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).

These criteria specify a program that brings the secular to the sacred. In other words, one that reveals the sacred in the secular, one that counteracts the tendency to divide spirit and body and to compartmentalize God as a being utterly above and apart from the world. They specify a program that will bridge the conceptual gap between secular love and divine love and that will re-enkindle the divine love conveyed to the world in creation, through the Word made flesh.

Keeping in mind, Jesus’ words that “flesh and blood” cannot reveal this, but “the Heavenly Father” (Mt. 16: 17),” this new way must rely confidently on the grace imparted at baptism that makes hearts receptive to being transformed from hearts that can believe to ones that do believe and act according to that belief (Lawler, SMCM 54). This posits a program free of prescriptive, forceful posturing—one that is open to and trusts in God’s abiding presence. Like Jesus, the program must also refrain from dictating faith. It must simply re-present God’s abiding presence and ask, as Jesus did, “Who do you say that I am?”

In sum, to meet the challenge Molloy and Lawler present, the new way must present the experience of Jesus as recorded in scripture; then personally and dialogically engage couples in relating that experience to their lives, while leaving the outcome of their engagement to the grace and power of God found wherever two or more gather faithfully in Christ’s name, that is, wherever the Church resides. Martin Buber’s’s ¹ relational personalism and John Paul II’s Ttheology of the Bbody ² provide the theological framework for such a program. Martin Buber is a noted 20^th century Jewish theologian whose metaphysical personalism influenced both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.¹ Theology of the Body is the title Pope John Paul II gave to his seminal work on the bodily dimension of human personhood, sexuality, marriage, and celibacy. First written while he was archbishop of Krakow, then later revised and delivered as a series of catecheses after he became pope, this work focuses on the mystery of love extending from the Trinity, through Christ’s spousal relationship with the Church, to the concrete bodies of men and women. In 2006, Michael Waldstein translated the initial portions of the theology, which were written in Polish, and the Italian transcripts of the catecheses into one book, entitled Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. ²

The Theological Framework for Meeting the Molloy/Lawler Challenge

Taken together, Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body (TOB) and Martin Buber’s metaphysics of God as relational personalism satisfy both Lawler and Molloy’s criticisms of current Catholic praxis in marriage-preparation. Pope John Paul II’s thoroughly Christological understanding of the human person meets Lawler’s stipulation that faith in The Theological Framework for Meeting the Molloy/Lawler Challenge

Taken together, Pope John Paul’s theology of the body and Martin Buber’s metaphysics of God as relational personalism satisfy both Lawler and Molloy’s criticisms of current Catholic praxis in marriage-preparation. Pope John Paul II’s thoroughly Christological understanding of the human person meets Lawler’s stipulation that faith in Jesus Christ and in marriage as a Christ-event be central to marriage-preparation.

¹ Martin Buber was a prominent 20^th century Jewish theologian whose metaphysical personalism influenced both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Joseph Cardinal

Ratzinger (Pope Benedict), writes in his recent memoir, Milestones, “Buber’s personalism was for me a spiritual experience that left an essential mark, especially since I spontaneously associated such personalism with the thought of Saint Augustine, who in his Confessions had struck me with the power of all his human passion and depth.” (Johnston, George Sim in Crisis Magazine, May, 2005)

² Theology of the body is the title John Paul II gave to his seminal work on the bodily dimension of human personhood, sexuality, marriage, and celibacy. First written while he was archbishop of Krakow, then later revised and delivered as a series of catecheses after he became pope, this work focuses on the mystery of love extending from the Trinity, through Christ’s spousal relationship with the Church, to the concrete bodies of men and women. In 2006, Michael Waldstein translated the initial portions of the theology, which was written in Polish, and the Italian transcripts of the catecheses, into one book, entitled Man and Woman He Created Them. References to the theology of the bodyTheology of the Body are cited in this thesis as they appear in Waldstein’s work with the initials “TOB” followed by the chapter number then the section number.

Jesus Christ and in marriage as a Christ-event be central to marriage-preparation. John Paul’s methodology of mining scripture for relevance to lived experience addresses Molloy’s proviso that human experience also be central. Martin Buber’s metaphysics of God, which reveals God to be manifest in all love-giving relationships, coupled with the relational patterns he employs to define loving relationships, respond to Lawler’s call for a faith-centered understanding of love as well as Molloy’s call to look for the sacramental in the lived spousal relationship. An overview of how each theologian’s thought addresses the Molloy/Lawler challenge follows.

How the Theology of John Paul and Buber Meet the Molloy/Lawler Challenge

Absent the understanding of human nature proffered by Pope John Paul II, changing to a more Christ-centric process would seem unnatural and utterly other worldly. With Pope John Paul’s theology of the bodyTheology of the Body, a Christo-centric marriage-preparation program becomes not only theologically sound. It becomes totally natural. This is possible, because John Paul’s theology places the Incarnation at the center of determining what it means to be human. Human nature for him is not self- or culturally defined, as many psychological and philosophical pundits contend. It is given by God, in and through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Still, for many theologians like Molloy and for many clergy and lay ministers, a thoroughly Christological view of marriage seems an abstraction void of actual human experience. Judging from comments made by ministers who direct marriage-preparatory programs, actual human experience is far from being divine. It is messy, clumsy, and rife with problems. Such messiness, no doubt, informed the psycho/social focus of the programs they employ. John Paul II's Ttheology of Bbody, however, opens the door for envisioning marriage and marriage-preparation in an entirely new light. This new light emanates from John Paul II’s assertion that the relationship between man and woman wasn’t created to be problematic. His theology calls us to trace our current messy, awkward, even disordered experiences of the body and sexuality back to their origin. In doing this, he reveals the extraordinary side of ordinary love (TOB 11).

