Culture War: September 2006 Archives

Philosopher David Carlin, often a thoughtful critic, writes a provocative piece suggesting that the clergy should stop performing the civil aspects of weddings, for the reason that this makes them complicit in the state's policy of easy divorce.

"...If either of you would like to end your marriage tomorrow, you have a perfect right to do so. If you would like to remain married until death, you can do that too. It's all up to you. Don't feel constrained by the vows you have just taken." [...] The priest, insofar as he is the performer of a civil marriage, will in effect be adding this to his implicit comments: "You have just entered into a union which is between a man and a woman, or between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman. The civil institution of marriage that you have just elected to become participants in has neither permanence nor gender specificity. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the traditional Catholic institution of marriage."

Prof. Carlin contends that the officiant of a civil-law marriage is in effect saying all the above nonsense: but that's a very doubtful proposition. The Catholic minister who conducts a wedding ceremony and performs the related civil functions has every intention to communicate to the spouses (one man, one woman) that their commitment is permanent. If the State fails to maintain that permanence in civil law, that implies no "implicit comments" of agreement by the clergyman. Carlin's argument seems to consist of little else than putting words in someone else's mouth, an unworthy rhetorical tactic.

Ed Peters offers a rebuttal with regard to the canonical implications of Carlin's suggestion.

Obviously Prof. Carlin grieves over the divorce mentality among Catholics and he is acutely aware of the state's contribution to this social disaster. But while looking for ways to bring Church teaching on marriage more directly to bear on state policies in this area, we must avoid destroying one of the few areas wherein the state and the Church cooperate correctly in marriage....

Islamofascism is on the march around the world, which gives Islam itself the appearance of strength and power. (No, I do not equate Islam with the ideology of the Islamofascists, though they share many of the same basic errors and malign tendencies.) But the furor over the Pope quoting a Byzantine emperor's undiplomatic comments about jihad reveals the true state of Islam today.

I agree with Mark Shea on this one: Islam is superficially strong, because many of its adherents carry out horrific violence in its name. With Belloc, I observe that Muslims are largely impervious to conversion -- and today, they are seemingly unwilling to carry out anything like a dialogue. But neither of these things are indications of real strength. If they were truly strong, they would have the self-confidence to shrug off comments that they with which they disagreed, or that were blantantly offensive (and the Pope's remarks were not.)

Instead, as if on cue, Muslims explode into intemperate rage when something offends their delicate sensibilities. But why are they so worred about what non-Muslims say about Islam, when so many of their own brethren say much worse? Islamfascists equate Islam with murder, forced conversion, political oppression, and even genocide, and it's business as usual. Maybe Muslims should spend more time and energy refuting them, if they're looking to preserve the good name of Islam and its "prophet."

But how does one have a dialogue when the other party reserves the right to fly off into a self-righteous rage when they hear something the least bit offensive? I don't doubt that there are Muslims in the world who can discuss their faith rationally, but when I've attempted it, I always get the same reaction, which is more or less, "You have to accept Islam before you understand it." Maybe so, but why would I want to accept something that I don't understand? And how can I understand if you won't appeal to my intellect?

Good luck, Holy Father, in your efforts to promote dialogue with the Islamic world. They don't seem the least bit interested, but God can find avenues that are invisible to the naked eye. The alternative -- decades, if not centuries, of conflict and unrest -- makes it worthwhile.