Not Condemning or Condoning but Consoling

 

Introduction

Everyone’s problem

The missalette’s little commentary for each Sunday seldom turns me on. This Sunday, however, I did find something that lit a little light. It reads, “As we listen to today’s scriptures, let us be mindful of family, friends and members of our communities who have struggled with the difficult issues of irreconcilable marriages.” In good plain English it says that today’s scriptures are painful and embarrassing especially for Catholics, for there isn’t a single family among us who hasn’t had to deal with divorce. Either we ourselves are divorced or we have sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, relatives and friends who are divorced.

 

Today’s scriptures are always a bit embarrassing for my sister. She was married to her husband for sixty long years. They had three boys. She and her husband loved each other, were unselfish, placed their kids before themselves, worked hard, and eventually managed to move to the other side of the tracks.  Despite such a good hotbed for seedlings, two of their three sons are divorced and remarried. I always explain this failure of my two nephews  by saying they both had such a wonderful mother and father that they really weren’t ready for the real world, which is full of  right and wrong partners, and therefore of right and wrong choices. I always say they just weren’t savvy enough when it came to choosing the right partners. I know, of course, that my explanation of their failed marriage is prejudiced.

 

“The marriage business”

That great Bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, Kenneth Untener, now deceased, said, “I wish the churches would get out of the marriage business.” What in the world did he mean by that? In the old days if a Catholic married an un-baptized person without getting a dispensation from the church or if a Catholic married with the intention of excluding children, that marriage was considered invalid. It didn't count before the church, and since God had to go along with the church, it didn’t count before God.  In the old days if  a  Catholic married before a justice of the peace and not before a priest, the marriage was considered invalid. It didn't count before the church, and since God had to go along with the church, it didn’t count before God.

 

In the old days every attempt at a civil divorce and subsequent remarriage was declared invalid for Roman Catholics, and against such an attempt the church leveled the penalty of excommunication which excluded you from the table of the Lord. That penalty was reserved “speciali modo" (in a special way) to the Holy See. Only Rome, not the local bishop, could lift the excommunication.

 

More of the “Marriage business”

Civil divorce and remarriage was declared not only invalid but also sinful. In those days we used to say of such people, “They are living in sin.” Through many years of priestly ministry I well recall how that severe judgment haunted many Catholics twenty-four hours a day through the whole length of a second marriage right up to the very moment of death. That moment already burdened with the pain of one’s illness and the grief of saying good-bye was further complicated and burdened with the urgent need to make one’s peace with God by means of sacramental confession and absolution.  All that, I believe, is what Bishop Untener meant when he said, “I wish the churches would get out of the marriage business.” By no means did he mean that the church should get out of the serious and joyful business of uniting her children in holy matrimony with a bond lasting until death.

 

Incidentally in 1993, the twenty-fifth anniversary of Pope Paul’s encyclical letter Humanae Vitae reaffirming the church's stand against artificial birth control, Bishop Untener urged the church to use the occasion to open a new and brave discussion--a holy conversation about birth control. That urging was, indeed, courageous of him, because for twenty-five long years Humanae Vitae was considered a litmus test of Catholic loyalty.  Untener’s invitation to reopen the discussion for the sake of millions of good Catholics quietly dismayed Rome. The church has a refined way of dealing with such prophets: if it doesn’t demote them, it surely does not promote them. The Bishop of Saginaw died without ever becoming an archbishop or cardinal.

Born out of wedlock

Bishop Untener said, “When we try to sort out who can get married and who can't get married, which marriages can be annulled and which marriages cannot be annulled, we can become quite inappropriate. “Inappropriate” was a kind of weasel word which, I believe, Untener purposely chose. Perhaps he really wanted to say “we can become quite ridiculous and even offensive.” The church’s process of annulment declares that a marriage which took place on such and such a date never took place at all. That sounds ridiculous to some people.  Others believe it’s also offensive to tell some woman married for twenty years that she was never really married at all.  All her children would then be considered as born out of wedlock.

 

Because of the church’s busyness with marriage I was considered as born out of wedlock. My parents migrated to this country from Italy at the turn of the last century. They married in 1922. A clipping from the Manitowoc newspaper for Dec. 18, 1972 (34 years ago) entitled "50 Years ago Today" reads: "Pasquale Luzi, a native Italian and naturalized American citizen, was wed to Euphemia Lucchesi, also a native Italian, at the Manitowoc County Courthouse." My parents (uneducated Italian peasants, fleeing many odds in the land of their birth, imbued with the anticlericalism typical of Italian peasantry, and having no Italian-speaking priest in Manitowoc) married not in front of a priest but of a judge! That made their marriage invalid before the church, and since God had to go along with the church, it made their marriage invalid also before God.

