Who's the Authority Here?

In the fall of 2011, I met a man at my local parish church who appeared to be single, widowed in fact.  He became friends with a group of my friends.  I was attracted to him and was hopeful he might be attracted to me.

Then I found out he was married.  So, that's cool.  Who is she?  Why doesn't she live with you?  Will our group ever meet her?

The answers astounded me.  And continued to astound me as this man then proceeded to bring a different woman, a girlfriend, around to mass and to social events, all the while adamantly insisting he'd get back together with his (invisible) wife someday.  

He saw himself as something of a hero, waiting for his (invisible) wife to have a turn in her thinking and come live with him.  He put up a Facebook page as a memorial to his "marriage" to this woman, and from time to time would implore her, using Facebook, to work on their relationship.  I'm certain she has moved on and is unconcerned about his pleas.

It's likely after his (actual) wife died, he'd been lonely.  He was working out west doing something fairly shady, and he met the woman who would become his (invisible) wife.  They married in a Justice of the Peace ceremony in Reno, Nevada.  

He was catholic, but she wasn't.

They married, but never did combine households.  They never could come to an agreement about where they would live.  When he moved to Texas, where I met him, he had purchased the house where he lived, specifically with her in mind, although she never did live there.  

When our little social group became aware of this situation, no one really tried to counsel him on how strange it was.  In fact, he spent much energy trying to legitimize this relationship with our social group.  

In a long series of emails with him, I tried to understand his thinking.  I tried to give him an "out" assuming he didn't really know the catholic understanding of marriage as a covenant.  In every conversation, he did seem to know the content of the catechism, he just didn't accept it as authority for himself, which confused me even more.

In my mind, even though he was Catholic and paid lip-service to the catechism, he actually relied on feeling to tell himself that his marriage with his (invisible) bride was legitimate.  That's what I heard most, how his feelings were leading him, and how he wanted his "marriage" to be an example of reconciliation to others.  (He spoke over and over about how he wanted to be a leader in the Retrovaille marriage retreat movement once his "marriage" was normalized in the church.)

And during this time he would also bring a girlfriend around, a different woman.  He would continue to receive Eucharist at mass.  His his girlfriend told us she had friends in our town and was staying with them, but that was not true.  The reality was that this second woman was was staying with him during her visits, and was probably hoping to develop their relationship into something more.  I know how single women think.

Another Confusing Couple

During this season at our little church, it there was a second  couple in our same social group in an "irregular" marriage.  This second couple also became friends with the man in the sham marriage.  The wife in the second couple never received communion because she had been married previously and was divorced and remarried.  Her second husband went through RCIA to become Catholic, received received communion every week and served as a lector.  

Maybe he didn't know his wife had been married before? Sigh.  

Of course he did know his wife had been married before, but a priest in another state who counseled him (while he was in RCIA, preparing to become Catholic in order to marry this previously married woman), told him it was o.k. to receive communion even if his wife didn't.  In effect, SHE was unable to receive communion, but HE could.

Here's what St. Paul had to say about receiving Eucharist wrongly:

1 Corinthians 11:27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.*  

Comments on 1 Cor 11:27 from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: * [11:27] It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus’ intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:12).

Reaction to These Two Irregularities:

The priest then at our little church never seemed to care about either irregularity.  When approached personally about these issues, his response was to shame those concerned about the scandal and to say that the Eucharist is medicine.

Our bishop seemed not to be bothered by these two  irregularities either. After talking to the parish priest and getting an unsatisfying answer, our bishop was asked about it in a letter.  He then assigned an underling the task of responding, and six months later the response from that underling was to talk to the parish priest first... Um. Ok.

Here's what scripture and the USCCB has to say about "Eucharist as medicine" idea:

1 Corinthians 29-3229 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment* on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32 but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.  

Comments on 1 Cor 29-32 from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:  * [11:29–32] Judgment: there is a series of wordplays in these verses that would be awkward to translate literally into English; it includes all the references to judgment (krima, 1 Cor 11:29, 34; krinō, 1 Cor 11:31, 32) discernment (diakrinō, 1 Cor 11:29, 31), and condemnation (katakrinō, 1 Cor 11:32). The judgment is concretely described as the illness, infirmity, and death that have visited the community. These are signs that the power of Jesus’ death is not yet completely recognized and experienced. Yet even the judgment incurred is an expression of God’s concern; it is a medicinal measure meant to rescue us from condemnation with God’s enemies.

