Toward Opening the Gift of Faith:

A Proposal for a Spiritual-Reflection Program for

Catholic Couples Engaged to Marry

By

Mary Elizabeth Link Lukes

St. Norbert College

De Pere, WI

A thesis project submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

of

Master of Theological Studies

Approved:

_______________________________

Rev. David Casson, Ph.D.

_______________________________

Rev. Michael Demkovich, O.P., Ph.D.

_______________________________

Rev. Kay Huggins, D.Min.

©2008 Mary Elizabeth Link Lukes. All rights reserved.

The author hereby grants to St. Norbert College permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper- and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part.

Table of Contents

I. Précis…………………………………………………………….. 3

II. The Current Situation………………………………………….. 4

III. Current Marriage-Preparation Programs…………………….. 7

IV. Molloy’s Justification of Current Practice…………………….. 12

V. Lawler’ Critique of Current Practice…………………………. 14

VI. Criteria for Meeting the Molloy/Lawler Challenge…………... 19

VII. Theological Framework………………………………………… 21

How the Theology of JPII and Buber Meet the Molloy/

Lawler Challenge……………………………………….. 22

John Paul II’s Theology of the BodyTheology of the Body & Proposed Praxis 25

Martin Buber’s Metaphysics of God & Proposed Praxis 29

VIII. Meeting the Criteria Methodologically…………………………. 32

IX. Pilot Methodology………………….............................................. 38

X. Conclusion………………………………………………………… 42

Appendices

Appendix #1: Pre-Program Questionnaire…………….……… 46

Appendix #2: Post-Program Questionnaire…………………… 47

Bibliography……………………………………………………………… 49

Exhibit in the back pocket of thesis

Called by Love:

A Church-Guided Spiritual-Reflection Program

For Catholic Couples Engaged to Marry

Précis

This thesis was undertaken for three reasons: first, to review current pastoral practices used to impart the Christological dimension of marriage; second, to explore and distill four theologians’ perspectives on love and marriage as they relate to Catholic marriage-preparation; and third, to develop a Christo-centric spiritual-reflection program relevant to typical, college-educated young adults seeking marriage in a Catholic parish. The underlying theological question is: Can a program be developed to help today’s young Catholic couple see divine love as the primary and abiding source of married love?

The theological framework for this thesis builds on Martin Buber’s personalism; Pope John Paul II’s theology of love and the human person; Cathy Molloy’s critique of traditional articulations of Catholic theology of marriage; and Michael Lawler’s contention that Catholic legal and theological notions of marriage are in conflict and that this conflict has a negative impact on Catholic Christian marriage-preparation practices. Interviews with two Catholic deacons responsible for parish marriage-preparatory programs and an assessment of the spiritual component of two programs that are widely used in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe comprise the pastoral ministry review. The spiritual-reflection program, included in the back pocket of this thesis, draws on both of the above to make a Christological connection to marriage, but it employs secular, non-theological language to convey the concepts and an informal question-answer format to prompt and guide the conversations and scriptural meditations.

The assumptions underlyingthat drove this project are were: one, that the idea that Christ’s love for the Church is the source and summit of married love is foreign to most Catholic couples intending marriage; and, two, that Catholic marriage-preparation programs currently being used in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe lack a spiritual- reflection component aimed at engaging young people dialogically and experientially in the transformative and abiding presence of divine love.

The Current Situation

Today, as ever, couples marry for passionate reasons. With few exceptions, the reasons involve physical, intellectual, social, and emotional compatibility. For some, a shared faith tradition is an added bonus. Once marriage is proposed, thoughts typically turn to the ceremony. This, in turn, leads most baptized Catholics to the Church. For many, crossing the threshold of a Church has become an infrequent occurrence, if not one only vicariously experienced as a memory from childhood. The Church delights in the couples’ desire to marry. At the same time, their incidental appearance tells her that she has become largely irrelevant to them. It tells the Church that, for these baptized Catholics, she has become merely a place to get sacraments. Or, to put it more Christologically, it tells her that they have yet to experience the Church as the living sign of Christ among us. It may also indicate that they have yet to grasp fully the abiding and sustaining connection between God and married love that the Christian Church confesses. In short, it indicates that, for these nominal Catholics, love remains an entirely self-defined, personal affair in which God and the Church have but minor roles to play.

