LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

From Agnes Haggerty re the annulment crisis (March '99)

It would seem that marriage annulments in the Catholic Church are being granted as freely as divorce, but most seekers of annulments are already legally divorced or separated. In fact, before an annulment can be finally granted to a couple, they must get a legal divorce.

Jesus Christ upheld the indissolubility of marriage but he did make exceptions. In Matthew 19:3-11 he said: "I tell you that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness commits adultery if he marries some other woman." If Jesus made exceptions, why couldn't the Church?

When his disciples remonstrated that "if this is how it is between a man and his wife it is better not to marry" (Mt. 19:8-9), Jesus replied: "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those to whom God has given it. For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so"(Mt. 19: 11-12).

A true and loving marriage for life is an ideal we would all aspire to. Unfortunately, this ideal is far beyond the reach of many mismatched and unhappy couples.

I have not read Vasoli's book but I would question his attempt to block his wife's request for an annulment. If his marriage is already over, what will it gain him except revenge to pursue his course?

A Catholic annulment does not mean that the marriage was invalid-- only that the spiritual element necessary for a true Christian marriage was lacking in the intent of one of the partners (or both) upon entering the marriage. This is what I gleaned from talks I heard from the marriage tribunal when I belonged to a "separated and divorced Catholic group" in Toronto in the '70's and '80's. This was a group of sincere Catholics who had suffered through broken marriages and deserved a second chance.

If the granting of Catholic annulments is freeing many more Catholics from intolerable marriages it's time mercy and justice were being practised.

Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Father Leonard Kennedy responds:

The teaching of the Church, and therefore of Christ, concerning remarriage after divorce, is based on Scripture. In the Gospel of Mark (10:1-12) and Luke (16:18), as well as in St. Paul (1 Cor 7:10-11, 39; Rom 7:2-3), no exceptions are mentioned. The Catechism of the Catholic Church therefore says: "The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ" (#1665) (my emphasis).

The exception mentioned in Matthew 19:3-11, which you quote, cannot be interpreted as you interpret it. First, the word "unfaithfulness" is incorrect. It should read "unchastity" or its equivalent. Second, Jesus is here saying that invalid unions, such as common-law unions, are not marriages; so there is no true marriage bond between the man and woman.

Your quotation from Matthew 19:89 refers to celibacy, not to divorce. Therefore it is not relevant here.

Your letter distinguishes between a valid marriage and a "true and loving marriage." Annulments have to do only with the question of validity or invalidity. No doubt some valid marriages turn out not to be loving, but annulments have no concern with loving or unloving marriages, or ideal or non-ideal ones. If a marriage is valid, an annulment can never be granted.

Vasoli opposed the American Marriage Tribunal's decision to invalidate his marriage, which he knew to be valid. He did not want a sacrament to be treated sacrilegiously, in opposition to the will of Christ. And the Final Tribunal at the Vatican vindicated his position.

If the talks given by the Marriage Tribunal in Toronto said that an annulment is not a declaration that a marriage is invalid, the Marriage Tribunal is wrong. That is what an annulment is by definition (Canon 1629). The chief point of Vasoli's book is that no earthly power, even the Church, can grant an annulment to a valid marriage even if "the spiritual element necessary for a true Christian marriage was lacking in the intent of one of the partners (or both) upon entering the marriage." A valid marriage is not necessarily an ideal marriage. The Church cannot annul marriages which are valid but not ideal.

It is a great cross for an innocent party in a divorce. But there are crosses in this life. Many single people cannot find a suitable mate. Many spouses are lonely because of the death of husband or wife. Many people have spouses they find it hard to live with. Editor: See also annulments in News in Brief Canada, page 27.

From Joan Levy Earle re the role of women

Thank you for the text of the lecture by Paula Adamick in your Jan/Feb. issue. I agree with her thinking on this subject, especially her last sentence: "The tenets of feminism are inconsistent with Catholic womanhood. Therefore feminism must be resisted and rejected outright."

The role of a Catholic woman is to be the heart of the home and the Church. Bishops, priests, and deacons need patience, understanding, and love from their congregation, and women can lead this force of encouragement.