John Paul’s anthropological exegesis of Genesis reveals that our truest nature resides on the other side of the threshold of our hereditary fallenness. This revelation makes it possible for realists like Molloy to recall humankind’s original innocence before God and each other as the point of origin for understanding human relationships. Unlike most modern understandings of human nature that begin with the disordered, confused condition of common relational experience, John Paul’s theology of the bodyTheology of the Body calls us to look beyond the common understandings of human nature that is clouded by the wounds and scars of sin, past our disordered desires, past the ordinary, to discover God’s original vision for us as male and female. According to John Paul II, “when Christ appeals to the ‘beginning,’” in Matthew 19, “he asks his interlocutors to go in some way beyond the boundary running in Genesis between the state of original innocence and the state of sinfulness that began with the original fall” (TOB 4:1).” In doing so, he at least makes it conceptually possible for us to let go of life

as we know it and return to the original plan God had for us, a plan most dramatically and fully revealed in and through Christ. This, for John Paul, is the very purpose of the Incarnation. Christ came to restore us to the purity of our origin. (West, p. 28) In his September 26, 1979 catechesis on the theology of the bodyredemptive meaning of marriage, John Paul said:said that:

“When Christ, according to Matthew 19, appeals to the ‘beginning,’ he does not point only to the state of original innocence as a lost horizon of human existence in history. To the words that he speaks with his own lips, we have the right to attribute at the same time the whole eloquence of the mystery of redemption. In fact, we witness the moment in which man, male and female, after having broken the original covenant with his Creator, receives the first promise of redemption…and begins to live in the theological perspectives of redemption…He (i.e., historical man) participates not only in the history of human sinfulness, as a hereditary, and at the same time personal and unrepeatable, subject of this history, but he also participates in the history of salvation, here too as its subject and co-creator.” (TOB 4:3)

By failing to acknowledge and live by God’s original plan for us, we tend to normalize the common experiences we have of our bodies in a fallen world. John Paul II’s theology of the bodyTheology of the Body thoroughly affirms the axiom that grace builds on nature. However, in lieu of assuming our nature is defined by our common, fallen experience, as Molloy and most current marriage-preparation programs seem to do, it reveals that semblances of the first man and woman’s experiences of love remain within us (TOB 55: 4). It also shows how humankind can become reacquainted with the extraordinary experience of love that lies dormant in us. The way is through Christ. Few theological perspectives could be more Christological. Hence, John Paul II’s theology of the bodyTheology of the Body constitutes the heart of the theological framework for renewing the program as both Lawler and Molloy advise.

Taken alone, however, Pope John Paul’s theology of the bodyTheology of the Body fails to address the criterion against using theological constructs derived from Molloy’s criticism of current Catholic praxis in marriage-preparation. As experientially focused as John Paul II’s exegesis of scripture is, it employs traditional theological and scriptural language. Marriage is portrayed as the “primordial sacrament,” as a “prophetic symbol,” and the “sacrament of redemption.” Scripture serves as the foundation for reflecting on and re-envisioning our understanding of male-female relationships. In addition, his thoroughly Christological portrayal of God ranks among the most difficult concepts to grasp.

Martin Buber’s metaphysics of God, on the other hand, provides a model for envisioning and talking about the divine/human relationship without employing difficult theological concepts. Buber conveys a God-centered relationalism that is similar to John Paul’s Christ-centered relationalism using common, everyday terms. By employing Buber’s relational understanding of God, a program can be devised to meet Molloy’s call for mining the lived experience of relationships for sacramental significance without undermining Lawler’s criterion for fostering a faith-driven understanding of love. The program developed for this thesis borrows Buber’s relational metaphysics of God and the everyday language it employs to open the thoroughly God-centered personalism that both he and Pope John Paul espouse to the marginal Catholic Christian alienated by theological language. A more detailed discussion of each of these theologians’ premises and how they were employed in the proposed program’s development follows. (A copy of this program, entitled Called by Love, is provided in the back pocket jacket of this thesis.)

Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the BodyTheology of the Body & the Proposed Program, Called by Love

John Paul II’s theology of the bodyTheology of the Body is most foundational to the renewal of marriage- preparation praxis that this thesis proposes. John Paul, like Buber, proffers a relational personalism in and through God. Unlike Buber, who centers his relational personalism on the Eternal You, John Paul II centers it on the Person of Jesus Christ.

Given this, the medium for conveying John Paul II’s brand of divine-human existentialism is scripture. Consequently, John Paul II’s language and method is the language and method of scriptural exegesis. He imparts his view of Christian existentialism by undertaking an anthropological exegesis of the human/divine relationship given in Genesis and in select New Testament passages that refer back to Genesis and redress the relational impediments caused spawned by the Fall. Through this, he reveals the human body as the primary medium for experiencing and sharing divine love. “The fact that theology also includes the body should not astonish or surprise anyone who is conscious of the mystery and reality of the Incarnation,” John Paul writes. “Through the fact that the word of God became flesh, the body entered theology…through the main door. God has revealed his mystery through the Word made flesh—theology of the bodytheology of the body” (TOB 23:4).”

John Paul’s exegesis of scripture shows that the dignity of the human person derives from his/her relationship with God. This becomes most apparent in John Paul’s exegesis of the creation story of Genesis. In fact, according to John Paul, the entire “theological character of the creation story lies in the definition of man based on his relationship with God, which includes at the same time the affirmation of the absolute impossibility of reducing man to the ‘world’” (TOB 2:4).”