Comments made by two ministers responsible for marriage-preparation at two Catholic parishes in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe echo the above observation. When asked whether faith enters into the decision to be married in the Church, one pastoral minister replied, “They just want to get married. Belief in God is not on couples’ minds” (Fraker interview). To the same question another minister replied, “Most think marriage is infatuation, intimate…emotional especially” (Eklund interview).

The observation that love and life is not seen as belonging to or being objectively ordered by God through the Church is further indicated by the fact that both ministers mentioned that over 70% of couples they counsel are living together, despite Church teaching against it. While the number of ministers surveyed for this thesis is too small to draw any definitive conclusion, other independent statistical evidence exists to suggest that the high percentage of cohabiting that these ministers report mirrors results derived from much broader studies. A 1995 survey of the Catholic population alone showed that almost 50% of the couples entering marriage-preparation programs were cohabiting (Champlin, p. 74). This statistic corroborates the pastoral challenge conveyed by the marriage ministers interviewed for this project, namely that a large proportion, if not a majority, of young couples who come to the Church to be married have yet to realize the Church as being relevant to how they live life, let alone as being central to defining, guiding, and strengthening their relationship. The decision to cohabit, coupled with the request for a Church wedding, cast the Church as likely having merely a ceremonial role for many Catholic engaged couples today.

Other comments made by deacons administering the marriage-preparation programs underscore the assumption that at the outset of their marriage-preparation most couples give the Church and faith in God through Christ a secondary, peripheral role in their relationships. When asked what the reason was for seeking premarital counseling from the Church, both deacons interviewed indicated that the reasons were pragmatic. One remarked that couples engage in the preparation program because “It’s required” (Eklund). He added that some come out of “fear of failure, having lived through their parents’ divorce.” These, he remarked, “worry about whether it is possible to remain married.” When asked whether the couples seemed to see God as playing any role, this minister replied, “God is part of the relationship through the closeness they experience.” I neglected to inquire whether the couples perceive this connection themselves or if this is just his perception. A later response made by this deacon to the question of the role of prayer in the program suggests that it is his perception. When asked whether prayer was part of the program, he replied enigmatically, “The prayer is them.” (Eklund). This response gives voice to the Church’s hope that in the course of their marriage-preparation, young couples will come to see their love as a prayer to God. However, when asked if the couples would respond similarly, the deacon said, “Probably not.” Absent this affirmation, it is fair to assume that for some, if not many, of the couples counseled by this deacon, God remains an unknown, unrecognized participant in their relationships.

Pragmatic reasons for seeking marriage-preparation surfaced in my interview with another deacon. In response to the question of why couples participate in Church-guided marriage-preparation, this deacon enumerated several, “to get married in the Church…because they are tired of living together… for some it’s about the desire for sanctity.” Most couples, he concluded, “see the program (marriage-preparation) as a process of jumping through hoops” (Fraker).

A questionnaire administered to three couples who piloted the program resulting from this thesis confirm that prior to their participation in the proposed program these couples had yet to discern a defining link between married love and God. When asked to identify what love is, only one of the six participants identified God to be love. The others identified love as an existential bond between them.

While the sample of ministerial experience surveyed as part of this thesis is admittedly too small to be broadly conclusive, the pastoral and personal perceptions of the role of God in marriage that were gleaned from it provide narrative indications that God remains a distant, if not an entirely superfluous, partner in the understanding of love and marriage held by some, if not many, young Catholics seeking marriage in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe.