Women need to be bold in their caring but not in their struggle for control. As praying and serving people of God, they will give birth to peace and harmony wherever they are, in their families, their community, and the Church.

By following Mary's example of obedience to God's will, women can be co-creators of a spiritual revolution. The female "yes" can help prepare a path for the triumphant return of the Lord.

Cornwall, ON

From Brother Joseph B. Darcy re Gospel of Life

Further to your encouraging comment to Mrs. Amanda Bremner in your Jan/Feb. issue re: the advertising of catechetical materials, may I bring the following to the attention of your readers.

If we take seriously Pope John Paul II's statements during his recent Mexico-St. Louis visit, he seems to intend to make his encyclical, The Gospel of Life, the Magna Carta of the Church's apostolate as we enter the next millennium. Unfortunately, like most Church documents, this encyclical is very difficult for the average person to follow.

Some time ago, I decided to see whether it was possible to format this encyclical in such a way that it would be available and interesting to the ordinary reader. After working on it for the past three years, I have been pleasantly surprised to find how, by using various editing techniques--smaller sentences, one thought per line, graphics, etc.--while remaining faithful to the thought of the original, it is possible to make the encyclical much easier to follow and far more interesting to read.

I have been trying for some time to find a publisher for this project. While various firms have expressed their belief in its importance, none have thought it within their terms of reference. One firm did suggest that, if I prepared a series of meditations based on the encyclical, it would be interested. I did so, but again was disappointed.

Yet I am convinced that this approach to the study of the encyclical needs to be pursued and if any of your readers know of any publishing firm that might be interested, I would be happy to forward a copy of either or both projects.

With many thanks for your valuable space.

St. John's, Nfld.

From Fr. Philip Speranza re Orthodox practice

In "Letters to the Editor" (March 1999) Fr. Somerville replies to Edgar Backburn's concern over "homemade bread for communion" in the Archdiocese of Edmonton.

The reply misses the opportunity to point out to the reader that leavened bread (crumbs and all) is matter both valid and licit in the Byzantine rite and leads to no irreverence towards the Mystery. One realizes that it can be more than a little difficult to remember that there are rites other than the Latin, but a wee bit of effort might make those of us, who are Orthodox, marginally more comfortable with Pope John Paul II's calls for unity between East and West.

Calgary, AB

Correspondents re liturgical abuses

Here are some observations over three weeks from Ottawa: Resurrection of our Lord Church (English)

On two occasions when the parish priest celebrates Mass, Fr. Louis, a visiting African priest, sits in the first pew with the congregation wearing ordinary lay clothing, and then concelebrates with the celebrant from where he is. When I expressed my surprise to the parish priest, he told me when on holiday, they concelebrate from the pew.

Notre Dame Basilica (French)

Two months ago, Mass was celebrated at the chapel of the Grey Nuns next door because the Basilica is undergoing renovations. Bishop Marchand was the celebrant and the rector concelebrated. In spite of their presence, two women put away the ciborium in the tabernacle. Neither bothered to genuflect. One of these women always remains standing during the Consecration at Mass. This really upsets me.

Sacre Coeur (French)

On two occasions I accompanied my husband to Mass and was really upset. The priest recites all the prayers by heart. He even recites the Gospel by memory, inviting the congregation to sit down while he does so. I always thought we had to stand during the Gospel as a sign of respect when we hear the Word of God. He completely omits the prayer: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you...." The congregation says many of the prayers along with the priest, such as "Through Him, with Him, in Him...."

At Communion time, the priest descends from the sanctuary with the bowl of consecrated Hosts in one hand and the chalice in the other, and each of us is supposed to pick up a Host, dip It in the chalice while he says "Body and Blood of Christ." The same thing is done on the other side by the extraordinary minister. During the thanksgiving, some music is played from a tape, which reminds me of the track music played during a documentary on the rain forests.

Response by Fr. Stephen Somerville: One is often tempted to list such a "catalog of horrors." It is correct to call them abuses; it is true that young folk are led to take them for normal, and it is urgent that we pray for the Church.

