I certainly am not one to often suggest that the Catholic Church hierarchy return to doing things the old way, that is, as were done prior to 1968. Yet when it comes to gay marriage, I think there is much to learn from the old way.

In the old days, the Catholic Church had a much nuanced system in place to address the differences and distinctions between “church marriages” (An updated terms might well be “sacramental marriage.”) and civil marriages. Multiple circumstances were taken into consideration: Were one or both parties baptized Catholics or baptized non-Catholic Christians? Was the witness to the marriage a Catholic clergyperson or a non-Catholic clergyperson or a civil official? Was either party married previously? Both civil or legal separations and divorces were available to Catholics, who found themselves in seriously problematic marriages. With respect to divorce, there was one caveat; a Catholic did not remain in good standing with the Church, if he/she exercised the right to remarry, which is encompassed in a civil divorce. An additional step was required, that is, a decision by Church authorities that a significant impediment to the marriage was present at its inception, so that a church or sacramental marriage had, in fact, never taken place. Some of the impediments accepted by the Catholic Church were over and above those accepted by the civil authorities.

Would it not be possible to incorporate much of this view into the debate about civilly sanctioned gay marriage? I realize there is one significant difference. This time the discussion is about homosexual couples and not heterosexual couples. Should that make a difference? Morality is morality. Right? I suspect that the Catholic Church hierarchy has decided that it currently has the political power or capital to be a player on national and state legislative stages that it might successfully advocate for its position to be incorporated into civil law. Even if that appraisal is valid, is it prudential to exercise that clout, both in terms of the current state of affairs and in the realization that the social and political milieu never remains quite the same? Will the current actions of the Catholic hierarchy set the stage for a very unwelcome struggle and a disastrous outcome at a future date once all moral capital has been exchanged for political capital and after that capital has been fully spent? The phenomenon of unintended consequences is very real, in addition to blow-back. I am more concerned with the former than the latter. Unintended does not mean unforeseen or unforeseeable. In other words, there is responsibility for unintended consequences. (I was reminded of this once again as I read Joan Chittisher’s May 16^th column in National Catholic Reporter, where she references Gerard Noel’s book, Pius XII: The Hound of Hitler.)

During the old days, I recall no discussion as to how the civil or state system demeaned or detracted from marriage as conceptualized and practiced by the Catholic Church. The differences were recognized and worked around. Each system appeared to respect the other. Church officials appreciated the accommodation by the state that clergypersons were able to witness marriages as representatives of the state. Couples did not have to undergo both church and civil ceremonies. At the same time, I will acknowledge that for divorced Catholics, the lack of consistency between the two systems was problematic and the source of considerable distress for individuals, nuclear families, and extended families. With the subsequent developments in the annulment process following the Second Vatican Council, some of these concerns were addressed. In my estimation, further developments are warranted in terms of the transparency, accessibility, and intellectual honesty inherent in the process. Some 40+ years ago as an undergraduate, I raised a question with respect to Church annulments. I did not receive a satisfactory response at that time; nor have I seen any discussion of the issue during the subsequent four decades. That may be the topic for a subsequent entry.