One must ask, then, what the Church does to counter the peripheral role of God in current understandings of marriage. This prompts the question of whether Church praxis in marriage-preparation serves to inspire or encourage a more Christo-centric, ecclesial understanding of marriage. Whether marriage-prep programs currently being offered in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe prompt couples to sense God as revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ to be central to their love is the subject of the following section.

Today, as ever, couples marry for passionate reasons. With few exceptions, the reasons involve physical, intellectual, social, and emotional compatibility to the exclusion of a defining spirituality. If spirituality is discerned, it either centers on living a life guided by secular civil virtues independent of any religious affiliation or one led by an inherited religious tradition that the couple follows as part of an adopted social/religious identity. Rarely is personal belief in God as revealed through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit seen as the abiding and sustaining essence of married life and love.

This observation is born out by ministerial experience. When asked whether faith enters into the decision to be married in the Church, one pastoral minister replied, “They just want to get married. Belief in God is not on couples’ minds (Fraker interview).” To the same question another minister replied, “Most think marriage is infatuation, intimate…emotional especially (Eklund interview).” The observation that love and life is not seen as belonging to or being objectively ordered by God through the Church is further indicated by the fact that both ministers mentioned that over 70% of couples they counsel are living together, despite Church teaching to the contrary. 1995 statistics of the Catholic population alone showed that almost 50% of the couples entering marriage preparation programs were cohabiting. (Champlin, p. 74) While this statistic reflects a powerful sense of self-possession on the part of couples today, it hardly speaks of their realizing the Church as relevant to how they live life, let alone as being central to defining, guiding, and strengthening their relationship. The decision to cohabit, coupled with the request for a Church wedding, posit the Church as having a passive, ancillary role at best for the majority of Catholic engaged couples.

Other comments made by deacons administering the marriage-preparation programs underscore the assumption that at the outset of their marriage-preparation most couples give the Church and faith in God through Christ a secondary, peripheral role in their relationships. When asked what the reason was for seeking premarital counseling from the Church, both deacons interviewed indicated that the reasons were pragmatic. One remarked that couples engage in the preparation program because “It’s required (Eklund).” He added that some come out of “fear of failure, having lived through their parents’ divorce.” These, he remarked, “worry about whether it is “possible to remain married.” When asked whether the couples seemed to see God as playing any role, this minister replied, “God is part of the relationship through the closeness they experience.” I neglected to inquire whether the couples perceive this connection themselves or if this is just his perception. A later response made by this deacon to the question of the role of prayer in the program suggests that it is his perception. When asked whether prayer was part of the program, he replied enigmatically, “The prayer is them (Eklund).” If it is them, not their relating to God through the Person of Jesus Christ, then it is likely that God remains an unknown, unrecognized, unconscious participant in the couples’ relationships.

Pragmatic reasons for seeking marriage-preparation surfaced in my interview with another deacon. In response to the question of why couples seek marriage preparation, this deacon enumerated several, “to get married in the Church…because they are tired of living together… for some it’s about the desire for sanctity.” Most couples, he concluded, “see the program (marriage-preparation) as a process of jumping through hoops (Fraker).”

A questionnaire administered to six couples who piloted the program resulting from this thesis confirm that prior to their participation in the proposed program these couples had yet to discern a defining link between married love and God. When asked to identify what love is, only one of the nine participants identified God to be love. The others identified love as an existential bond between them.

Clearly, this review of both pastoral and personal perceptions of the role of God in marriage supports the assumption that God remains a distant, if not an entirely superfluous, partner to the modern understanding of love and marriage. One must ask, then, what the Church does to counter the peripheral role of God in marriage. This prompts the question of whether Church praxis in marriage-preparation serves to inspire or encourage a more theological understanding of marriage. Whether marriage prep programs currently being offered in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe prompt couples to sense God as revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ to be central to their love is the subject of the following section.