One is also entitled to vote with one's feet, and frequent another parish, one with a faithful liturgy. It may help in some cases to make a personal appeal to the priest, after prayer and taking counsel. Resolve to remain peaceful. Distinguish between slight and serious abuses, and do not take big action over a small offence.

It is surely the chronic eruption of such errors in the Liturgy that prompts some Catholics to take comfort in the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, which is permitted in a few churches. This Mass is heavily guarded by strict and precise rubrics of great reverence; therefore, abuse is much less likely. Meanwhile we should expect a "reform of the reform," a phrase promoted by Cardinal Ratzinger, who understands that the post-Vatican-II reform of the Liturgy has indeed not gone as well as hoped, to put it mildly.

From Paul Morgan re "celebration of reconciliation"

Recently, I was invited to attend a "celebration of reconciliation" in which one of my grandchildren was a participant. The event appeared to have been organised by the school, and some 30 children were involved. After some introductory speeches and some music-making, three priests took their places on the altar, seated on chairs, opposite each of these being another empty chair.

In bewilderment and disbelief, I watched as the children were called out by name and were ushered onto the altar to make their First Confession in front of their parents, friends and peers. The term "First Confession" is the term I use from times past. It was never used during the "celebration." It must be said that none of the children appeared embarrassed or self-conscious by the experience, and certainly the parents saw nothing wrong as they chatted happily to each other as their offspring confessed their indiscretions (sins?) to the priests.

Following the closing rituals, I attempted to get the impressions of some of the parents. It appeared that none of those to whom I spoke saw anything improper in what we had just witnessed. Rather the opposite, as remarks such as "Wasn't that lovely" seemed to be the popular response.

The following day I telephoned my bishop and recounted the preceding to him. He appeared to be unaware of this "liturgy" and was most concerned that the children were denied the privacy of the confessional. He advised me that he would look into the matter, I assume to prevent this erroneous practice from taking hold throughout the diocese. I am convinced he was genuinely concerned. In fairness, it must be said that I believe all involved to be genuinely well-intentioned. But confession is a private reconciliation by the penitent with Jesus Christ through the priest who stands in persona Christi. The privacy of these children was violated, however unintentionally.

Lakefield, ON

Fr. Somerville: This practice of reducing a children's sacrament to a cute and childish display is an instance of what might be called "kiddjfying the Liturgy." The loss of privacy is serious enough. Is there really any compensating benefit at all for the child? Is it just salving the adults' guilty feelings for neglecting this Sacrament, or failing to confess certain serious, mortal sins? Is it failing to help the children to become comfortable in the normal, adult-Christian, private mode of Confession? Is it trivializing something sacred? I think so.

Catholic insight has received several other communications, here summarized.

One complaint concerns "ad libbing" by the celebrant. In one Toronto parish the celebrant, whether once or occasionally I do not know, holds up the host at the time of Consecration and says, "Believe it or not. This is the body of Christ."

Another person complains about the Holy Week liturgies in her parish. For Holy Thursday the parish priest ordered the washing of the feet of men, women, and children; and instead of reserving the Blessed Sacrament on a side altar for veneration during the afternoon and Good Friday morning, he simply locks it up in the sacristy. On Good Friday, he replaced the purple cloth on the cross with a white cloth and decided to have a cross without a corpus for veneration.

A third person from Agassiz, B.C. writes: "I am quite concerned about lectors not bowing before the tabernacle when going up to do the readings. It seems to me that this is an example of 'a trivialization of the Real Presence'--to quote your words in the answer you gave to Mr. Shea in the Letters section of the March 1999 edition of Catholic Insight. The liturgy committee voted to follow the example of the Prince Albert diocese in not bowing before the tabernacle, although not all the lectors will follow this decision."

Fr. Somerville: Let us first note that the rubrics here are misleadingly translated in English. They say "...there should be no solemn adoration after midnight." But the Latin says "...after midnight this adoration should be without solemnity," which, in fact, encourages simple adoration. The official English version leads one to infer there should be no adoration at all after midnight. There are many such errors in the official "ICEL" wording of the Roman Missal.

Secondly, these irritating changes do not, and should not, affect the faith of the parishioners. Do not allow these irregularities to lead you to doubt your faith in any way.