John Paul’s Theology of the Body inspired both the method and the content of the ministerial portion of this thesis. The spiritual reflections follow his model of mining scripture for modern relevance to meet the criteria that the proposed program be centered on the Person of Jesus Christ as revealed in scripture. The relationship between Peter and Jesus as revealed in select passages from Matthew, Luke, and John form the scriptural framework for the proposed program. Peter’s journey of faith was chosen because it is prototypical of the universal human, real-world struggle between, as John Paul puts it, “freedoms that are in mutual conflict, that is, “…a conflict between two loves: the love of God to the point of disregarding self, and the love of self to the point of disregarding God” (Letter to Families, 6). to respond to God’s call to love as Christ loves. Peter’s reluctance to take the leap of faith and his recurring doubts and misunderstandings speak to Molloy’s concern that the challenges to living the Christian faith must be addressed for faith to take hold. Jesus’ persistent efforts to clarify, guide, reassure, and beckon Peter to ever-greater understandings of God’s love and what faith requires, and will require, of him, speaks to Lawler’s contentions that the Church as the visible sign of Christ on earth must carry on this mission, which in the case of young engaged couples means taking an active role in their faith discernment prior to marriage. The content of these reflections and several of the theological discussionsdiscourses also echoes John Paul II’s spousal, or nuptial, meaning of the body.

The spousal meaning of the body defines it to be the most intimate and profound sign of God’s love, the love of total, irrevocable self-donation. This understanding of the body reveals it to be the sign of the human capacity, as male and female, to express God’s selfless love by becoming a gift to one another and by means of this reciprocal gift to fulfill the very meaning of our existence (TOB 15:1). According to John Paul II, the human capacity to recognize the beauty and profundity of this gift is symbolically revealed in Genesis when Adam and Eve stood naked before each other and God and felt no shame.

The spousal or nuptial meaning of the body redefines the role the body plays in God’s plan of salvation. The body becomes the primary medium for persons to respond to the gift of God’s love, which in its most radical, defining form is the Person of Jesus. In this way, John Paul underscores both anthropologically and scripturally, the Church’s contention that marriage is the primordial sacrament and a prophetic symbol of God’s love as revealed in creation through the Person of Jesus Christ. He also satisfies Molloy’s concern that previous renderings of sacramental theology emphasize the spiritual at the expense of the physical (Molloy 19). This theological premise not only forms the basis for developing a more Christ- centered marriage-preparation program, it also provides the basis for meeting another criterion of the proposed program, namely, that of bridging the philosophical divide between the body and spirit.

John Paul takes issue with the rationalism that makes “a radical contrast in and between the body and the spirit” (Waldstein, p. xxiv).” ). His theology of the person holds that a human is a person in the unity of body and spirit. He warns, “the human family is being challenged by a new Manichaeism, in which body and spirit are put in radical opposition; the body does not receive life from the spirit, and the spirit does not give life to the body” (John Paul II, Letter to Families 19).” When this happens, he argues, the human “ceases to live as a person:” he/she becomes an object. Or, to use Buberian terms, he/she ceases to be a You and becomes an It. The reflection on Body Language in the ministerial program calls to mind the habit of confusing “the order of existence,” as John Paul calls the hierarchy of being in which God is supreme, with the biological order. It also illustrates the consequence of this habit, which, as John Paul II points out, is for our bodies to lose almost completely the connection with the divine, which is the source of all dignity (Wojtyla 56-57).

All the theological discussionsdiscourses and spiritual reflections of the proposed program evoke the unity of body and spirit as fostered in Peter by Jesus. The program’s discussioncourses on married love as the ultimate gift exchange, on the Trinitarian view of God as loving relationship, and its reflections on Sinking Feelings, The Defining Moment, and The Threefold Proposal all echo, albeit in veiled fashion, John Paul’s assertion that “man becomes an image of God not so much in the moment of solitude as in the moment of communion” (TOB 9:3).” Sinking Feelings and Body Language also reflect John Paul’s assertion that “only to the degree that we know what our bodies ‘say’ theologically do we know who we really are and, therefore, how we are to live” (Waldstein xxix).” The dialoguescourse on the Trinity and on Jesus as God’s ultimate gift of love reflect John Paul’s conclusion that “Love, an uncreated gift, is part of the inner mystery of God and the very nucleus of theology” (Waldstein 91).”

In sum, by employing John Paul II’s theology of the bodyTheology of the Body and person, the proposed program attempts to center marriage-preparation on the Person of Jesus Christ and to reunite, both conceptually and experientially the mind and body with the spirit of Christ.

Martin Buber’s Metaphysics of God & the Proposed Program, Called by Love

Martin Buber’s contention that all human loving has its source in God and reflects something of the love of God for humanity satisfies three of Molloy and Lawler’s criticisms of Catholic pre-marital programs. It addresses Molloy’s assertion that theological abstractions undermine the relevance of marriage as a sacrament and that current theological notions fail to reveal the sacramentality in the lived relationship of spouses. It also upholds Lawler’s contention that faith in God is key to revealing the full potential of human love.