 

Years later when I was alone in the office of my boyhood parish, I seized the opportunity to look up my baptismal record. There, lo and behold, I came upon a surprising annotation. It read (in Latin of course) "Illegitimus"! Not only was their marriage illegitimate I, too, was illegitimate! The Italian word for it is "bastardo."  The church’s busyness with marriage did not end there. Before I could be advanced to the priesthood that invalid marriage had to be fixed in the eyes of the church so that it would be fixed in the eyes of God, who perhaps didn’t know that it was broken in the first place. All that, I believe, is what Bishop Untener meant when he said, “I wish the churches would get out of the marriage business.” By no means did he mean that the church should get out of the serious and joyful business of uniting her children in holy matrimony with a bond lasting until death.

 

The refusal to be excluded

But it often does not last until death. On TV this past week a statistic declared that fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. All of us know divorced persons.  Some of them are our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, and yes, some of them are ourselves. In times past many divorced Catholics painfully felt outcast, marginalized and excluded from the table of the Lord. Matters have changed a lot since those days. The path to annulments is wide open now. Some divorced Catholics choose not to take the path. Instead they have quietly solved the problem for themselves.  Refusing to be excluded from the table of the Lord they simply continue to participate in Catholic life. They are of the same mind as Hans Küng, that famous Swiss German theologian and prophet. In a little volume entitled Why I am Still a Christian he writes, “I can not believe that he, who particularly invited failures to his table, would forbid all remarried divorced people ever to approach that table” (Mt 9: 9-13).

 

Divorce: a failure

Küng calls divorces failures. That’s so starkly honest. It is a lot more honest than a church annulment which declares a marriage which took place on such and such a date never took place at all. Annulments seem to by-pass the whole idea of failure. If there was no marriage to begin with, then there is no failure, and if no  failure, then no great need for tears. Then you’re free to cheerfully move on to the next marriage. I call annulments divorce without tears. Admitting that divorce is a failure -- that I call divorce with tears.” That’s more honest.  

 

The gospel is quite clear that divorce is a failure. The Pharisees approach Jesus and ask, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” Jesus  replies, “God made the male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Jesus says marriage is a life-long commitment, and when a marriage ends in divorce that’s a failure. Bishop Untener, too, insists that marriage is a life-long commitment.  “Look,” he said, “ I preach life-long commitment. No mistake  about that. I preach life-long  commitment. But,” he asks, “what if, for some reason, it fails?”

 

Not a law but an ideal

Over the years I’ve honed an answer to that vexing question. It goes like this.  One man to one woman until death do they part is not a law written on stone; it’s an ideal written on the heart. But an ideal, we hasten to remind ourselves, is not a shabby matter. It is not  something wish-washy. It’s not something you’re free to take or leave. An ideal is a shining star that stands before you to lead you on. An ideal inspires you to soar to the heights you promised on your wedding day when you vowed to forsake all others and to love your partner in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, until death do you part.  But an ideal also convicts you when you have failed. That conviction of failure is not just a painful negative, it’s also a positive. It leads to growth and makes you wiser for the rest of the journey before you.

 

One man to one woman until death do you part is not a law written on stone commanding you to stay married. It’s an ideal written on your heart commanding you to stay in love. And when you or your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, relatives and friends fail that ideal, then you take possession of your failure: you repent, confess your failure especially to yourself, and then you get on with the rest of the journey before you.  

 

Conclusion

Not condemning or condoning but consoling,

Bishop Untener said, “I like the distinction Jesus carefully used upon the woman caught in adultery. He said, `I don't condemn you.' But some people think the opposite of `condemn' is `condone.'”  Untener said he was not here to condemn or condone divorced people. He was here simply to help them. That’s what we’re doing here this morning. As we read today’s Scriptures about divorce we’re not here to condemn nor condone anything.  We are here simply to help the community of the divorced. It’s a big community. It includes all of us who are divorced. And it includes all our divorced brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, friends and relatives. We are here to encourage one another to pick up the pieces, and with a newly acquired wisdom get on with the rest of our life. We are here to console one another with the spirit of Jesus who went out of his way to invite failures to the table of the Lord (Mt 9: 9-13).