Current Marriage-Preparation Programs

The texts of two programs currently in use in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe mirror the distant, rather marginal relation between human and divine love described above. Faith is addressed but mostly, albeit not exclusively, in terms of the role it plays in compatibility. The notion of marriage being a sacrament of God is mentioned but largely as a means to say that a sacramental marriage defines the extent of the couple’s intention, i.e., that they intend “to pledge love under all circumstances” (Markey & Micheletto 59).” In other words, its sacramentality is derived from the indissolubility of their vow, not from an acknowledged faith that their marriage is a sign of God’s Christ’s unwavering love, incarnated for all humankind in the Person of Jesus Christ. The reality of God’s abiding presence made manifest by Christ remains largely a theological concept that is ideologically, but not personally relevant to the lived reality of marriage..

Chapter titles and reflection questions alone reveal an emphasis on this bias toward the psycho/social dimensions of marriage. In one of the programs widely used in the Archdiocese, For Better Forever: A Resource for Couples Preparing for Christian Marriage, the Catholic Edition, the majority of chapters (8 of 12) focus on practical, psycho/social dimensions. Among them are: The Person I Have Become, Family Traditions, Money Matters & Career Planning, and Marital Communication. In the other archdiocesan marriage-prep program, Facilitating Open Couple Communication, Understanding, and Study (FOCCUS), the topics covered illustrate the same emphasis, highlighting, for example: Life Style Expectations, Friends of Interest, Personality Match, Personal Issues, Communication, Problem Solving, Sexuality Issues, and Financial Issues, among other practical concerns.

This is not to say that these programs eschew faith altogether. There are topics in both programs that pertain to matters of Christian faith and religion. In For Better Forever, chapter titles include: Christian Marriage Is a Commitment to Constant Personal Change, Belonging to the Church, Christian Marriage: Essential Elements, Marital Spirituality, Mixed Religion Marriage, and Prayer. A close read of these chapters and others in FOCCUS reveals content that objectifies faith as a medium for achieving interpersonal accord and marital longevity. The interpersonal character of the first chapter mentioned above, Christian Marriage is a Commitment to Constant Personal Change, is obvious from the title. Christian Marriage, Essential Elements covers three characteristics of Christian marriage: indissolubility, openness to children, and partnership with God. All are conceptual prescriptions substantiated with a smattering of proof texts from the New Testament. None engages the couples in a personal journey with the Person of Jesus Christ as revealed in Gospel accounts. The above-mentioned chapter is followed by a series of reflection questions dealing, again, with the psycho/social/emotional dimensions of Christian marriage: “How is this (the permanent pledge) different from our present commitment to each other? Have we read the statement about physical or psychological abuse given previously? How will I know/experience God as a ‘third party’ to our marriage (Ruhnke 99)?” The mere identification of God as a “third party” relegates God as peripheral to marriage, not innatelyinchoately central.

FOCCUS also addresses faith in terms of its interpersonal psycho/social benefit. It prompts discussion on whether religious values are important, whether they are “communication stoppers,” what are the lifestyle implications of these values, how each feels when values aren’t shared, what does each person mean by permanent commitment (Markey & Micheletto 36). Such considerations have merit, but they fall short of prompting an encounter with Christ who is the perfect human expression of the love God desires us to share.

A comment made about FOCCUS by a current mentor couple underscores this observation. The comment came as this couple was leaving Mass to meet with their mentees to go over the FOCCUS inventory. I asked the mentors what they thought of the program. The male replied, “FOCCUS isn’t very Christian.” His wife concurred. When asked to clarify the comment, they indicated that they didn’t mean to infer that the program is anti-Christian, but that “the spiritual encounter with Christ is not part of the program” (Florio).”

These ministerial observations and the above review of the content of the texts suggest that absent an existing discerned faith on the part of the engaged couples, the spiritual dimension of marriage is left to the serendipitous ability of mentors to disclose it. It seems that while both programs engage couples in discussing opinions about religious values or partnering with God, neither draws the couples into experiencing Christ as God’s gift of love and the person in and through whom they live and move and have their being (Acts 17: 28).”

