Tag: Customs

Saints and Sinners

Saint:  1. a person of exceptional holiness of life, virtue, or benevolence.  2. a person recognized as such by family, community, or Church. 

Sinner:  1. a person who transgresses the law of God.  2. a person who willfully or deliberately violates some religious or moral principle.  3. a person who is guilty of any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.

   Neither word means that a person is 100% good or 100% bad; however both words imply that the person is exceptionally, outstandingly, unusually good or bad.
   Unfortunately we usually use a word that means one extreme or another as though they were absolutes. (For example, saying that a person is tall or short, skinny or fat, dark or light, pretty or ugly, dumb or smart, old or young, poor or rich, truthful or false, straight or gay—the list in endless.)
   Word pairs like these actually name a scale’s two extremes, and we’re all in some position on the scale except at either end.
   So, in a sense, we all have a bit of both. “Saints” can occasionally be guilty of reprehensible or regrettable actions and “sinners” can occasionally do exceptionally holy, virtuous, or benevolent things.
   The words, if used fairly, point to a sort of majority-of-the-time behavior—and this can fluctuate and change. We may start out or initially be treated as saints and end up being considered as sinners—and vice-versa!
   – Remember Joseph’s initial hesitation to marry Mary.
   – Remember what Jesus said to the “good” thief who was crucified at his side.
   – Remember Jesus himself being adjudged and punished as a notorious criminal.
   Also, our understanding of what it means to be a saint or sinner often changes and varies from place to place and time to time.

   For example, in the early centuries of Christianity, when many persons were sentenced to a painful death for not worshiping the official gods, martyrdom, a death like Jesus’, was esteemed.
   As time passed, martyrdom declined but extolling the heroism and death of Jesus and the martyrs led to esteeming a lifestyle of extreme denial and living sacrifice.
   Some popular early hermits, by contemporary standards seemed to be “wild men”, almost crazy, living in desert caves, barely clothed nor adequately fed.
   As this lifestyle also declined and there no longer were hermits living in desert caves, it influenced the development of early monasticism where denial and sacrifice were still important ideals and practices.
   These ideals lived on in the later, action-oriented religious orders with their many services to others. Practicing poverty, chastity, and obedience were still considered a necessary part of holiness.
   This also continued to some degree in the development of “secular” (i.e. not bound by religious community vows) clergy, especially with the requirement of clerical celibacy.
   In our contemporary world, that too, is being critically examined and its failures denounced.
   We’re all a mixture of saint and sinner. Our challenge is to try to move more towards the “saint” extreme of the scale than the other.
   We try to be more like Jesus as best we understand him and live a holy life as best we understand that.
   We’re not dreaming an impossible dream, aspiring to a holiness of life—but sometimes we need to realize that we’re not going about it the best way we could, and should!


3 July 2022

Retirement of Priests

Years ago, I was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and was assigned to a variety of positions and responsibilities over the years.
   Right now, I’m retired and have no assigned position or responsibilities, but I’m expected to observe two continuing commitments: celibacy (i.e., not to marry) and praying the Divine Office daily.
   I will not be assigned or obliged to anything more by church authorities, but I may be offered or requested to do some thing or assume some official responsibility for a specific occasion or period of time; these are all voluntary matters.
   What’s the best way of describing me? Am I an off-duty priest? a retired priest? a former priest? an ex-priest?
   What would the best way be if I were a doctor, lawyer, judge, teacher, athlete, machinist, or husband?
   – “Off-duty” means that for a specific period of time an active-duty person is relieved or excused.
   – “Retired” means to be sort of permanently off-duty, usually because of age and/or incapacity to continuing to exercise the responsibilities of the job or office.
   – “Former” is similar but more permanent. It describes a position once but no longer held nor exercised.
   – “Ex” is similar to former but with overtones of having been terminated or dismissed from a former position, perhaps punitively.
   Being ordained a priest used to be considered as a forever thing in the sense that it could never be entirely relinquished. It used to be considered a kind of change of the very essence or being of the person.
   But with the introduction of retirement for priests, bishops, and even popes, it is being seen more like any other profession or occupation—a function or job, not a permanent alteration of the class or nature of the person.

