Vote No for Proposition Kasper

With the current buzz in the Church regarding the topic of the Synod, I wanted to take an opportunity to give a few thoughts on marriage and divorce. I haven’t been the most astute at following all the news presented in the press recently, mostly because it is a poor source for definitive statements regarding the matter. There are however many good sources that can help in understanding what has been going on:

• Jimmy Aiken put out a concise enumeration of the ideas presented that I found very informative. They can be read here.     
• Raymond Aroyo also gave a candid interview with Cardinal Burke -the voice for truth within the synod. 
• I would also like to encourage anyone to stand by for my Parish Priests recent sermon that was given today that may be posted on Audio Sancto or his website at a later date. In it he properly defines what a decree of nullity is, the means by which one is decreed null and interesting statistical truths regarding the abuse of the annulment process by many within the church.
• Remaining in the Truth of Christ is a book that has recently been published by Ignatius Press that defends the traditional view of marriage by a number of currently presiding Cardinals. I plan on purchasing this book and giving it a read to augment my knowledge on the topic.

I think it is safe to say that the complexity of situations in marriages are matched by the complexity of cannon law, to which is designed to handle said situations. This design has been developed over centuries of defending the truth of marriage and has been very carefully articulated; it may not be perfect in that the process can be subverted, but it has been effective in handling the situation. I have to admit that this topic is one in which I am least polished in. However, the topic has been broached by friends and family recently not to mention that from the synod. From these conversations, I have been reminded how complex these situations can be. One does not have to be a canon lawyer to understand what is basically at stake here and the antagonist behind the issues at hand.

I see the heart of the matter to be whether marriage is dissoluble. We have heard from our Lord that “it was not so from the beginning.” This is an indication that it is the jurisdiction of Natural Law -that from the beginning it was not so. We also know from our Lords words, “that marriage is between a man and a woman, and what God hat joined together, let no man put asunder.” These are orthodox Truths of Christ that are being tampered with and discussed by the Synod.

The only one audacious enough to outwardly contradict the teachings directly, are Cardinal Kasper and indirectly, by Pope Francis. They are subtle, advocating for “pastoral changes”, changes in processes by which a decree of nullity is said. I am being specific in the terms decree of nullity, because it is important to distinguish nullity from decree of nullity. The Church cannot nullify a marriage; however, they can decree that one was null or non-existent. The improvement to the processes in place are encouraged to be simplified. As I had mentioned before, marriage situations can be very complex in nature and to simplify those methods may not do justice to what is deserved by the situation. My Priest touched on the gravity of this matter by emphatically stating that souls are at stake when determining whether a marriage was null. It is in fact a greater act of mercy for the spouses in question to have their case thoroughly examined by experts, rather than having an inexperienced parish priest decide (which is happening regularly at the parish level). My priest gave a good example of this by likening it to a random citizen putting on Judges Robes and writing a decree in opposition to the law and stating it just, when in actuality, that decree is worthless and those citizens simply do not have the authority which they are attempting to express.

I am not yet sure what the pastoral changes will be or even if they will come to pass. However, I must point out that whatever changes do come, it would be a scandal from the clear teaching of the Church -in that the practices must not be separated from the doctrines. This concept is bound to all dogmas of our faith especially recent ones in question, namely the indissolubility of marriage and acceptance of homosexual unions. No matter how you sugar coat it, the practical application of truth must be in conformity with the truth it supports. A digression from this is without question contradictory and scandalous to the faithful. If visibly, the Church says you must simply seek confession then perform a penance as a means to reconciling your condition, you are still left with the problem of the first marriage. What about the spouse and or children that have been left abandoned? This new practice of reconciliation leaves unreconciled the existence of your real spouse and you continue to remain in an adulterous union –not a marriage.

Recently, there have been two cases where I had a conversation with a cohort which it was revealed that my interlocutor had a divorce. In the first discussion, the reason for divorce was that they were young, incompatible and had no children as justification for said divorce. The second didn’t give as much detail, however indicated incompatibility as well. I felt it was inappropriate for me to protest the truth, simply because of the relationship between us, but an interesting thought occurred to me. In future conversation with them, would it be erroneous for me to refer to their partners as wife or spouse? Should we not instead name them as partner or something more precise? Technically they would not be married and it may be an inconspicuous way of indicating the nullity of their relationship. This may do harm, but I am not one to roll over and give in to heresy in order to maintain civility. Either way, it would be a passive way of admonishing the sinner to those whom you are not in a relationship that merits more overt exhortations.