It must be noted, however, that the above conclusion is limited to the texts used in the marriage- preparation ministry offered at two Catholic parishes. This reviewer understands that the ministerial process as a whole entails more than the books or the inventories used. I assume that couple-to-couple mentoring prompts more spiritual insight than the texts of the programs reveal. Nor should this conclusion be taken as a negative indictment of the programs’ explorations into the psycho/social/emotional dimensions of marriage. Communication about practical matters and about respective opinions on God and faith and conversations aimed at developing understandings of each other’s personal histories and expectations are unquestionably worthwhile. After all, Christ came to reveal the incarnational possibility of God’s love for all humankind.

In addition, both of the programs reviewed present couples with other opportunities to engage in the spiritual dimension of love on their own. For example, both require couples to attend a weekend retreat aimed at providing couples opportunities for prayerful reflection. They also offer church-guided wedding planning which includes music and liturgical ministry. These provide couples guidance in selecting scriptural readings for the Mass. The spiritual reflection inherent in this process is obvious.

Nonetheless, judging from comments made by the ministers who facilitate this guidance, the depth of these opportunities for reflection seem limited to the practical exigencies surrounding the wedding. One of the ministers interviewed stated that this guidance comes in the form of a pamphlet that contains readings from which couples can choose. He indicated that while the FOCCUS inventory is facilitated by mentors, rarely is the selection of the readings done in concert with the minister. Once the readings are chosen, the Church rarely takes time to discuss why the couple chose one reading over another (Fraker).

Readings are also given to couples who seek pre-marriage counseling at the other parish program reviewed. The same independent process for selecting readings for the wedding is employed, but, in this parish, the music minister also spends time with the couple discussing the meaning of the chosen readings as they relate to song selection. In addition, this parish provides a guide for engaging in conjugal prayer on a weekly basis. It is entitled, “The Conjugal Spirituality Awareness Review.” When asked if this pamphlet is used during mentoring sessions, the deacon said that it was not. Couples are left to themselves to initiate a habit of prayer. Absent a model for praying with others, it is highly unlikely that marginal Catholics would act upon this suggestion.

What’s more, as beneficial as the “Conjugal Spirituality Awareness Review” may be for some, a close reading of the guide itself reveals that it is only nominally Christological. The pamphlet states: “Our goal is growth in relationship not just growth of the individual.” Granted, it encourages couples to “call to mind Jesus’ promise that “Whenever two or more are gathered, there will I be.” and to “ask the Holy Spirit of Jesus for the following: the light to see clearly…the wisdom to understand the events of the week…the acceptance of my spouse and myself with the understanding that the Holy Spirit is active in both…” But in lieu of engaging the couple in scriptural reflection, it facilitates their reflection on the week’s events. Again, this program outlines a worthy practice, but not one that is integral to the program, nor one that exposes couples to scripture as the revelation of God’s love in the words and actions of Jesus Christ.

The programs, it seems, succeed in presenting God as being ideologically relevant to marriage, but they fall short of helping couples experience God as revealed in Christ through the Church as being vital to the fullness of both their immediate and ultimate happiness as well as to the welfare of the Church and, by extension, to the peace and welfare of the world.

Molloy’s Justification for Current Practice

The cultural trend toward secularization of all things spiritual, no doubt, contributes greatly to the tendency to focus more on the psycho/social dimensions of marriage than on the theological dimensions. Dr. Cathy Molloy, Catholic theologian and author of Marriage: Theology & Reality, corroborates this observation, writing that “the connection between today’s lived marriage and the Christian theology of marriage has become tenuous at best” (Molloy 69).” This raises the question of who or what is responsible for this disconnect. For Molloy, the entirely spiritual idea of the Christ/Church unity proffered by the Church is to blame (Molloy 69). In her estimation, a shortfall exists between Christian ideals and the reality of individual marriages. She writes:,