So the souls of those who are receiving Eucharist wrongly still have a chance at heaven?  The medicine, painful as it may be (and assuming it doesn’t kill them), may still operate in their lives to help them repent.  That's my interpretation, anyway.  So for those who find themselves in irregular marriages, heaven can still be a possibility WITH  repentance.

However, the people in the drama I'm recounting here were completely unrepentant at that time, so I'm not sure the medicine was really working.  Don’t we have a responsibility to warn others that their lack of repentance could kill them?

And what about the effect on others, (including children of irregular marriages), of watching a scandalous drama at church every week?  Of feeling the confusion of scandal each week at mass?

I have a lot of respect for the institution of marriage.  Even though I have not been married, I might have more respect for marriage than (some of) the catholics I know.  I respect intensely and am spiritually encouraged by couples who patiently allow the church to exercise its authority in helping them straighten out their past messes.  It means they trust in the authority of the church.  They haven't gone their own way.

The problem as I see it, is one of authority.  Some people, like those two couples at my local parish who were in irregular marriages, were also unwilling to submit to the authority of the church to straighten out the irregularities. 

They thought they know better than the church how to handle their situations.

This is not what I learned when I was in formation to become catholic.  This is actually how protestants live. They are their own authority.  They go their own way.

I expect that of the protestants.  It's part of what being protestant is.  To follow scripture and your own conscience. 

All the protestants living today have never lived under the authority and teaching of the catholic church.  Some really strict catholics I know, stricter even than me, say certain divorced and remarried protestants SHOULD know, just based on scripture alone.  Yes, Jesus did preach about these issues.

1 Corinthians 19:1-121 When Jesus* finished these words,* he left Galilee and went to the district of Judea across the Jordan. 2 Great crowds followed him, and he cured them there. 3a Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,* saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” 4 * b He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5c and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” 7* d They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” 8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9e  I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” 10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word,* but only those to whom that is granted. 12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” 

Comments on Matthew 19:4-9 from the United States Conf. of Catholic Bishops:  * [19:4–6] Matthew recasts his Marcan source, omitting Jesus’ question about Moses’ command (Mk 10:3) and having him recall at once two Genesis texts that show the will and purpose of the Creator in making human beings male and female (Gn 1:27), namely, that a man may be joined to his wife in marriage in the intimacy of one flesh (Gn 2:24). What God has thus joined must not be separated by any human being. (The NAB translation of the Hebrew bāśār of Gn 2:24 as “body” rather than “flesh” obscures the reference of Matthew to that text.)
* [19:7] See Dt 24:1–4.
* [19:9] Moses’ concession to human sinfulness (the hardness of your hearts, Mt 19:8) is repudiated by Jesus, and the original will of the Creator is reaffirmed against that concession. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): see note on Mt 5:31–32. There is some evidence suggesting that Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce was paralleled in the Qumran community (see 11QTemple 57:17–19; CD 4:12b–5:14). Matthew removes Mark’s setting of this verse as spoken to the disciples alone “in the house” (Mk 10:10) and also his extension of the divorce prohibition to the case of a woman’s divorcing her husband (Mk 10:12), probably because in Palestine, unlike the places where Roman and Greek law prevailed, the woman was not allowed to initiate the divorce.

I am a child of divorce and have been hurt deeply by it, and have learned over the years to be generous in my prayers and thoughts toward others touched by it. My parents are both married-divorced-remarried protestants.  I pray for God’s mercy upon them.  I cannot bear the possibility of achieving heaven without those I love to receive me, but I can't hold my parents to a specifically "catholic" standard that they haven't adopted freely for themselves.  I pray for mercy for all protestants. I think that's appropriate.  So those who accuse me of judging others salvation are actually judging my salvation.  Irony flows freely.

But catholics should know better about divorce and remarriage, especially those catholics who have had every possible opportunity to know God's ultimate truth AND who even self-report that they DO know their catechism, (like the man with the "invisible" wife).  THOSE catholics who go their own way, well, they scandalize me.

They tempt me to go my own way, too.  I mean, if they can do their own thing, with no apparent consequence, then why can't I?  