   In some ways the retirement of priests has some similarity to military service. In case of emergency the (experienced and trained) officer may be temporarily reactivated, called back to active duty.
   An example: Joseph Ratzinger once held the office of and served as pope with the title of Benedict XVI. Right now, due to his voluntary resignation of office, he is a former pope. Loosely, he could be described as a retired pope, but that sounds a little like he no longer functions as pope due to some rule or customary practice.
   In my case, I’m not an ex-priest, nor a former priest, but I am a retired priest. This implies that I can volunteer or may be requested to perform some priestly duties, subject to the decision of proper authorities.
   I don’t necessarily identify myself as Father, Brother, Reverend, Doctor, Monsignor, or Archimandrite, although I may be addressed as such by others. As a courtesy or custom, former office holders often are addressed with their former title and may identify themselves by it.
   Of course, former office holders also may be presumed to act with the dignity and professionalism of their former office.
   All this reflects attitudes and thinking that are relatively recent in terms of church history, sacramental theology, and canon law—another of those changes that may be disturbing or unpleasant to some, but which are the fruit of a better understanding, growth, and development.
   And, to make it a tad more complicated, it’s not universal—i.e., the usages, customs, and understandings still vary from place to place, group to group, and person to person!


6 February 2022

Frames of Reference

Frame of reference:  a structure of concepts, values, customs, views, etc., by means of which an individual or group perceives or evaluates data, communicates ideas, and regulates behavior.

   We all have and utilize frames of reference, and much of the time we barely realize it or advert to them.
   Here’s a simple example. When I was a child and started school in New York City, the first question I was asked by the other kids was, “What are you?”
   In those days and in that place, the question meant, “What is your national background or family origins?”
   (Since the United States was generally an immigrant country, what differentiated people was the country they or their parents or other relatives came from.)
   I never had a simple answer like Italian, French, or English. I had to explain that my father was of German descent (German Jewish, since “Stern” was immediately identified as a Jewish name) and my mother, of Irish descent (presumably Catholic of course).
   My parents had agreed before marriage to raise their children as Catholics, and so I was, but the confusion lingered. Even as a young priest, sometimes I was asked how old I was when I converted (i.e., became a baptized Catholic)?
   Sometimes I enjoyed answering, “A couple of hours!” My birth was difficult for my mother, and I was presumably dying at birth and hastily baptized.
   The expected kind of answer to, “What are you?” would have been very different in another place or time. The answer might well have been your caste, trade, tribe, or social class.
   Some other frames of reference in our lives are more subtle and less obvious.

   For example, religious teachings, practices, and beliefs. First, they vary among different religions, but they also vary within the same religion. They may be fixed and unchanging or developing and evolving.
   In Christian tradition we still have a lot of words and practices which originated in and reflect a different physical, scientific, social, or other frame of reference. For example:
   – a flat world: the good go up (heaven) and the bad go down (hell).
   – a ranking of persons: “clergy” (upper or ruling class) and “laity’ (lower or subject class).
   – degrees or kinds of divinity or godliness: the blessed Trinity, angels and their ranks and functions, saints and their distinctiveness and roles.
   Often religious misunderstandings and conflicts are rooted in frames of reference that are not recognized as such.
   If you’re familiar with the great works of St. Thomas Aquinas, you can’t help but be dazzled by their depth and breadth. But, his frames of reference, besides Christian faith and the customs of his day included the philosophy of the pagan Aristotle.
   Many disagreements within Christianity are rooted in different cultures, practices, historical traditions, and linguistic systems.
   A holy writer esteemed by some may be considered as unintelligible by others.
   “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin” may once have been a legitimate topic for debate among scholars long ago, but now is usually dismissed as a ridiculous and even meaningless question.
   The point is, we all have frames of reference. Try to be aware of them. and try to keep yours up to date!


