Southwark, in fact?
The Times of Monday, November 15, 1926, in its “Telegrams in brief” column on page 13 carried a small item which was to precipitate a great storm of controversy. It read:
"Reuter's Rome correspondent says that the Sacred Roman Rota has confirmed the decree of the Diocesan Court of Southwark annulling the marriage of the Duke of Marlborough with Miss Consuela Vanderbilt."
It was this case which brought the convert Scottish Episcopalian, the Rev Fr Dr William Theodore Heard MA DD PhD DCL to Rome's attention. He was Officialis, or its equivalent, of the the Diocese at that time while serving as a currate at Holy Trinity, Dockhead, Bermondsey under Canon Murnane. In the following year he was called to Rome to replace Mgr John Prior on the Rota. Just over 30 years later, in 1958, Mgr Heard became Dean of the Rota and in the following year was named Cardinal.
Excellent post. My gut feeling is against accepting the Government's idea that there are two kinds of marriage - civil and religious - and therefore Catholic Priests should no longer act as registrars. I have posted elsewhere to this effect but you have provided the necessary and very erudite guidance.
This is a helpful post which goes a long way to clarifying RC practice in these matters.
I too was trained as a dogmatist and not as a canonist, but I would like to question your description of the rationale behind the RC Church's practice in the case you describe:
"For example, if Caius, an Anglican, wishes to marry Livia, a Catholic, but was previously married to Claudia, another Anglican, he can apply to the matrimonial tribunal of the Diocese for the first marriage to be investigated and the Church will often grant a decree of nullity. If Caius and Claudia were both non-baptised people married in the Register Office, a similar process might take place, or a case brought for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of the Pauline privilege. In such cases, the Church is exercising her jurisdiction over civil marriage without reference to the state."
As I understand it, Latin Canon Law applies only to those who have been baptised or received as Roman Catholics, and therefore baptised Anglicans are not subject to it any more than unbaptised people. The situation here is that the RCC is simply declaring its view - taking a position - by reference to both its law and doctrine regarding Holy Matrimony. The outcome is the same, but it does not indicate that the RC Church claims any right of jurisdiction.
I repeat the disclaimer - that I too am a dogmatist and not a canonist. (It is also a long time since I considered such matters from within the RC Church!)
I did read your post carefully but obviously not carefully enough as when I subsequently read your earlier post you seem to be in favour of no longer acting as registrar of civil marriages. Could you please say whether you are still of that view and perhaps explain further why. I think it would be a very regrettable step if the whole business cannot be done in-house. If it is okay for Catholics to slope off to the registrar after the religious ceremony why is it not okay for the priest to do that bit for them?
Abervicar - the Catholic Church does judge marriage cases where both parties are non-Catholic (including cases involving Anglicans). Withe caveat of not being a canonist, I think this does involve a claim to jurisdiction.
Nicholas - My own view is that the best option would be for Catholics to register a civil partnership so as to obtain the relevant legal benefits, but without getting involved with civil marriage. Various legal problems with that. Therefore I would accept the possibility of either inviting the registrar to the Church or the couple going to the Register Office. The reason I'm not in favour of it all being done "in house" by the priest is that we would then be co-operating more closely with the new definition of marriage.
Yet a decree of nullity is no more than a judgement of fact concerning the canonical situation of a relationship, rather than a exercise of jurisdiction over people.
The idea that the RC Church could claim the right to jurisdiction over people not bound by its law is an intriguing one, and one that ought to trouble people within and outside it.
Perhaps a canonist could come by and help out?
Many thanks Father.
At present there are all sorts of difficulties with CPs which would have to be sorted out. There springs to mind:
1. A CP is not voidable on the grounds of a communicable venereal disease unlike marriage.
2. Adultery is not an offence as in marriage.
3. Non-consummation is not a ground for nullity.
Also you should warn your parishioners to make sure that the person they are marrying is of the opposite sex as if it turns out that they are not then it is not grounds for voiding the marriage as at present.
My feeling about "in-house" is that:
a. the religious ceremony would make it very clear what marriage really is and the signing of the registry is mere technicality.
b. I suspect some more lukewarm Catholics would interpret such a move not to be a registrar as a signal not to bother with the religious ceremony. A ridiculous idea but such are prevalent!
c. We need to keep in there and bashing the Government.
Thanks Father. I have a problem in that I'm neither a canonist nor a dogmatist - I'm a moralist.
Fr John Boyle was a great help in explaining how the state can't encroach on the sacramentality irrespective of what it promulgates or vetos or redefines.
But: Heretofore the co-operation was remote, material and permissible because the offence involved bearing false witness against an immutable reality - it was merely definition/redefinition/denial of an ontological reality or non-reality - or it was pretence or assumed dominant control in regard to a reality it could not alter - childish tilting at windmills with neither authority oor efficacy...