By avoiding theological constructs that tend to objectify and compartmentalize God, Martin Buber makes the Christian notion of God as the abiding source of all life and love more accessible to marginal, uncatechized , more culturally entrenched Catholics. Walter Kaufmann writes in the prologue to his translation of Buber’s I and Thou that for Buber, “God is the Eternal You whom men [humans] address and by whom they in turn feel addressed” (Buber 32).” Accepting God as the Eternal You posits faith as relationally existential, as does the Christian notion of God as the loving relationship among the three divine persons. Buber’s existentialism, however, depends on human participation, which is quite distinct from the Christian notion that God’s very being is loving relationship. Still, Buber succeeds in revealing the divine in human loving. In doing so, he brings the faith perspective of marriage to the fore without using theological terms. He reveals that human loving has its source in God and reflects something of the love of God using common language.

In Buber’s metaphysics a person who believes in the Eternal You believes in the real association of I and You and sees the lines of every I – You relationship intersect in the Eternal You. “He believes,” writes Buber:,

“in destiny and also that it needs him. It does not lead him. It waits for him. He must go forth with his whole being…he must sacrifice his little will, which is unfree and ruled by things and drives, to his great will that moves away from being determined to find destiny…He listens to that which grows, to the way of Being in the world, not in order to be carried along by it but rather in order to actualize it in the manner in which it, needing him, wants to be actualized by him—with human spirit and human deed, with human life and human death; this implies [that]: he encounters.” (Buber 109)

The ministerial program resulting from this thesis borrows Buber’s notion of listening and seeking to help couples actualize sacrificing their little wills to God’s will.

Buber not only employs everyday, secular language to express his understandingapprehensions of God’s presence, he uses it to reveal the various relational patterns people assume that either enhance or impede this apprehension. The language basically consists of six pronouns and five relational patterns: I-I, I-It, I-You, We-We, Us-Them. The ministerial portion of this thesis employs Buber’s language and the five relational patterns to avoid alienating couples and to prompt them to evaluate their personal relationships with God. The former attribute redresses Malloy’s advice against over-theologizing; the latter, Lawler’s point that faith in God and in love as a sign of God is essential to the sacramental meaning of marriage. Buber’s language is also the inspiration behind the program’s more secular terminology such as confidence, Eternal You, call, defining moment, and sign in lieu of their theological equivalents: faith, God, vocation, confession, and sacrament.

Buber’s secularized, yet God-centered, notion of the community of believers gives voice to the ecclesial dimension of marriage which Lawler finds lacking in current pre-marriage programs. “True community,” writes Buber:

“does not come into being because people have feelings for each other (though that is required, too), but rather on two accounts: all of them have to stand in a living, reciprocal relationship to a single living center, and they have to stand in a living, reciprocal relationship to one another. The second (i.e., the personal relationship with each other) even has its source in the first but is not immediately given with it…A community is built upon a living, reciprocal relationship, but the builder is the living, active center. In short, there is “You (the Eternal Other)” and “I” and the community of people who, along with “I”[the individual], stand in living, reciprocal relationship to a single living center and in living, reciprocal relationship with one another.” (Buber 94)

This notion of the community of believers forms the subtext for the reflections on The Catch, The Threefold Proposal and You and the Church given in the ministerial program that was developed as part of this thesis.

Meeting the Criteria Methodologically

The previous review of the theological bases for the proposed program shows the connections between the program’s content and the theology of the two theologians highlighted. It also reveals how the theological framework addresses the criteria derived from both Molloy’s and Lawler’s critiques of current practice in marriage-preparation and from this author’s review of programs currently in use in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. What remains to be shown is whether the method employed by the program also meets the six criteria set for the new program. First, a review of the criteria is in order.

As stated in the previous section on The Criteria for the Proposed Program, the critiques of existing marriage-preparation praxis yielded six criteria for the proposed pre-marriage program. They can be characterized as:They are:

Criteria #1: The program must be Christological; that is, it must be centered on the Person of Jesus Christ.

Criteria #2: It must be ecclesial; that is, the experience of the Person of Jesus Christ must be encountered with fellow sojourners in Christ vouchsafed by the Church.

Criteria #3: The program must avoid using theological jargon language that tends to alienate and divide.

Criteria #4: The program must seek to bridge the conceptual divide between secular love and divine love, between body and spirit.

Criteria #5: The program must seek to re-enkindle the sense of divine love as revealed to the world through creation and through the Word made flesh.

Criteria #6: The program must prompt faith, not prescribe it.

The proposed program’s five scriptural reflections on Peter’s ever-deepening journey in faith and its discussionsdiscourses on the Trinity and on Jesus as the ultimate gift of love meet the criterion of centering the program on the Person of Jesus Christ. The proviso that a minimum of six sessions be undertaken with the couple’s pastor or mentor couple meets the second criterion for ecclesial direction. In addition, content that might ordinarily be imparted verbally by a minister on behalf of the Church is written into sections of the program that couples may undertake on their own.

With respect to the third criterion, the program is indubitably theologically based, but the theological concepts are presented in the vernacular. If theological terms are used, secular equivalents are introduced and articulated in a manner that discloses the extraordinary spiritual, i.e., sacramental, meaning made possible when life experience is viewed through Christthe lens of faith. As mentioned earlier in the section on Buber and the Metaphysics of God and the Program, the program employs secular synonyms for God, faith, confession, vocation, and sacrament. The titles of the various discourses, You and Love, You and the Gift, and Opening the Gift, evoke secular notions but the content reveals the theological meaning underlying these concepts. The scriptural reflections also bear secular, contemporary titles such as: The Catch, Sinking Feelings, Body Language, Defining Moments, and The Threefold Proposal.