30 January 2022

The Mass of the Roman Rite

As a young priest studying Canon Law in Rome during the first three sessions of Vatican Council II, I had two different memories related to the implementation of the revised liturgy of the Mass there.
   One was of a conversation with the pious layman who was the sacristan of the chapel where we lived: “Father”, he said to me, “the Mass in Italian is very nice, but . . . ” hesitatingly he continued. “since Our Lord spoke in Latin at the Last Supper, is it a good idea for us to change?”
   The other was of the local newspaper: “For the second time,” it boasted, “Rome has changed to the vernacular for the Mass.” It referred to the fact that for the first few centuries, prayers in Rome were still in Greek before they began to be celebrated in the then local spoken language, Latin.
   A lesson of these two little stories is that Vatican II was not the first major time that the Roman liturgy was changed and updated.
   A landmark work of scholarship about the liturgy was the publication in 1948 of Missarum Sollemnia, a history of the development of the Roman Mass by Fr. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J.. (A translation from the original German to English was published two years later under the title of The Mass of the Roman Rite; Its Origins and Development.)
   In this masterwork, Father Jungmann traced the changes and development of the Mass through the centuries, explaining the factors and logic behind the continual changes in the prayers and the rite itself.
   With the polarization in the Church today between those favoring the “Tridentine Mass’’—i.e. the rite used before the Vatican II liturgical reforms—and those using the revised rite promulgated by St. Pope Paul VI, one might think this was the first time in history that there was a major change!
   It wasn’t the first, and it won’t be the last!

   I was ordained in 1958; Pope Pius XII was still in office and the Mass was still in Latin. I celebrated Mass in Latin every day for the next six years or so, until the changes to the vernacular began to be made.
   (I needed no missal for the unchanging prayers of the Mass; I knew them by heart.)
   Personally, I have no issues about the language of the Mass—I’m certainly used to celebrating in Latin, English, or Spanish. I miss some of the beautiful Latin chants and hymns we used to use more frequently—and we still can use them, of course.
   There have been some changes in the words of the prayers and a greater variety of them. I think that’s a good thing. Some gestures, postures, and vesture have changed as well, usually because their raison d’etre no longer exists.
   It seems that some of the conflict and taking of sides about the rite of the Mass is really about Vatican II itself, accepting or rejecting its teachings. It’s really an issue of change and development.
   Of course we all have fond memories of past practices, customs, and favorite things, but “time marches on” and change happens, for better or for worse. Not every change is positive growth; some changes are destructive. Clearly discernment is vital.
   As a priest, I lived, studied, and worked in Rome 1962-1965. I was on the staff of Vatican II for the second and third of its four sessions. It was a wonderful, exciting, unforgettable time.
   There was no great polarization at Vatican II. The Council was not sharply nor bitterly divided. It was a time of great grace and inspiration. It was a profoundly spiritual experience. It really was an aggiornamento.


17 October 2021

It’s Tradition

tradition  1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc. from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or practice  2. something that is handed down  3. a long established or inherited way of thinking or acting  4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices  5. a customary or characteristic method or manner  6. in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, unwritten codes, laws, doctrines, teachings, sayings, acts, etc. regarded as handed down from Moses, Jesus, Muhammad.

  With respect for all our traditions, please notice that a tradition can and may be correct or mistaken, right or wrong, good or bad.
   Usually when a law or regulation is changed, we get used to the change and obey it, even though we may not think that the change was a good idea and personally liked the old one better.
   But, when it comes to traditions, we’re not so easily accepting of change—in fact it often seems that the very idea of deliberately changing a tradition is almost contradictory in itself!
   However, actually our traditions do change but usually gradually and imperceptibly (and sometimes mistakenly as well).
   For example,
   – What’s the proper skirt length for a well-dressed woman?
   – If I say, “Thank you”, and you reply, “No problem”, is that polite or inappropriate?
   – Is missing Mass on Sunday without an adequate reason a mortal sin for which you could burn in the fires of Hell forever?
   – Should a man greet another man with a kiss on the cheek?
   – Could a woman be elected president?
   – Is Heaven only for my coreligionists or can any good person end up there?

   – Is it wrong to use contraceptives?
   – If it’s written in the Bible, it must be always true, no matter who, what, or when.
   – If Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Latin, why should the Mass be in Latin?
   – Shouldn’t real Americans be Republicans? Democrats? Liberals? Conservatives?
   – Shouldn’t the man be head of the family?
   – The U.S. should keep out aliens, foreigners, socialists, communists, gays, Africans, Asians, Latins, etc.
   – Is gender a matter of anatomy? social customs? upbringing? personal preference?
   Excuse this smorgasbord listing of odd examples, but I’m trying to illustrate that traditions have changed or are changing, and are changing more rapidly than we sometimes realize.
   Why? Because of growth and development, individually and collectively, we are always encountering new challenges, ideas, experiences, and understandings. To be alive involves change, non-stop until the end of our lives.
   We no long believe that the earth is flat, that we live in the center of the universe. We no longer believe in many gods, and for many, in any god. Our notions of right and wrong, virtue and sin, evolve with the course of history and our individual lives. Our capacity for rapid exchange of information and communication is phenomenal—and often misleading.
   Sometimes, it’s because we can’t keep up, because we can’t process so much so fast, that we fall back on and cling to “traditions”.
   Our heritages are our legacies not our laws, our gifts not our obligations, our memories not our futures.
   Respect traditions, surely, but also live!