Previously we could 'co-operate' under the principle that 'the state can say or do what it wants - it cannot change the underlying reality no matter what it thinks it's doing" - no reality was altered - the people who were 'divorced' by the state - were not, the 'remarried' were not etc.
And baptised non-Catholics undergoing a civil ceremony were - by principles of non-intervention and non contrariety - still able to do what the Church does - swear a solemn, mutual, exclusive binding contract - and become validly married.
So yes previously the State's 'fiddling with marriage' didn't interfere with Tridentine precepts or the sacramental reality
- it lied, scandalised and dishonoured marriage, it endorsed extra-marital sexual licence, it endowed those who were not married with the title and secular/social benefits of being married...
...but it didn't thwart marriage!!
It didn't prevent those eligible to marry and willing to marry from going through a ceremony with the intention to marry and ultimately really marrying.
Therefore we could co-operate.
There was injustice and scandal - but it was verbal straw in the wind - and the double effect could apply.
But after this vote - and once the ECHR has introduced 'equality' within heterosexual and homosexual 'marriage' legislations and all principles like consummation, fidelity, commitment etc have been eliminated...
Like someone waving a fiver in front of the coin-operated drinks machine - the baptised non-Catholic couple willing and able to get married in the eyes of the Church - are being deliberately thwarted and prevented from making those promises they wish to make in a civil ceremony which denies those promises exist and proscribes them from being made.
The State is now intervening and acting in ways contrary to the Church.
Deliberately preventing a couple from making declarations which could have been previously [albeit arbitrarily] recognised by the state.
The state is saying 'we do not recognise - we do not permit - we will neither hear nor acknowledge nor publicly record - any oath to exclusive mutual fidelity..."
The couple are saying 'we want to make real marital promises' and the state has its fingers in its ears declaring "la-la-la, I'm not listening"
The State is now standing in Heaven's way - deliberately forbidding entrance to the Holy Spirit - like cutting out a sorcerer's tongue so he cannot say the final words of the spell.
Whereas previously the state position was 'well it's up to you what you mean by those promises'
The new state position is 'you are not allowed to make those promises - to the extent that if you make any attempt to act in ways contrary to our definition of your relationship - we will exert the full force of the law upon you'
People are now going to be prevented from marrying - their state marriage intrinsically thwarting the possibility.
That's the new difference- and that's why there is a new set of issues upon the discernment table.
Does the new 'civil marriage' with its 'redefinition of marriage' [i.e. its abolition] and its thwarting of marriage - wilful prevention of those eligible to marry from marrying...
Does it change from an unjust law with which one may co-operate
into an 'intrinsically unjust' law with which one is absolutely forbidden to co-operate?
And here enters the principle of solidaritism and the duty of care afforded to all the baptised - the real oecumenical spirit if you will.
Can a Catholic conspire with that which deliberately prevents/thwarts a baptised non-catholic from marrying?
We need a intense CDF scrutiny of the rubrics, principles and aims and corresponding consequences of this new legislation to determine whether or not in the eyes of the Church it is merely unjust or intrinsically unjust.
Because if it is intrinsically unjust - and nobody's given reassuring assertions as to why it is not and cannot be...?
Evangelium Vitae 73 & 74 & The CDF's 'considerations' tell us we are forbidden from co-operating with civil marriage...and thus in order to marry we become criminals.
Technically we might be at war...and I'd like someone to tell me with some authority that we're all ok and can go back to bed without the worry of disappearing in the night.
Father:
The CDF repeatedly reminds us the reason we oppose civil partnerships is not due simply to its same-sex union nature - it's because it scandalises marriage by its emulation and that it affords rights, duties, responsibilities and authorities which are exclusively within the auspices of a real spouse.
We are expressly forbidden from endorsing or engaging with anything which denies anyone else their full rights and dignity or conspiring with that which is contrary to natural justice.
e.g. we can't ordain a permanent deacon without his wife's express permission - his body is hers!
...and we can't go round endorsing that which removes an individual's liberties or invokes personal sacrifices and demands upon the person that is ONLY expected from the absolute commitment to reciprocity within marriage...
Think of it from a perspective of sexuality - a young man's/woman's body is NOT their sexual property - it belongs to their future spouse - one who has earned it by promise and sacrifice.
Now imagine a universalised civil partnership scenario as the dispensing of 'sexual promiscuity' licences.
Do you see the point?
This is what our hierarchy and Catholic Voices never understaood about what the CDF was saying about
Civil Partnerships.
Civil partnerships are not simply wrong because they are same-sex civil partnerships - they are wrong because they are civil partnerships which have no right to interfere with rights/liberties/responsibilities which belong to the individual or a partner who has earned them.
Neil Addison was yesterday referring to civil marriage as an afforded list of rights/benefits/privileges.