Content development reflects the criterion of beginning with the secular. Each issue of faith begins with a secular, colloquial sense of the topic, then employs theological understandings couched in everyday language to reveal the divine meaning hidden within lived experience. For example, the theological discussion on love does not begin by stating the Church’s teaching on love. It begins with the question: What is love to you? Only after discussing common understandings of love does the program entertain the notion of God as love. The spiritual reflections unfold similarly. They begin with Peter’s experience of Jesus, then they attempt to show the similarity of that experience with common, everyday experiences of today, and typically end by asking the couples to consider whether their experience of loving relationship parallels that of Peter’s. One example of the proposed program’s practice of making the connection between Peter’s encounter with the divine and the couples’ is found in The Catch. After reflecting on Peter’s encounter with Jesus at Gennesaret when Jesus first calls Peter, the program asks:

“Does any of this sound familiar? Does being skeptical to the point of refusing to be open to looking for signs of the divine in your midst sound familiar to you? Does being consumed by work to the extent of compartmentalizing God, making the divine seem superfluous to it, sound familiar? Does being consumed by worries or responsibilities, as Simon seemed to be, render you oblivious to blessings already received or too busy to take the time to express your gratitude?”

This reflection on The Catch ends with the following observation: “Where does this example of Jesus seeking Simon lead us? It leads to the conclusion that love that is modeled after divine love doesn’t dwell on faults or fail to oblige when the going gets tough. It tirelessly and masterfully seeks to forgive, accompany, guide, replenish, invite others, reassure, and inspire commitment.” Then the couples are asked: “Has your love affected you in the same way? If so, tell each other how it has: Forgiven you? Accompanied you? Guided you? Replenished you? Invited others to share in its joy? Reassured you? Inspired your commitment?” Prompts like these run throughout the five spiritual reflections undertaken in the program.

The question-answer format of the discussionscourses on love, God, and relationships also draws parallels between the theological and secular and attempt to bridge the conceptual gap between divine love and human love, between body and spirit. As mentioned earlier, the program begins with a discussion of what love is to the couple. It asks whether love is a feeling, an existential bond, or a bond that reflects God. All answers are discussed. The first two answers prompt the couples to consider the third answer, which brings them to a discourse on God as Love. This discourse leads them to explore what kind of relationship the various notions of God prompt. This is done by applying Buber’s relational patterns: I-I, I-It, I-You, We-We, and Us-Them. Then couples are asked whether their experience of courting one another is analogous to God’s courting.

Guided by the criterion to begin with the secular, the program first draws couples into a conversation about how their relationship evolved by asking them to compare their actual experience to a common pattern of courting. The pattern given goes as follows:

“Acquaintance is made; mutual attraction is sensed; fear of worthiness or doubt that the attraction is reciprocal is overcome; the courtship begins; confidence and comfort builds—experiences shared, thoughts disclosed; disappointments arise and are either forgiven or dismissed; friends and family witness your confidence and convey their support; you get the sense that you could never tire of being with this person and that the feeling is mutual; the proposal is made; acceptance is granted.”

With this, the program asks, “How does this progression compare with the events leading up to your own proposal? Were any steps skipped? Were others added?” Then it moves from their personal experience to the experience of God’s courting us by asking couples to consider whether they have experienced God courting. It asks:

“When, if ever, have you made God’s acquaintance? When, if ever, did you sense being attracted to God? When, if ever, did you fear being unworthy of God’s love? How, if ever, did you overcome this fear? Have you ever spent time in God’s company? How did you sense being there? Can you recall insights that led you to gain confidence in God? Has your family shared their confidence in God with you? Have you shared yours with family and friends? How did it go? Have you ever had the sense that your life depends on God, that God is leading you? Have you heard God proposing, inspiring, you in any way? How has the proposal come? Do you see your love relationship with your fiancé(e) as a sign of God? If so, in what way?”

In short, the criterion to bridge the gap between the secular and divine informs both the content and the dialogical structure of the proposed program.

Next, the fifth criterion, namely, to re-enkindle a sense of divine love through creation and through the Word made flesh. This is perhaps synonymous with criteria one, but it gives voice to the idea that the program should not presume to be the source for prompting divine love; rather that grace, the presence of God, is the source. To re-enkindle involves using what already resides within a person’s heart. The program acknowledges this fact and gives deference to the sense of God’s presence participants already possess. For example, all the discourses defer to the person’s own thoughts and experiences before addressing the possible metaphysical significances of various understandings. At several junctures, the program acknowledges the difficulty or tenuousness of the divine proposition. One case in point follows the program’s proposition that God courts us. The conversation reads:

“Perhaps you are quite certain that you have yet to make God’s acquaintance. Or, if you think you have, you may still wonder whether your recollection of the experience isn’t just some figment of your imagination. If either is the case, know that you are not alone. Scores of people over the course of human history have shared, and continue to share, your concern. They ask the same questions. Questions like: Does God really care; and if he does, how can I be certain? In other words, does God really seek to establish an intimate relationship with anyone?”