One thing is certain, the Pope has not been clear as to his stance regarding these issues –some are calling this scandalous, others call it an air of mercy. However, he has connoted an approval of Cardinal Kasper’s view as a merciful form. He specifically had mentioned possibly taking a stance similar to that of the Orthodox faith. That being a stance which views the invalid marriage as a “Penitential Marriage”. I am not sure what this exactly means, but it isn’t orthodox that’s for sure.

Cardinal Kasper has said in an interview to America Magazine, “We cannot simply take one phrase from the gospel of Jesus and from that deduce everything. Discipline can change, so I think we have here a theological fundamentalism, which is not Catholic.” It seems here that Kasper is trying to impregnate Jesus’ clear teaching on divorce and add or “change a discipline” to fit his modern idea, rather than a fundamental or orthodox teaching. This smells too much like a protestant mentality, one in which you can pick and choose what you want. This may be another case of Cafeteria Catholicism. Cardinal Burke says it well, “When you attempt to drive a wedge between discipline and doctrinal truth, it is simply false in the Catholic Church. Discipline is at the service of the teaching of some sacred reality.”

This is I feel is a great problem today especially amidst so much pruning of truth by other Christian denominations. How can we claim stalwart perennial truths, if our actions demonstrate the contrary? Non-Catholics do not understand our terminology, but what they do see are people getting decrees of nullity and to them this is Catholic divorce. The approval of copious amounts of petitions for decrees are scandalizing to those whom we are boasting orthodoxy in our faith –this is a poor witness.

The enemy has dubbed their innovations as a merciful way of dealing with the problem of marriage and divorce. Kasper says, “Divorced and remarried people should find a good priest who accompanies them for some time and if this second civil marriage is solid, then the path of new orientation can end with a confession and absolution.” At face value this does seem merciful to the couple; however, truth is has been undermined in this scenario and the marriage is completely left out of the conversation. No, I do not mean the new union, I mean the original marriage. What about the spouse or children who have been left, what about the truth of Jesus, what about chastity? A confession and absolution are only one part of the process; restitution must be made to the true marriage as well. When this is done, the scales are made right; however, the one-sided solutions do not zero in Kasper’s proposals. Unfortunately, in this new scenario, the parties remain outside a state of grace, continue to be unworthily able to receive communion and could potentially end up in Hell.

       “Pope Pious the XII in a talk to the tribunal of the Roman Rhoda, set forth the beauty and appreciation of the decrees of nullity process in a way that it gets to the truth of about the claim that a marriage is null so that the parties can really be at piece that the declaration of nullity serves their good and is not just a Catholic divorce. (Cardinal Burke).” This again, is why the annulment process is as complex and thorough as it is – for the good of the souls. If so be it a decree cannot be granted, it is for their own good. They must both live in chastity with their current partner and do their best to live according to the teaching of the Church. This is not easy, but is it worth disobeying the teaching of Christ and suffering for eternity? The nullity process is not a Divine Law; however, you cannot expect the Church not to have a process by which to determine objectively with a degree of moral certitude that a marriage is null –it would be asinine to assert otherwise. If you revert to a quick once over method, you do no favors, are acting irresponsible, and are not shepherding souls.  