He's wrong - Trent says so.
But I worry you might be making the same mistake re CPs father,
OTSOTA: I take it you are looking to what might happen in the future. At present my understanding is that under this bill there will still be marital fidelity in a heterosexual marriage but not in a homosexual one.
The big danger is that whilst quadruple locks etc might work as devised in the present bill it seems to me that in 2015 there is a strong probability that we will get a Labour government or a LIB/LAB coalition. What was instructive in the debate was the statement by Chris Bryant that assurances given in the past were no longer to be adhered to as "we have all moved on". Thus as in Denmark, regardless of what the ECHR does or does not do, there is nothing to stop Parliament legislating that all churches should perform these SSMs because "we have all moved on".
A further point: there seems to be a doctrine that a State official cannot plead conscientious objection as has been demonstrated in the case of the Registrar who did not want to be concerned with CPs. Is a Catholic Priest acting as a Registrar in the same position? It may be that Catholic Priests may have no choice but to stop acting as Registrars.
Yes Nicolas - as European law states there is no right to same-sex marriage if they exist they must be equal...once the ECHR gets its claws into the law the heterosexuall version of marriage will be forced to emulate the SSM abolition of anything that makes a real marriage....[already there are four men preparing to appeal to the european court as they are being sued for divorce on 'unequal' grounds of adultery]
- "My own view is that the best option would be for Catholics to register a civil partnership"
I assume you know, Father, that such registration is expressly forbidden by State law where a man and a woman are concerned. It seems that civil partnership is available only to same sex couples.
Nicholas, priests and other clerics are not acting as Registrars; they are doing what the Registrar would do at a civil marriage. They are protected by the SSM Bill. There is no need for them to "stop acting as Registrars" because they are not doing so!
Andrew T: I am no expert in this and I need to study the bill further. However as far as I can tell Catholic Priests acting as Registrars are "authorised persons". I think they could be equally caught as I suggest. It is worth reading the explanatory notes to the bill. The Act will give enormous powers to civil servants to fiddle around further without Parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament seems to have little control over our incompetent and corrupt civil service these days viz: Cameron saying that employees should be allowed to wear a cross whilst the lawyers in the Foreign Office argued exactly the contrary in Strasbourg.
See this explanatory note as an example:
78. New section 43D gives the Registrar General a power (with the approval of the
Secretary of State) to make further procedural regulations regarding the procedures to
be followed for applications to register buildings, applications for the registration of
buildings to solemnize both same sex and opposite sex marriages, the procedures for
appointment of authorised persons and the cancellation of registrations including
procedures to be followed by superintendent registrars and for payment of fees. The
use of this power is not subject to any parliamentary procedure.
Thank you, Nicholas, that quotation is most helpful. Of course we will be assured that there are "locks" in the legislation to prevent priests from having to conduct same-sex "marriages", but Edward Leigh's exchange in the House was a good answer to that.
And yes, the current arrangement in many (though not all) Catholic Churches is that the building is registered for marriage and the priest is an Authorised Person. Many priests (including myself) also arrange for a lay person to be an AP. In Churches that are not registered, a local Registrar will attend.
Abervicar,
This may come as some surprise, but the Church has jurisdiction over all the baptised. Since the validity of Anglican baptism is recognised, Anglicans are subject to the provisions of canon law. So there is no problem of jurisdiction in relation to their marriages. I am not sufficiently informed to comment on cases involving the non-baptised.
If you doubt what I say about jurisdiction, I refer you to the discussion of the topic in Prof. Thomas Pink's article on religious liberty published in 2011 on Rorate Caeli, which treats the matter in some detail.
Being on the other side of the Atlantic I may not be aware of some of the finer points.
A priest who witnesses the marriage of a couple and then enters the details into the civil Register is in no way co-operating in an evil. All that is happening is that he is enabling the couple to avail of the very convenient recognition of their union by the State and any benefits that accrue from such recognition.
Let the Church do what it does - and if the State grants recognition, surely that is only for the good. The fact that the Church will not do SSM's might even result in more people coming to the Church for the "real thing".
Nicolas: I am familiar - professionally - with the law in this area.
The Bill lays down that nobody may be required to conduct or attend at a SSM. Then it says that that does not apply to registrars or superintendent registrars. But priests or other authorised persons are not registrars.
There may be a lot of things wrong with the Bill, but this is not one of them.
@Christopher – I am far too long in the tooth for universalist claims by any religious body to ‘come as some surprise’.
My comments arise particularly from the practices around marriage law, and from the fact that Latin Canon Law is in practice considered binding only on those who are baptised or received as Roman Catholics. This means that, for example, a Catholic who marries according to civil law in a Register Office is held to have contracted an invalid union (not merely illicit) because of defect of form (Fr Finigan elucidates this very clearly) but a baptised non-Catholic who marries according to whatever jurisdiction he or she is subject to, does contract a valid union. (If this were not the case, a good number of practising Canon Lawyers would be out of a job, and there would be more clergy in the Ordinariate – but that is another issue!).
