Why a Catholic should not attend an invalid wedding ceremony

“Father, my sister is getting married by a protestant minister in a beautiful outdoor service on the top of a mountain! Can I attend the wedding?”

If your sister was baptized Catholic or has been received into the Church, and she didn’t get permission from the bishop, then I say, “No, you most certainly must not attend.”

Although Canon Law makes no stipulation regarding whether a Catholic may attend an invalid wedding ceremony, moral law most certainly prohibits Catholics (and, sometimes, also non-Catholics) from attending.

In this article, we hope to shed some light on what can be a rather difficult question. Difficult not only because of personal ties to those involved in the wedding service, but also because many priests spew forth variant opinions which (howsoever subtle and delicate they appear) lack any substantial foundation in moral law or the Catholic tradition.

Can I get married after having a vasectomy? (The vasectomy question, Part II)

On vasectomy and impotence

We continue our discussion of various issues related to repentance after the commission of a vasectomy. In our earlier article [here], we discussed why a reversal would sometimes (even oftentimes) be required in order to receive sacrament absolution after a vasectomy – though it is not mandated as relating to the amendment of life, but seems to be closely linked to true contrition and repentance when the reversal procedure can be obtained without excessive cost, pain, or danger and when the couple is of child-bearing age.

To our earlier question, we may add another: Can a man who has had a vasectomy validly contract marriage without getting the vasectomy reversed?

The simple answer to this question – “Is a reversal required for marriage?” – is, “No, a reversal is not required.” However, again, there is much to consider; and, in some cases, a reversal would seem to be required by the conscience of the individual (even if not by the law of the Church).

The whole question will hang on the following point: Is a vasectomy only “sterilization” (as it is commonly assumed to be), or does it cause impotence? While it would seem a silly question, we will see that impotence is defined in a broader way than many assume.

Can I be forgiven after having a vasectomy? (The vasectomy question, Part I)

Vasectomy, contraception, and confession

The following question was sent to me by a priest who reads this blog:

Recently, I had a discussion about proper administration of the sacrament of Penance regarding a man who confesses having had a vasectomy. This is the question:  must the man who receives a vasectomy, in order to receive absolution validly, seek a reversal of the vasectomy?

The simple answer – “Is a reversal required for absolution?” – “No, a reversal is not always required, but YES it is often required as following from true sorrow for the sin.” However, there is much to consider.

In answering this question, we will also answer the related question: Can I be forgiven for having a tubal ligation?

Married priests, ritual purity, and priestly celibacy

While there is a good deal of reflection (some good, most bad) in the secular media, as well as in Catholic media, on the value and role of priestly celibacy in the Church, there is yet very little theological consideration of the topic.

Nearly every argument for or against priestly celibacy is related either to practical concerns (i.e. “we will get more priests,” or “they will not have time to care for family and parish”) or to devotional thoughts (i.e. “marriage is given by God to all,” or “an undivided heart”). Now, there is certainly something to be said for both practical and devotional points, but we must first consider something of the theology behind celibacy if we are to have any hope of discussing the topic intelligently.

Interestingly, the question of clerical continence for married priests and deacons may be of great aid in helping us to consider the doctrine behind the discipline of priestly celibacy.

In response to Father Brian Mullady - "Contraceptive intention" and NFP

Over at Human Life International’s “Truth and Charity Forum” [here], Father Brian Mullady O.P. has an interesting little article on “Fundamental Differences: NFP vs. Contraception”.

While the majority of the article is quite insightful, Fr. Mullady falls into the same error which has plagued many scholars and lay-folk alike who enter this discussion: He fails to realize that a sinful use of Natural Family Planning is still not “an act of contraception.”

Natural Family Planning with a "contraceptive mentality"?

This coming Sunday has been designated by the bishops of the United States as “Respect Life Sunday”. As we pray and work for an end to abortion, it is well to remember that there is a profound connection between the prominent use of birth control in a nation and the legalization of abortion: As Pope Paul VI foresaw in his encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, contraception will always lead to abortion (if not for each individual, at least for the society as a whole).

However, there are many good and faithful Catholics in the Church who question the relation between contraception and natural family planning. Does NFP have a “contraceptive mentality”? And, even if NFP can be used well, is it possible (or even likely) that many people in fact use NFP with a contraceptive mentality? What are the circumstances in which a couple may licitly use natural family planning?

Same-sex "marriage" advocates are far too spiritual

They don't understand the meaning of marriage

4^th of July, Independence Day (USA)

The United States of America is at a crossroads: Will she defend the natural institution of marriage or will she doom herself to societal decline? With all the debate about same-sex “marriage” and the recent legislation in New York, much ink (or, rather, megabytes of online data) has been spent on the issue. On point that seems to have gone unnoticed – or, at least, has not been stressed enough – is that the homosexual activists have failed to recognize that human beings are animals.