“In Christian marriage the theology and the living cannot be separated. The shortfall between the ideals presented and the reality of individual marriages is ever present. Questions arise about models, absolutes, hopes and dreams in the face of the existential reality. The experience of wanting to risk all with and for the partner, and at the same time, the awareness of the unreality of this because of many other factors in contemporary life, adds to the difficulty of living the Christian ideal of mutual love without limit.” (Molloy 9)

She contends further that if “the incarnational reality of God within our world, which is central to Christian faith, were stressed to a greater degree, some of the difficulty in this regard might be overcome” (Molloy 69).”

Molloy’s solution for bridging the gap between the theology and the real experience of marriage, however, counters this proviso in the degree of emphasis it places on the human dimension. She maintains that the “Christian ideal of marriage can only continue to survive if the greatest attention is paid to the relationship of the couple as couple, and its centrality to all other aspects of marriage” (Molloy 19).” Thoroughly human-centeredanthrop-centric solutions, such as Molloy’s, encourage the nearly exclusive emphasis on the psycho/social dimensions in marriage- preparation programs.

Nonetheless, Molloy affirms “meaning progresses from divine covenant to human marriage, not the other way around” (Molloy 24).” Belief in and experience of covenant love and fidelity, she writes, creates the belief in and possibility of this kind of love and fidelity in marriage. This, Molloy writes, invites the question of whether the current practice of ignoring or downplaying the role of faith in marriage has led to the difficulty experienced in dealing with marriage and indissolubility (25). Rather than propose more emphasis on discerning faith, however, Molloy simply argues against the indissolubility of Catholic Christian marriage, writing that “it is meaningless to expect people who have no sense of the prior love of God, and perhaps no faith in such a possibility to take on the notion of marriage as indissoluble sacrament, even though they are baptized” (Molloy 25).” Michael Lawler, Catholic theologian and the author of Secular Marriage, Christian Sacrament, contends, on the other hand, that such conflicting messages and disparaging comments with respect to the theology of Catholic Christian marriage play more than a minor role in its having become irrelevant. He maintains that such conflicting messages have created the shortfall between the Christian ideal of marriage and the lived experience. His solution for the current trend toward discounting the relevance of the sacramental theology to marriage is to make faith discernment central to marriage-preparation.

Lawler’s Critique of the Current Practice

For Lawler, the contradiction between Church sacramental theology and Canon laws that pertain to marriages is the reason the Christian notion of marriage fails to resonate with the faithful today, not the idealized nature of the theology. This, in turn, has led to a near exclusive emphasis on the psycho/social dimensions of marriage. He notes that The 1983 Code of Canon Law defines any marriage between two baptized persons to be a sacrament as if consent is all that is necessary, while the Church’s sacramental theology calls for more than consent. Absent some juridical and pastoral guideline for discerning faith prior to marriage, there is little cause for ministers to make faith discernment the focus of their preparation. Lawler also contends that the Church’s canonical emphasis on consent to the exclusion of any mention of a discerned faith has also led to the impression that Christian marriage is no different from any other marriage. “This,” writes Lawler, “might be the reason so many young Christians, insisting truly that they love one another, and not quite so truly that all you need is love, find the religious ritualizing of their already-given mutual consent so trivial and, in the end, irrelevant” (Lawler, Secular Marriage Christian Sacrament 59).”

Contrary to Molloy, Lawler does not contend that the idealized, absolute character of the sacramental teaching on marriage has rendered it irrelevant or problematic. He contends that this perception “derives not so much from a lack of faith on the couples’ parts as from the view of marriage that is offered to them in the legal definitions of the Code, a view that does not allow them to suspect that their personal faith has anything to do with it” (Lawler, SMCS 59).” According to Lawler, and, he points out, to the Church’s long tradition of sacramental theology, faith has everything to do with marriage as sacrament (Lawler, SMCS 59).