Both the question-answer format and the secular language address the last criterion that calls for prompting versus prescribing faith. Nowhere are the participants told that they must see, note, or conclude that anything presented is true. The program continually acknowledges the validity of the participants’ sense of things. For example, in the first discourse You and Love, the participants are told: “Thoughtful couples answer this question in many different ways. Here are a few for you to choose from. All have merit, so regardless the choice you make, you need not worry about being wrong.” After the discourse on the Trinity, the couples are asked: “Does this idea of the Trinity as “love in action” make sense to you? Why or why not? What was the basis for conceiving God as a Trinity of persons? Confirm your sense of this with your mentors. What do you think of this concept of God as a Trinity of persons?” After reading the passage on Body Language, couples aren’t told that the Church’s teaching speaks to both the biological and spiritual aspects of the human person, or that they must abide by the teaching against contraception. Instead they are asked to examine whether the Church’s teaching reflects Jesus Christ’s teaching, and whether it brings people closer to God or distances them from God. The program asks:

““Some say that the Church reduces sexual intimacy to biology. They also say that the Church by advising marriage before living together and natural family planning over artificial contraception reduces men and women to their biology. What is your opinion of these assertions? Does Church teaching make sex biological, or does it make sex both biological and spiritual? Does living together before a commitment speak of clarity of heart or an uncertainty of heart? Is contraception biological and spiritual, or just biological? Is placing sexuality in God’s hands and using his natural method of controlling pregnancy more likely to bring hearts closer or farther from God?””

The program’s reflection on the Body Language passage from scripture reveals that this teaching is essentially Christo-centric. It points out that: “Jesus also implies that man, and not the body, is the author of this language when he insists, ‘It is not what enters one's mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one.’” Then it puts Jesus’ teaching in current terms saying that, “In other words, the meaning of our actions comes from the heart of a person.”

Finally, the program acknowledges the difficulty involved in seeing the body as Jesus and the Church sees the body, admitting that: “Unfortunately, we, like many before us, tend to lose sight of this aspect of our bodies. And, just as the disciples grew complacent about Jesus manifesting the divine through miraculous cures of the body, we are often insensitive to the fact that the body is the prime, most miraculous medium given us by God to bring his love to others.” Content that acknowledges the difficulties and doubts encountered in faith runs throughout the program. The overriding aim is to engage these doubts dialogically, not prescriptively. How successfully the pilot of the proposed program met this and the five other criteria is the subject of the conclusion of this thesis, which follows the next section on pilot methodology next section.

Pilot Methodologyology and Critique

Three couples were askedvolunteered to pilot the spiritual reflection program. All six persons were between the ages of 25 and 30. Three criteria informed couple selection: one, that they all be baptized Catholic, two, that they either be engaged or contemplating engagement, and, three, that they be college-educated. Two couples are members of Prince of Peace Catholic Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Neither of the persons in tThe other couple is not engaged, but contemplating engagement. Neither person practices his or her faith in community, although both persons were baptized Catholic as infants. Only one of the two, the male, was raised in the Catholic Church.

Due to time constraints and existing marriage-preparation requirements, it was infeasible for the couples from Prince of Peace to engage in the program with a mentor couple or pastor. The non-church affiliated couple moved out of state prior to the program’s completion, which prevented my mentoring the program on behalf of the Church. Absent Church guidance, a complete assessment of this program’s merit remains to be seen. Had arrangements been made with Prince of Peace to use this program in lieu of their existing program in advance, assessment of its merit would be more certain. In hindsight, all three couples expressed that they wish they had been able to undertake the program with mentors. Two commented that they believe they would have gotten a fuller sense of the program’s merit. This suggests that the ecclesial dimension of discerning love and faith in God is as valuable as Michael Lawler contends. It also indicates the importance of the program criterion for ecclesial guidance, which the existing practice in marriage-preparation also affirms..

In addition to the three couples, two pastoral ministers reviewed the program’s content. Their assessments were comprised of reading the content with an eye for whether it offers a unique spiritual, faith-building perspective and whether it could be managed in the existing ministerial context. Both responded favorably to the overall content, but advised that a “lighter”, more hip version be developed, as few engaged couples have the patience or literary background to benefit from several of the spiritual reflections. They both thought the metaphysical discussions of love and God would likely challenge most couples to the point of frustration. I inquired whether they thought this would be the case if the couples were mentored. Both ministers concurred that mentoring would extend the program’s relevance to more, perhaps “65%,” of the couples they currently mentor. Nevertheless, this critique led to a significant revision of You and Love and Body Language.

The process included both formal and informal evaluations. Pre- and post-program questionnaires completed by the couples comprise the formal assessment. Information gleaned from these provided some insight into the program’s merit. A comparison between answers given prior to the program and those given after its completion reveals notable changes in all three two couples’ understandings of love and of God. (See pre- & post questionnaires 2AB & 3AB, Appendices 2 & 3.) Judging from the other couple’s responses, little change occurred. They seem to have already developed a close personal relationship with God and foresaw the Church playing a significant role in their marriage prior to engaging in the program. (See pre- & post-questionnaires 1AB, Appendix #1.) However, the male partner stated that he “wished they could have done this program in lieu of the FOCCUS inventory. (1B)”

Changes for the other two couples were minor with respect to their understanding of and perceived relationship with God and the role the Church will play in their marriage. (See pre and post-questionnaires 2AB and 3AB, Appendices 2 & 3.) One of these (2B) showed a slight movement in his perception of the Church as being both “a social organization” and “a community of people who seek to honor and obey God” from simply being “a social organization.” This participant also indicated some movement in the relationship he has with God, writing before the program that he both “did and didn’t” have a relationship with God, but “not the Christian God.” After the program, he wrote that he still did/didn’t have a Christian relationship with God, but that he “can understand (i.e., the Christian faith), but not yet make the leap of faith.” This person also credited the program with clarifying “what love was,” “what the Holy Trinity and Holy Spirit were,” and “the parallel of love in marriage to the gift of God’s love.” He further stated that the reflections on the Gospel passages helped him “realize what marriage actually was for the Church—manifestation/augmentation of love/belief for/in Jesus” and the discourse on You and the Wedding clarified “why it is important that a wedding take place in the physical Church, not just anywhere (2B).” That said, the program did not change his opinion about the importance of having a Church wedding to him personally.