The argument for same-sex “marriage” recognizes (at least theoretically) the love of the spouses, the fidelity and permanence of the marriage bond, and the emotional and psychological significance of marital union, but it completely fails to recognize the physical and animal aspect of marriage – namely, the preservation and propagation of the human species. The same-sex “marriage” advocates treat of human beings as though we were angels, pure spirits. They completely ignore the physical nature of man.

This is what is most surprising about the promoters of the homosexual sub-culture: For materialistic hedonists, they are far too spiritual.

Christ, Bridegroom and King: The Feasts of St. Cecilia and Bl. Miguel Pro

The Second Coming

At the end of the liturgical year, the Church gives us to meditate upon the second coming of Christ. As we consider the Final Judgment, Christ is presented to us under two figures: Bridegroom and King. The saints of November 22^nd and 23^rd, St. Cecilia and Bl. Miguel Pro, are particularly known for their devotion to Christ under these two titles – Cecilia’s Spouse is the King of Fr. Miguel. It will be helpful to consider what each of these titles reveal to us about Christ and the Day of Judgment.

The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come!”

In the book of Revelation, Christ is presented as the Bridegroom and the Church is his spotless Bride. The relation of the bride to her bridegroom recalls the whole-hearted devotion which we are meant to have to Christ. It is for this reason (namely, allegorical testimony), that St. Paul tells us that, while the one who marries does a good thing, the one who remains celibate does better (cf. 1 Cor 7:38). The vocation to consecrated virginity is greater than that to married life, not because the individual is necessarily more holy, but because the virgin is a clearer sign of the Kingdom which is to come – where they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Moreover, it is happier to remain celibate, “An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction” (1 Cor 7:34-35).

If men and women are equal, do the angels really want women to wear a veil at Mass?

October 2^nd, The Feast of the Guardian Angels

Of all the scriptural passages which speak of the angels, perhaps the most confusing and difficult for our own age is the place in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians in which he advises that women must wear a veil while in Church. He reasons that the man need not wear a veil, since his head is Christ; but the head of the woman is the man, therefore she must veil her head as a sign of submission. St. Paul concludes his argument with the rather surprising statement that it is “because of the angels” that the women must wear the mantilla.

In this discussion, I will care little for “political correctness”, since this could obscure the truth. Obviously, when speaking in various circumstances, I would adapt the language to fit the people; but, when discussing doctrine in a theological forum, it is necessary to write unambiguously. St. Paul has always been a great defender of the true vocation of the woman, while the feminism of our day is her great enemy!

I will first offer St. Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on the passage; then I will consider what this reference to the angels really entails…

The Greatest Vocation

16th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Luke 10:38-42

The episode of Martha and Mary is probably the most well known story of the two women. Moreover, it is also most likely the most well known dinner party our Lord attended (presuming that the wedding feast in Cana was much more than a simple “dinner party”).

The final phrase of the Gospel account – “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.” – led many of the Church Fathers, and also St. Thomas Aquinas, to consider the relation between the active and the contemplative lives.

Martha, of course, represents the active life. Mary, the contemplative life. Studying this narrative, theologians have pondered: What is the greatest vocation? I will here present the answer of St. Thomas Aquinas in condensed form, with some small applications to our own day. (See ST II-II, qq.179-184)

Clerical Continence: The Requirement for Worship

The video below from RomeReports highlights a recent conference at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, at which the topic of discussion was the apostolic roots of clerical continence and celibacy.

The key here is that, even when clerics were married (like many of the Apostles, for example), they remained continent (i.e. they abstained from sexual relations) after ordination. This discipline still pertains today, according to Canon 277 of the Code of Canon Law, as leading canonists Dr. Edward Peters and Fr. Brian van Hove, S.J. have recently shown. Peters's article in Studia Canonica is particularly helpful in addressing this matter in a way that is both theological and pastoral.

 

The reason for the discipline of continence for sacred ministers has to do with the long-standing Judeo-Christian connection between abstinence from sexual relations and the offering of sacrifice. Because the one who offers sacrifice (and those who assist him - like the deacon) speaks for the whole community before God, he must be free of any exclusivity in his relations. He is not just for his wife, but is for the whole community. This is why he abstains from sexual relations, even if he is married. The higher calling to worship demands that he sacrifice the great good of marital intimacy.

This is, of course, no slur against marriage or the marital act. Rather, it is a recognition that, with sacred ordination, this man has been re-configured and totally consecrated as a public person to the duty of public worship. He is now completely a "man for others," as Pope John Paul II often said. For this reason, he gives up the great good of marital intimacy so as to be able to stand before God on behalf of the whole community.