This leads to the question of what constitutes faith. Lawler qualifies “the claim that secular marriage is transformed to be prophetic symbol and sacrament by each and every Christian.” “It requires,” he writes, “a major distinction: by those who share the faith of the Church, yes; by those who do not share the faith of the Church, no. No one is graced and justified without faith, not even in sacraments, not even in the sacrament of Christian marriage” (Lawler, SMCS 61).” Without a discerned faith in Christ and the sacramental meaning of marriage, then, marriage loses its sacramental dimension.

For Lawler, this dimension makes marriage more than a human institution. It makes it a religious, prophetic symbol, revealing and proclaiming in the human world the union between God and God’s people. Marriage as sacrament prompts couples to recall that the love of the Bible urges them to more than an interpersonal affection. It calls them to a willed loyalty, service and giving way (Lawler, Marriage & Catholic Church 7). “The key that opens the door to such covenantal and sacramental meanings is not,” writes Lawler, “just the intention of the spouses to marry, their intention to ‘fidelity, indissolubility, and openness to children,’” which current marriage-preparation programs emphasize, “but rather their intention informed by Christian faith to be rooted in, to represent, and to pass their marriage through Christ and his Church. Consent may make marriage a secular institution, but it is only Christian faith, a comprehensive personal “yes” to Christian and salvific realities, that make it a sacrament” (Lawler, SMCS 52).”

Lawler takes issue with those who hold that all that is required for a sacramental marriage is baptism and an intention to indissolubility, fidelity, and openness to children. To this Lawler responds, “Surely not. Surely a valid Christian sacrament, something more than a religious marriage, must have some explicit reference to that more. And surely that more embraces explicit reference to Jesus, who is actively confessed as the Christ, and to that community of people called Church, which is actively confessed as the Body of Christ in the world” (Lawler, SMCS 51).”

Lawler counters the contention that baptism imparts the faith required for marriage to be sacrament by drawing on the distinction between the virtue of faith and the act of faith. The tradition, derived from the Scholastics, he notes, defines virtue as a necessary prerequisite to the corresponding act, not the act itself. This, Lawler points out, means that the act of faith does not ineluctably follow from the virtue (Lawler, SMCS 54). “The Catholic tradition,” he writes, “holds that it is the virtue of faith that is bestowed in baptism. For that virtue to become a personal act of faith, it must be activated freely, explicitly, however minimally” (Lawler, SMCS 54).” He goes on to write “it is that act of faith, however, minimal, and always under the grace of God, that transforms the human being from one who can be a believer into one who is a believer” (Lawler, SMCS 54).”

For Lawler, then, faith is more than the definitive prerequisite for marriage to be a sacrament. It is transformative of marriage. He holds that belief in the sacramental meaning of marriage fosters the mutual giving way that is required of all Christians, even of husbands and wives as they seek holiness together in marriage. “In a marriage between Christians, faith-full Christians, … spouses are required to give way mutually, not because of any inequality between them, not because of any subordination of one to the other, not because of human fear, but only because they seek to live in service of one another as Christ lives in service of the Church” (Lawler, M&CC 6).” When couples undertake marriage as an act of faith, they consent, writes Lawler, “to ponder the mysteries of God and to uncover their implications for life…Sometimes the questions [of life] are easy; sometimes they are difficult. Life demands that sense be made of the questions; marriage demands that the spouses make sense of them together; Christian marriage demands that they make sense of them in the light of their shared Christian faith” (Lawler, M&CC 15-16).” Lawler sees this mutual giving way as reflecting the eschatological dimension of marriage. He writes:

“Marital love, as mutual giving way, as mutual service, as mutual fidelity, as mainspring of indissoluble community, is not a given in a Christian marriage, but a task to be undertaken. It has an essentially eschatological dimension. The experience of having to admit ‘already, but not yet.’ Already mutual love, but not yet steadfast; already mutual service but not yet without desire to control; already one body, but not yet one person; already indissoluble in hope and expectation, but not yet totally adequate representation.” (Lawler, SMCC 20)

The essential role of faith in apprehending and navigating this dimension of Christian marriage is most obvious.