19 September 2021

Time’s Up

One way of describing life is growing and changing. Maybe it should only be changing, because growing, at least in the bodily sense, slows down and stops after a while.
   But growing in the senses of thinking, understanding, improving, bettering, accomplishing, and achieving can continue long after physical growth ends and even while physically we are declining and diminishing.
   Death means the end of all growth and development, at least as we know and experience them now. But, in a spiritual dimension, we may believe and trust that they continue in some other, yet to be experienced, way.
   We sometimes joke about the incessant questioning of little children: Why is this? Where does it come from? How does it work? etc. That means they’re growing in terms of knowledge and understanding.
   Hopefully, they will never stop questioning, never stop challenging, never stop growing in their thinking and understanding.
   If they, if we, do reach a certain stage of life where we no longer question, challenge, grow, or change in our thinking and understanding, we are, so to speak, dying or dead!
   It’s odd. We esteem and acclaim explorers, discoverers, inventors, scientists, artists, and innovators in many areas and aspects of our life but criticize dissidents, eccentrics, oddballs, nonconformists, and “heretics” (in its original meaning of people of different opinion) in others.
   In the unending quest for knowledge and understanding, we sometimes get it right and we sometimes get it wrong—but, the main thing is to never stop trying. There’s nothing wrong in making mid-course corrections in the way we live our lives.
   We’re not perfect, infallible, nor omniscient.

   No matter how much we may achieve, how much we may understand, how much we may sacrifice, how much we may love, how much others may respond to us, it will never be enough and we will never be fully satisfied.
   This is all part of the human condition. There’s no sense in lamenting the deficiencies of our past or the limitations of our present. It’s rare to learn to skate without falling down, to learn to do anything new without getting it wrong from time to time.
   The very essence of our lives is growing and changing. If fear of mistakes or failures holds us back from growing or changing, we gradually are living in an unreality; we are gradually dying in more ways than one.
   The greatest challenge for each of us is to learn to celebrate, rejoice, and have gladness, peace, and satisfaction in our lives—in our limited, ever changing, and imperfect lives.
   Especially we need to remember, know and be grateful for the understanding, empathy, support, and love we have received throughout our lives from others—and above all from the One who created us, whose mercy and love is without limits, and whose providence sustains and guides our lives.
   Let us pray, imitating St. Ignatius of Loyola:

Lord, teach me to be generous.
Teach me to serve you as you deserve;
to give and not to count the cost;
to fight and not to heed the wounds;
to toil and not to seek for rest;
to labor and not to seek any reward,
save that of knowing that I do your will.

 

25 July 2021

Don’t Stunt Your Growth

That was a warning I remember hearing from time to time when I was a kid to discourage certain behaviors, whether it involved eating, drinking, smoking, or something else.
   The presumption was that growth was a good thing and it was foolish to impede it.
   I have some friends (of modest height) whose children are much taller than they are, probably because the parents grew up in another country with a less healthy childhood diet. But they’re glad to see their kids growing taller and stronger than they are.
   Intellectual development is similar to the physical. Often children with better and more extensive schooling than their parents have better opportunities for the future.
   Generally mothers and fathers are not jealous of their children’s achievements and successes but proud of them. Of course, it’s because they consider their children’s growth and development as a good thing.
   However, in some matters, it’s just the opposite. If the children’s religious beliefs and practices change as they grow and develop, often the parents are distressed.
   Sometimes it may seem to the parents that their children are ignoring or abandoning vital elements in their religious life. Perhaps they are—or perhaps they’re simply outgrowing certain ethnic or cultural customs and practices.
   For example, is it so bad if a young person is keenly concerned about working for justice and peace but not so worried about missing a Mass on Sunday or praying the rosary?
   Growth, growing, involves change—not necessarily an abandonment of what we once were but a development, a maturation.
   St. Paul wrote, “When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.” (1 Cor 13:11)