Both respondents 2A and 2B, see Jesus as charismatic leader like Buddha or Gandhi; one of the two (2B) sees him also as an historical figure whom some believe is the Son of God. 2B’s equivocating responses on this issue and on the definition of Church indicate that the questionnaire responses were too similar to prompt discriminating results. The participant (2A) who was not raised in the Church showed the least movement. She writes, “I can’t connect with what happens in Church. It has never moved me.” She also felt the program was “not very personal or relevant for non-Christians.” Her point, however, affirms Michael Lawler’s contention that baptism alone does not make a believing Christian, and that some discernment of faith must take place for a marriage to be a sacrament of the Church. A slight change in her thinking is reflected in the fact that after the program, she responded that love was not just an existential bond, but that it is also a feeling as well as a glimpse of God.

Like couple 1AB, couple 3AB entered the program acknowledging a strong belief in God and in the Church. Nonetheless, both persons felt the conversations prompted by the program were beneficial, “very much so,” writes one. Each had difficulty identifying which of Buber’s relationship types described their relationships, writing that “the I-___ relationships were hard to define ourselves into a category; we had parts of all of them.” This indicates that they missed the point given in the program that few people ever maintain the same pattern at all times and that patterns change as we mature. This gives another indication of the importance of undertaking the program with mentors.

With respect to the scripture passages, one person (3B) noted that they were “very meaningful”; the other (3A), that she “loved the reflections…they made it very real.” Both 3A and 3B commented, however, that they would have benefited from having a mentor couple or pastor lead them in the program and that some of the language was difficult for them to understand. Respondent 3A also added that she would have liked to have a reflection. Thesehighlighting the “couple’s are highlighted in the conclusion of this thesis. relationship as one a bit more to emphasize the union the two are committing to.”

Informal feedback via personal conversations with the participants was both encouraging and critical. One couple (participant 1B) commented that the “program was a joy to read and that it prompted great conversations.” Another participant, one of the non-church affiliated persons, (respondent 2B) reported that the program was “very informative” and the questions were “thought-provoking.”

As for critical feedback, two persons (1B, 2B) wondered why the program included a discourse on God. They questioned why this was necessary since persons using the program would likely already believe in God. Even so, they both commented that they enjoyed learning more about the various notions of God. One commented that he was amazed by the fact that Muslims object to calling God “Father,” saying “Being called Father is hardly insulting.” I explained that Muslims, no doubt, object to calling God “Father,” because they see the title as anthropomorphic. To this, I added that Christians call God Father because Jesus told us to do so. He replied that he understood this, then added, “learning these things” made him “more certain of his faith in Christianity.” The non-church affiliated participants wondered why there was a need to define the Church. “If a couple comes to the Church to request a Church wedding, don’t you think they would understand the importance of Church?” These criticisms led to my adding the topic Engaging in Conversation, which explains why taking Church tradition to heart and making it one’s own is important.

The couples were advised to pace themselves through the program: to stop and reflect as the program instructs. One couple (1AB) (1AB) said they read through the program in one sitting, commenting here and there about insights that struck them. They then took time to go back to read and discuss topics that had struck them previously. Their overall assessment was positive, but more from the standpoint of the program being informative, not particularly spiritually transformative. However, one of the two (1B) commented that the program enabled him to come to understand his fiancée’s trust in God better, writing that “My understanding of the depth of her faith has grown considerably. It affects every aspect of her life, and I see that I am wrong to have compartmentalized her spirituality from other facets of her personality.” To the post-program question about love, he responded that he would say that his understanding of love “has moved closer to God.” As for the effectiveness of the program’s scriptural reflections, this participant commented, “Yes. It (the scriptural reflection portion of the program) also gave a very authoritative tone to the program. The proof of God’s perfect love is in the pages.”

Another couple (2AB) reported that they each read the program alone first and then went back to discuss some of the topics. After I encouraged them to take their time to discuss the program together, they went back to do so. The male partner of this couple commented that the discussions drew them closer together and brought them to discover things about each other and God that they would not have otherwise discussed.

The third couple (3AB) did pace themselves through the program. They commented that the program prompted important, “heavy” conversations that are generally hard to address and that they liked the topics and the format style.

In addition to the error of permitting the couples to undertake the program alone and the difficulty of the language and/or concepts, three other weaknesses of the program come to mind. One is that the format does not include either the time or the guidance for prayer during the sessions. Space-limits precluded this being offered. Second, the ten-hour length of the program discourages its being used alongside the existing marriage-preparation programs. This fact seriously compromises the program’s viability. If it is to become a viable resource, one of three things will have to occur. Either the program will have to be condensed to fit into the existing programs, or parishes will have to extend the time allotted for marriage-preparation, or they will have to become convinced that this program better prepares couples for the sacrament of marriage than the existing programs. Given the Church’s sacramental understanding of marriage, I believe it does. The third problem is that the program was not administered alongside FOCCUS or For Better Forever. Until this is done, the program’s comparative benefit remains unproven.