In Lawler’s opinion, the equivocal message that the Church offers with respect not only to the role of faith in marriage, but to what constitutes faith renders couples blind to its transformative power. No doubt this equivocal stance has diminished the role of faith discernment in current marriage-preparation programs offered by the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. Unlike Molloy, however, Lawler does not leave the issue on a disparaging note, as though faith discernment is too nebulous to address. Instead he finds some basis for correcting this trend in Canon 1108, which requires for the validity of a Christian marriage the presence of a priest or deacon. For Lawler, this “is a law requiring more than a legal witness to the couple’s covenant. For the priest or deacon receives their mutual covenant ‘in the name of the church’” (Canon 1108) (Lawler, SMCS 77).”

Herein Lawler finds the juridical rationale for a renewal of current marriage- preparation programs that give only nominal attention to faith discernment. For Lawler, Canon 1108, coupled with the defining role of faith in the Church’s long tradition of sacramental theology, represents a clear mandate for a pastoral discernment of faith prior to marriage in the Catholic Church. By stating that the minister receives the mutual consent “in the name of the Church,” Lawler contends that his witnessing takes on an ecclesial dimension. It indicates that the “more” involved in sacramental marriage relates to Church, and therefore to Christ and to God. Since a sacrament is essentially a Christ-event explicitly acknowledged as such by the Church, the visible sign of Christ to the world, the minister is more than a legal witness. “He is there,” writes Lawler,

“to attest to the faith of this couple as the faith of the Church. He is there to attest to the talent-charism this couple possesses, not only for marriage, but specifically for Christian marriage. He is there to receive the couple’s consent, to live not only in irrevocable love for one another but also in irrevocable representation of the union between Christ and His Church. He is there to commission the couple in the name of the Church to be in their married Christian life the prophetic symbol of this union. He is there, finally, to bless them in the name of the Church (and therefore in the name of Christ and of God), and to promise them the support of the Church in their given and accepted task. The position which views the minister of the sacrament of marriage as exclusively the couple misses these ecclesial dimensions, and risks communicating the message that Christian marriage is just a private matter.” (Lawler, SMCS 78)

The ecclesial dimension of witness derived from Canon 1108 also has implications for marriage-prep programs. As part of the marriage ministry of the Church, the ecclesial dimension extends to them also. This requires that marriage-preparation programs give more than nominal attention to the Christian meaning of marriage. It means that Church-guided faith discernment must become central to Christian marriage. For Lawler, traditional sacramental theology makes this requirement essential. This poses another theological challenge, that of finding a way to merge Molloy’s cultural proviso that human experience be central to the theological understanding of marriage with Lawler’s theological proviso that faith in Christ and in marriage as a Christ-event be central.

Criteria for Meeting the Molloy/Lawler Challenge

The Molloy/Lawler challenge will require, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger put it, finding “a way for Catholic theology to go beyond the casuistry and natural law thinking of neo-Thomism and recover a morality (way of life) rooted in the Person of Jesus Christ. In a word, to develop a Christian existentialism capable of speaking to the modern world” (Johnston, Crisis Magazine 25 May 2005).” In addition, given Molloy’s observation that theological notions of marriage seem unreal to most nominal Christians today, the proposed new way in marriage-preparation must avoid theological prescriptions and refrain from indulging the desire to prop up the Catholic tradition. To be both culturally relevant and sacramental, as Lawler desires, the Christology inherent in the tradition must emerge from the experience of the Person of Jesus Christ encountered with fellow sojourners in Christ vouchsafed by the Church, the faithful sign of God’s unifying love to the world. Or, as Molloy suggests, it must place more emphasis on the incarnational reality of God within our world (Molloy 69).