The Catholic Social Teaching on Work

The Catholic Social Teaching on Work

Can I Work Today

 About two years ago at my place of employment, upper management decided to start more aggressively sending people home when the workload was not heavy. One of the major reasons for this decision, was to better prepare for changes in healthcare, i.e., reduced reimbursement, increased costs to patients, and increased taxes on medical devices among other unknown variables with the inauguration of the Affordable Care Act.  Therefore, the reduction in payroll costs of sending home staff during lighter workloads (we call it flexing) enabled the hospital system for which I am employed, to pad their budget for the unexpected changes. Unfortunately, the specific Hospital in which I work, decided to be extra responsible in this practice and mercilessly exercised this new policy. Needless to say, all staff who were affected by this, retaliated in various forms from complaints to giving their notice -in my department specifically, we lost at least three to these changes. Therefore, drawing this out to its logical conclusion, we are understaffed, overworked and flexed off; which has made for a very strenuous time in my life, in which I still reside. Naturally, a sense of injustice permeated and dominates the thoughts of myself and my cohorts; this is both tiresome and nurtures attitudes and conversation that are not efficacious to one’s piece or sanctity. For me, I felt like nothing more than a commodity that could be laid aside for ad hoc purposes and a tool to be used when the need arises and then put back in its storage place for later use. To put it bluntly, I felt like a number, whose value and dignity as a human person had been diminished considerably. Regrettably, this is a common practice today among businesses; people are laid off constantly among other devaluations. Granted, businesses must be responsible to ensure their survival, but at what cost? Is this practice unjust and consequently sinful? What makes this even more grievous, is that my household is single income; it wasn’t always so, but when my wife and I changed the way that we viewed the family; I knew that I had to change the way we live. I will talk further about the dynamics of the family in another blog post, but for now, I will focus on the understanding of work, as a good and how we can harness that good to cultivate virtue.

A Blessing or a Curse

            There are two ways in which we can look at work: work as a good or as a commodity (in a materialistic impersonal sense), which is worth very little in light of eternity. The origin of this bifurcation in the concepts of work can be traced to creation, where in the verse, we see two concepts arising: God created all things and they were good, then following the curse, “You will earn your bread by the sweat of your brow (God).” Before the fall and curse, work existed within the garden; a perfect type of work that was edifying and gave glory to God (Smith). This was the ideal type of work that we are to strive for and seek as a model for today. This idea is commonly conferred by our magistrates in the form of sanctification of our daily duties, i.e., “offering them up” as a meritorious spiritual benefit. This concept also entails a submission to Christ as our employer, a realization that is encouraged perpetually throughout the duration of the day.

            The Church has however developed a concept work that is a bit more obscure, not apparent and requiring deeper insight.  It puts work within a hierarchy with the human person as its subject, not its object. This reevaluation entails a gift, God’s gift of creation to men. This creation, the earth and cities in which we live, requires cultivation; this is not a novel concept, but a frequent reminder is in order, that work is not some punishment in which we are to toil with and pass away under the fatigue of this burdensome life. No, work is a gift, in which men are enriched, it is a crucible by which virtue is mastered, modeled by our Lord, St. Joseph, St. Benedict, and many other industrious Saints whose lives must be emulated and meditated upon.  Work is in a sense a servant for men and understood in this light, its ominous challenge losses its daunting countenance and dons a benevolence, which incites an eagerness to take up a lighter, more efficacious yoke.

            The other path I spoke of in that bifurcation is the toilsome emphasis of work. This type, although it very well may be toilsome, is distinct from the former view, in that its final cause is not realized. It does not have God’s glory and man’s benefit in view, it is simply a means to an end –whether that end be money or a temporary satisfaction, the motive in question is not lasting. Without the realization of whom your work is benefiting, “it is vain for you to rise before light, rise ye after you have sitten (sic), you that eat the bread of toil (David, Psalm 127).”

            To understand work as a commodity, i.e. you see yourself as an object to be sold to an employer for a wage, falls under the idea of materialism. This idea at first glance might appear an accurate description of the employee/employer relationship; however, fundamentally, a neglect of the dignity of the person is left out of this description. Understanding the worth of Human Labor and its dignity is the beginning of sanctification of that work. If we look at it merely in terms of numerical value, it becomes easier to abuse the objects in question. This materialistic view has also affected our proper identity. When you last introduced yourself to another person did you first identify your profession? In some contexts, this is appropriate, but generally, your initial identification should pertain to something more substantial –perhaps faith or family.

The Spiritual and Moral Benefit of Work

            As we have mentioned, work exists to serve man. When we create things, we improve upon the materials at hand and in turn by working well, we too are improved. The work needs to serve us by improving our character, which in turns gives glory to God. If we step into the office or factory without the proper disposition, we may be spinning our wheels, losing gifts that simply could be attained by a Morning Offering at the commencement of the day.

            So how do we reconcile our labor? As we have mentioned, the initial task is first realizing your worth. You must be benefited in the contract as well as the employer and this is termed commutative justice. For both parties to benefit there must not be excesses on either side; the employee should not ask for too much, must fulfill his obligations, and must not abuse the employer in other obscure ways.  On the other hand the employer must provide enough compensation for the labor given; they must not require unattainable expectations and provide proper working conditions that do not erode the laborer.