I read the article to which you refer, and it seems to me that it is part of an ongoing discussion concerning religious liberty, rather than a definitive pronouncement (though clearly you agree with the author). I think that in most civil jurisdictions the claims made in that article would – as I suggested in my earlier post – give rise to considerable unease, in the same way that the coercive way in which Sharia Law is frequently practised led to the outcry against Archbishop Rowan’s quite mild suggestion that British Muslims might in some areas be allowed to regulate their lives according to civilly recognised aspects of Sharia Law.
The current controversy concerning the definition of marriage highlights the modus vivendi reached over many years between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Church Law (Latin, Anglican or otherwise) is allowed to regulate – and, by consent or conscience, to be binding – in areas entirely concerning religious belief or practice. Where there is a conflict of interest or jurisdiction between ecclesiastical and civil law, these matters need to be worked out carefully, intelligently and with respect on all sides. Hence the great value of Fr Finigan’s measured posts.
If, however, it becomes necessary to regress to claims regarding coercive authority over individuals who are not, and never have been, part of the religious body claiming that authority, we go even beyond the sterile field of claim and counter-claim into the sort of rivalry-in-law that underlay the anti-Catholic suspicion only recently overcome in (most of) the UK. I assume no one here would wish to return to those days without at least trying to find a way forward based on mutual tolerance if not mutual understanding?
In case anyone would be helped by a real-life example, I have one in myself. I am a convert. When I married my Catholic husband in 1991, I was unbaptized, but attending RCIA classes. We were validly but not sacramentally married in the Catholic Church. I was baptized, confirmed and received first Holy Communion in 1992, whereupon the priest informed me that I also automatically received the Sacrament of Matrimony at that time, through my baptism.
Thirteen years later, there was trouble in our marriage. I obtained a civil divorce after being advised to do so by two Catholic therapists and a priest whom we saw for counseling, per a valid reason for civil divorce stated in the catechism. To this day, we are sacramentally married in the eyes of the Church, but not validly married in the eyes of the state because we have a civil divorce. He calls me his "ex-wife." I call him my "husband." He recognizes what the state says about our marriage. I recognize what the Church says about it. I am celibate now, living apart from him, whom I still consider to be my spouse.
Andrew T: Now that I have started to study the bill in detail I see that you are right in saying that "appointed persons" are protected from having anything to do with SSM ceremonies.
I am still fearful that this might be changed in the future or even in this bill.
Abervicar,
I fear that you may have read more into my comment than I said, but I am grateful for your courteous and considered reply.
Do I agree with Pink? As you say, his article is very much part of an ongoing debate, and so we must respond with scholarly caution while we wait for effective critiques of his argument to emerge. If they do not emerge in the course of the ongoing debate, intellectually serious people will have to accept his conclusions even though they are without doubt repugnant to our modern liberal sensitivities, and deeply inconvenient in terms of our common assumptions regarding the Church's self-understanding. But the only thing that really matters is whether his analysis of the current state of Catholic doctrine is correct - he is not prescriptive about the practical implications and future developments that might follow if his thesis is correct. Nor am I.
So I share every one of your concerns regarding diplomatic niceties, but consider them to be secondary issues that we should not seek to resolve before we are clear about the doctrinal position of the Catholic Church. 'Regress' to the past is not at issue: what is at issue is the current doctrine of the Church, and the extent to which it is or is not reformable.
On the specific point of the extent of the jurisdiction of the Church (which was the only aspect of his article to which I referred: issues of coercive authority are indeed Pink's main interest, but they go beyond the scope of our present discussion) I find myself constrained to general agreement with him, or more precisely with his sources, since they seem to leave quite limited space for diversity of opinion within the range of thought that can be considered Catholic. Consider this for example:
'If anyone says that those baptized are exempt from all the precepts of holy church, whether they are in writing or handed down, so that they are not bound to observe them, unless of their own free will they wish to submit themselves to them: let him be anathema.' (Council of Trent, Session VII, Decree on Baptism, canon 8).
The phrase 'unless of their own free will they wish to submit themselves to them' would seem to include more specific senses such as 'unless of their own free will they wish to convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism' - or is that a misinterpretation?
I would be interested to hear your view on this. I would also be interested to hear the opinion of a canonist regarding the extent to which, in actual practice, baptized Christians who adhere to various forms of Protestantism (and have done so since baptism) are treated differently from Catholics in canonical terms, and the theory that underlies this distinction.
Nicolas: Not in this Bill - the quadruple locks are too prominent a part of the plan. But tomorrow or next year who knows?
Post a Comment