   Why sometimes are we so threatened by putting aside and outgrowing things from an earlier stage of our lives? Why sometimes do we defend and cling too long to past ways and thinking?
   Not every change in advocating and reasoning is necessarily an improvement or a positive development, but denying their validity and refusing to consider them isn’t necessarily an improvement or a positive development either.
   There was another warning I remember hearing from time to time when I was a kid: Don’t talk about politics or religion.
   Probably, this was because of the lived experience of those warning us about how delicate and personal these matters were.
   Right now, especially in the U.S., there is a painful polarization and division in both these areas—and the solution is not to be silent and do nothing.
   If in either of these areas we’re talking, thinking, or reasoning “as a child”—i.e. clinging too much to earlier ideas—we need to put aside childish things.
   It’s a don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater situation. The best course of action is not necessarily to cling to and defend every past thing or practice, but to discern what is good and perennial from the limited understandings and decisions of a particular group or time.
   Our roots are more important than the details of a branch. Our fundamental values merit our defense, but not necessarily every decision, plan, program, ruling, or behavior once inspired by them.
   The child and the adult are fundamentally the same person—but in the process of growing necessarily many things change.


6 June 2021

Dated Dogmas

Dogma: 1. An official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc.
   2. A specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down.
   3. Prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group.
   4. A settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

   “Dogma” comes from the Greek verb “dokein”, which can mean to expect, think, seem, seem good, or pretend.
   The way we use the word now has more the flavor of something fixed, permanent, definitive, binding, unchangeable.
   But nothing human can be that. If each of us is less than perfect—and we are—than the best we can do is to declare what seems to us to be good or correct, according to our lights, at a particular moment
   No dogma can fit every possible situation and no dogma can preclude the possibility of being dated, divisive, or even destructive at another time or in another place.
   Even the very understanding of dogmas develops and changes.
   Since dogmas often are concerned with religious beliefs and practices, let’s look at how they play out.
   First, things—events—happen, But even participants and eyewitnesses differ in their telling about them, and their solemn testimony about them, and their writing about them. Again, human limitations at play.
   Second, with the passage of time, the stories, histories, and traditions passed on themselves change and sometimes are revised and altered.
   Consider the Bible. There are many places where you can find more than one version of events, conversations, and conflicts—sometimes in the very same book!

   One inspired author writes from one point of view, and another, from another. It’s not about who is right and who is wrong—it’s about a complex reality bigger than any one person’s understanding or communication.
   Besides this diversity, with the passage of time further insights occur, more facts are uncovered about the earlier period, and perhaps a greater appreciation of the achievements of the earlier persons and their points of view develops.
   As the diversities increase, so does a discomfort with them. There is a desire for some clear definitions of meaning and some clear standards of practice. In effect, it often means that persons in authority respond to this desire with dogma.
   And, then gradually, diversity in the understanding and application of the dogma develops as well. There’s no stopping it!
   Since we human persons are necessarily limited, no human work or construction is ever perfect, and change and development always lead to new understandings, articulations, and norms.
   Dogmatic diversity in some sense is almost a contradiction in terms, and dogmatic development can be frightening and challenging to its partisans. But, life is about change and development, and that means that education, technology, governance, behavioral standards, faith, religion, science, philosophy, theology—all things that involve human beings—involve change and development!
   We sometimes say, “Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.” Maybe we should also say, “Better to embrace change and development than to bewail the loss of our comfortable, earlier certainties.”


18 April 2021      

Loaded Language

Recently Frank Bruni wrote a thoughtful opinion article for The New York Times called “Stop It With ‘Gun Control’. Enough Already”. Its subtitle was “Language matters. This language doesn’t help.”
   He considered “Gun Control” as “an example of the loaded language that often shapes our discourse on important matters.”
   His point was that “how we write and talk about any issue that engenders passionate disagreement” is “inevitably consequential”. Although his main example was the difference between speaking of Gun Control vs. Gun Safety, he gave a few other examples of what he considered loaded language:
   – Illegal Aliens vs. Undocumented Aliens.
   – Pro Life vs. Pro Choice.
   – Gay Marriage vs. Marriage Equality.
   Sometimes, although we may not realize it, we may be using religious, theological, and canonical language that is loaded also.
   Maybe once upon a time, the language may have been perfectly respectable and clear, but as times change, customs change, and words change, the same language can become “loaded” in the sense of engendering passionate disagreement.
   At present, there is disagreement about translations of the Bible, especially whether they are discriminatory.
   For example, translating St. Paul’s opening words on the Areopagus: Traditional translations usually use “Men of Athens” whether it was an all-male audience or not. But some modern translations, presuming it was a mixed audience, use “Athenians”.
   In any case, for us, nowadays, “Men” usually means just adult males.
   With the changing usage of words, sometimes we find that the word we need doesn’t exist. For example, we shouldn’t apply exclusively masculine or feminine words to describe the Creator. But, we don’t have any good alternatives for using “he”, “him”, or “his” when referring to God.