That's the fruit of scandal.

Here's some of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the sin of scandal:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.862286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Scandal weakens the faith of others.  It leads others to think that sinful things are not actually sinful. If the priest is allowing them in the midst of others without taking any action, and further, if the priest is chastising those who bring the scandal to light, then what other conclusion could a person draw but that the perceived sin is not a sin.  

Just because those under legitimate authority don't want to listen to it, or those in positions of legitimate authority don't want to exercise it, doesn't mean the truth taught by that same legitimate authority doesn't exist.

Problem: The ignoring of legitimate authority and the refusal to exercise legitimate authority could have far reaching consequences for people's souls.

Scandal is also a blow to unity in the Body of Christ.  It creates an environment where perhaps some people don't want to get to know others in the congregation for fear of finding out things that might be scandalous. 

For example, looking back, I wish I'd never become friends with that particular group.  I wish I'd just stayed away from them.  I wish I'd just formed a friendly aquaintanceship with them, instead of trying to form an actual friendship.  

I wish I'd stayed away and just prayed.  Then I wouldn't have felt an obligation to deal with it. 

This is part of what the catechism says about unity:

Toward unity 820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:

• a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;280

• conversion of heart as the faithful "try to live holier lives according to the Gospel";281 for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ's gift which causes divisions;

• prayer in common, because "change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;"'282

• fraternal knowledge of each other;283

• ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;284

• dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;285 

• collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.286 "Human service" is the idiomatic phrase.

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize "that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts." That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288

Not many catholics will sympathize with you when you bring issues involving scandal and a lack of unity to light. At best you might find a listening ear, and at worst you'll be shamed, even by your priest, for being "judgmental." Again, Irony flows freely. 

Here's what the bible says about unity with those who are in certain specific mortal sins:

Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

Yikes! 

All I wanted was to know that my priest was counseling those couples in "irregular" marriages. I just wanted to know he was trying to protect me from scandal.  That's all he can do.  It was all I could expect.

I was still willing to eat with them. St. Paul is much stricter than either my priest or my bishop.

It is my personal opinion that it's a cop out for a priest to pretend they don't know the difference between judging of behavior, and the judging of salvation. The latter only God can do. The former God instructs the faithful to do. Priests know this.

And further, the bible actually gives instruction on how to handle discord among congregation members:

Matthew 18:15-17  15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as as a Gentile and as a tax collector.

Yikes again!  

It seems the writer of Matthew is much more harsh toward unrepentant sinners than I ever was.

What to make of all of this?  

1. It seems to me that those people who go their own way should be allowed to.

2. I should not worry about their salvation as long as I remember to pray for them. 

However, the scandal issue is more problematic to me.

I learned in a painful way not to talk about truly scandalous things I saw at mass.  I learned the hard way that if I did talk about them, I'd be shamed.  And nobody likes to be shamed.

So after experiencing that drama, my personal strategy to keep my own faith in tact became: 1. Stop going to that particular church.  2.  At the new church, don’t ask questions, and don't get to know new people beyond just being cordial.  3.  Don't assume that others strive to live their faith fully.   4.  Make a commitment to pray.  Although praying becomes hard when you don't seem to see the fruit.

My goals in prayer have changed as a result of past drama.  I have tried to focus on prayer as a way to change ME and stop expecting it to help the particular person for whom I am praying.  It's just a spiritual exercise for me now.

It brings me back to the "God and Me" idea.  Which is where I started before I ever even thought about becoming Catholic.

Today, I still have unanswered questions about the authority of the church, about the effects of scandal, and how to handle the feeling of being scandalized, and about my own personal relationship with the Lord.

The only real reason I stay Catholic is because of the Eucharist.  Because the catholic church is the ONLY place to receive it.  But it would've been easier to have stayed protestant.  That's the worst result of all this past drama, that I entertain the thought of leaving.

And I am sure there that some readers will judge my behavior, or worse my salvation, for having felt this way during this drama.  But if you are feeling judgemental toward me, consider the Spiritual Works of Mercy and just pray for me.

Spiritual Works of Mercy

1. Admonish the sinner
2. Instruct the ignorant
3. Counsel the doubtful
4. Comfort the sorrowful
5. Bear wrongs patiently
6. Forgive all injuries
7. Pray for the living and the dead