            Although all of these criteria are important, I wanted expand a bit on the importance of just compensation. Often time’s people unjustly complain as to the insufficiency of their paychecks; whose argument may or not be grounded on anything substantial, but for those who are under paid, this is a grave matter. The head of the household should alone be sufficiently compensated to provide for his family. I emphasized alone, because for the important fact that the woman of the house should not be obliged to find gainful employment outside of the home in order to sustain the family. I simply say this as both a reminder and encouragement to women that the dignity and worth of staying home and rearing their children is far more worthy and rewarding than fulfilling a desire to prove yourself out in the workplace. We all know that women are very capable of working outside the home, but in reality, there is nothing more satisfying to children as well as the mother, than to be home fulfilling the role they are physically designed to do. Men are physically strong by nature and as such, we are designed for labor; women are nourishing and lovable by nature, thus designed for rearing children. Again, I will qualify this by saying that women are capable of providing income for the family by whatever means they desire, but is it the best choice to work outside the home –especially when children are involved?

            From my own experience, when my family started to grow, my wife and I both worked. We were duel income and I will admit that hers was slightly higher than mine. However, when we started having more children, I could see the anxiety and tension from both the kids and us, from sending the kids off to day-care. The kids cried when we left them, they brought home questionable habits and we were concerned with the quality of their learning environment. We couldn’t afford Catholic School even with duel income, so we had to settle for other options. After a number of changes both in my work and my wife’s, we ultimately decided it best for her to stay home. We both vacillated on the decision, but once we acquiesced, it has proven to be the best decisions we have ever made for our family. Our kids are on a good classical Catholic home-school curriculum and seem to be thriving. It was a huge adjustment financially, but we made a lot of sacrifices that now -don’t even seem as substantial as we thought.

I hope you have a clearer understanding now of the worth envisaged by just compensation. This is important because we have a right to support our family; it is our duty, just as it is the duty of a woman to nurture their children –both in the womb and without.

The Three Fundamentals

There are three fundamental realities at stake today, namely family, work and education.  As I have mentioned earlier, the right to a family is inherent in our nature; as well as the right to support the family.  Work is the means by which we may sustain our families and if our society continues to view work in a materialistic way without recognizing the value of the individual and the family he supports, the whole of society ends up suffering. 

The home is the first school of work. Within the household everyone must contribute, otherwise the household will quickly decline. This is difficult with younger children, because their attention spans are very short. However, the older they become the easier it gets and the more they will learn their role. This also applies to the spouse; if one of the parties are not contributing at a level to which is suitable, not only do the duties get neglected, so too your relationship with your spouse will weaken. On the other hand contributing more to your family is a great sign of love, which I promise will never go unnoticed. We all have room to grow in our work ethic and it is purely an issue of humility. The more we sacrifice for one another the saintlier we become. This is a great lesson for the children, for when the parents are working in harmony, they will mimic this example and understand the concepts in their own lives. Again, the family is the primary place for educating your children of the sanctity of work, it is also a great source of grace for the spouses to sanctify themselves. We all want our children to grow up and become autonomous citizens that can produce; training them to work within the household is one of the best means in which we can prepare them for that. I would recommend reading the Rule of St. Benedict on this topic. Benedictines are wonderful models of prayer and work. I can think of no better guide book for teaching someone how to sanctify their work.

There are serious problems in our society regarding all three fundamentals I have mentioned. The quality of our educational systems is poor, legislations that demean the family are rampant, and our culture is driven by material and capital gain, the effects of which is manifest in devaluation of the worker. Families are where saints are born, education is a means by which we know of God and His creation and work is God’s gift for us that we may sustain, sanctify ourselves and give glory to God. There is a direct relationship between all three, since they are all so interrelated. “If you ignore the profundity of these fundamental realities, it is taking the short view rather than the long in regard to the common good and therefore happiness” (Smith). Each one of these subjects merit lengthy studies and many volumes of data to adequately grasp each one. My goal however, is to briefly lay out how work is interrelated within our sphere of living. With all this said, when you wake up in the morning and start your day, remind yourself that your work is a gift, it is here to make you better spiritually; it is the means by which we are perfected, a tool provided to us to serve God and give him glory. You are the subject of work not its object; are you improved by the work you do or is it destroying you?