   Sometime there are solutions. We can use “brothers and sisters” instead of just “brothers” if a message is directed to everyone, not just to men.
   Translations are not the only challenges regarding using words that have evolved and changed in meaning or usage.
   People were once identified as black, brown, red, white, or yellow—a very racist mentality. Now a popular usage is “people of color” for everyone who is not “white”. It’s really no less racist an expression, although it’s meant to be not racist at all!
   Race is a word that implies a different species—and there is only one human species.
   We refer to LGBTQ people meaning everyone who is not . . . heterosexual? normal? not-different? We don’t have an good opposite word in this and many cases.
   The obvious opposite of “Pro Life” is “Pro Death”. The opposite of “Pro Choice” is something like “Pro No-Choice”.
   If one’s definition of marriage involves two people intending procreating children, then it’s difficult to consider a same-sex relationship as a marriage. But, anybody can be a partner with anybody else in a civil union, which doesn’t imply procreation.
   The Order of the Holy Sepulchre includes men and women. What to call the women members? In English usage (England that is) a title of distinction for a woman is “Dame”. But, in some places (U.S. for example), “Dame” sounds like slang and “Lady” sounds better. However, any woman can be called a lady; it’s not an honorific title at all.
   “Words, words, words.” Be very careful how you use them, especially the loaded ones!


11 April 2021

Until Death Do Us Part

“Marriage” is a very complicated word—with a very complicated history behind it. It means very different things depending on who is speaking, the language used, and where the speaker comes from.
   “Marriage” historically has had to do with breeding—in the biological sense of sexual reproduction or the procreation of offspring. (Although mating doesn’t always result in procreation.)
   “Marriage” often is described as a kind of bonding—in the sense of a relationship between persons entered into with some degree of consent or, sometimes, constraint. (The relationship may be intended to be—or turn out to be—long or short term or indefinite or life long.)
   “Marriage” may result from merely personal decisions by the parties involved, from mutual agreements between families, and from formal recognition by societal authorities (civil or religious).
   Depending on the culture or customs of a particular time or place, a person may have multiple marriages, whether simultaneously or serially.
   As people, cultures and customs have developed and changed, so has the understanding of “marriage”—a process that is still going on.
   When I was studying Canon (i.e. ecclesiastical) Law many years ago, these were the juridical definitions of the purpose of marriage and of matrimonial consent:

   The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary, mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (Canon 1013, §1)
   Matrimonial consent is the act of the will by which both parties give and accept the perpetual and exclusive right to the body for acts which are per se apt to generate offspring. (Canon 1081, §2).

   Canon Law doesn’t seem very romantic! But, don’t blame the canonists. In many times, places, and cultures, romance was not considered a primary factor in marriage.
   Often we speak of marriage as a contract concerning procreation and education of children and sexual rights and obligations.
   Since children can inherit titles, thrones, class or caste prerogatives, money, property, and other material assets, it is clear that there are important contractual matters associated with marriage.
   Sometimes they were at the core of the marriage, since things like love, affection, passion and sexual pleasure could be found and satisfied outside of marriage.
   All this is mostly about legalities. Morality brings another dimension to views about marriage. That’s when we judge certain behaviors, whether within or outside of marriage, as good or bad, holy or sinful.
   When marriage is considered a sacrament, “an outward sign instituted by Christ to bring grace”, the matter becomes even more complex, canonically and theologically.
   For example: When is a marriage “valid”? When/how does a marriage end? When may a marriage be blessed? Are there other relationships that may be blessed? What does it mean, to be blessed?
   In our day, traditional marriages in many different cultures are sometimes being critiqued, reinterpreted, and redefined. What used to be a common and relatively unquestioned institution is being challenged by some and defended by others.
   Long ago, Shakespeare used a grim label for his tale of Romeo and Juliet, two lovers who challenged the marriage customs of their day. He called it a “Tragedy”.


4 April 2021