Conclusion

The above shortcomings noted, the question of whether the program addressed the opening challenge of this thesis remains unansweredmust. In other words, did the pilot program demonstrate that it is possible to help young Catholic couples see divine love as the primary and abiding source of married love? To establish that the program has the potential to meet this challenge requires proof that those who participated in its pilot came to a clearer, more unified understandingapprehension of the relationship between and among the love they share and hope to sustain and their relationship with God, Christ, and the Church. Few comprehensionapprehensions could be more multi-faceted. As Pope John Paul demonstrates, married life as God planned it and renewed it in Christ is as much a physical as a spiritual reality. For both the spiritual and physical realities of marriage to be realized as God and the Church desire, they must be articulated in yet four other dimensions of life. These Michael Lawler and, to a certain extent, Martin Buber illustrate. Lawler emphatically shows that the love of God manifest in Christ and in marriage as sacrament is more than a private matter. It is also an ecclesial reality. He also illustrates that the love of God and marriage extends beyond the here and now. It is a lasting, eschatological covenant.

As multi-dimensional as this renewed, more holistic understanding of Christian marriage is, however, it remains essentially a relational challenge. As such, it stands to reason that marks of success in this challenge must also be relational. This means that if the program led participants to make clearer, more unified relationship between and among love, God, Christ, the Church, and faith, it succeeded in meeting the overriding goal of this thesis. A review of participant responses to pre- and post-program questionnaires with an eye for evidence of these relationships being strengthened yielded the following results:

With respect to the connection between married love and God, participant responses indicate that the program succeeded in making this relationship clearer. Five of six participants identified love as an existential bond prior to the program. Three of the five identified God as love after the program. One other participant indicated that his idea of love “had moved closer to God.” Another wrote, “The comparison (btw. God’s love and ours) in this section was much like our relationship…I definitely see my love relationship with my fiancé as a sign of God.”

Responses also suggest that the program fostered a greater appreciation of the connection between Christ’s relationship with us and God’s love for us. All six participants responded that the reflections on Peter and Jesus’ relationship increased their understanding of God’s love. One participant wrote, “The proof of God’s perfect love is in these pages (i.e., the scriptural reflections).” Another, that the Gospel reflections made God’s love “very real.” A third person commented that the “scripture choices were very meaningful to their relationship.”

Concerning the connection between marriage and Christ, four of the six participants indicated a greater understanding of marriage as a sign of Christ. Three were aware of marriage as a sign of Christ prior to the program, but all three indicated that the program strengthened their understanding. In responding to the spiritual reflection on Tthe Catch, one participant indicated, “Now that we have experienced love, we can draw a much deeper connection to this passage;” another, that “it helped me to respect the Church wedding more;” and a third wrote that it helped him see marriage as “a manifestation/augmentation of the love/belief for/in Jesus.”

It also appears that the program fostered a greater appreciation of the relationship between Church and married life. Four of six respondents foresaw the Church playing a role in their married life prior to the program. Three of these four indicated a fuller appreciation of this role after the program. After the program, one person wrote, “I have thought more about our participation in the Church community after the wedding. It just reinforces the ideas that the Church is the people of God. It’s a place for us to come together and help each other spiritually.” Another respondent showed a significant change in his appreciation of the Church, writing prior to the program that Church was a “weekly obligation.” After the program, he wrote, that it would be a “way for both of us to live our life by.” A third respondent also indicated that prior to the program, she foresaw the Church guiding them through life together. After the program, she specified that this guidance would be centered on Christ, writing that the Church would “help them develop their marriage around Christ.”

While all of the above connections are signs of greater understanding and appreciation of faith and the role it plays in marriage, they don’t establish that the participants acknowledge them as such. Four of the six participants, however, speak of the program having enhanced their faith. One wrote that it “treated many aspects of the faith with realistic, modern perspectives, without compromising the meaning of a Catholic wedding and more importantly, a Catholic marriage. Many viewpoints I have held on my journey in faith were covered, and I could appreciate them as stepping-stones on the path towards God. This program adds a component to marriage-preparation beyond the raw mechanics of cohabitation and coexistence.” Another participant indicated that the program revealed where she and her fiancée “had been and where they hope to be in faith.” One of the participants, who has yet to make the leap of faith, wrote that the program made him “more interested in the Bible.” He also indicated that he understands the Christian notion of the Trinity and of married love as being parallel to God’s love more clearly now.

If the connections reviewed above are deemed to be valid measures of program effectiveness and if the corresponding participant responses are judged sufficient evidence that the program made these connections, then it is reasonable to conclude that the program has merit. That said, six participants comprise too small of a sample to render a definitive verdict. Nor do the above connections discount the practical impediments that limited time and personnel present to Church-wide implementationn mentioned earlier. One thing is certain, however. Called by Love represents a promising preliminary answer to the challenge defined by this thesis, namely the Molloy/Lawler challenge for a culturally relevant, Christo-centric renewal of Catholic marriage-preparation praxis.

Appendices

Appendix #1: Pre-Program Questionnaire

The following survey was administered to the couples prior to their undertaking the program. Excerpts from responses to these questions were used to support conclusions drawn in the thesis.

1. What is love to you? (Circle one) a feeling, an existential bond, God

2. Who do you think God is: (Circle one)

a construct of the human imagination

the Creator

the infinite being

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

a group of supernatural beings manifest in nature

a notion not provable, therefore not worth considering

3. Would you say that you have a relationship with God? Yes or No

If so, which word best describes your relationship with God: personal, intellectual, socially driven, emotional, loving, fearful

4. Does this relationship impact your life in any significant way? Yes or No

If so, how does it impact your life?

5. Who do you say Jesus is?

A prophet of God

a charismatic leader like Buddha or Gandhi

an historical figure whom some believe is the son of God

the son of the living God

a legendary figure

6. How did you come to this conviction about Jesus?

7. Do you ever doubt this conviction? Yes No

8. How would you define the Church? (Circle one)

a social organization

a sacred place where sacraments are received

a community of people who seek to honor and obey God

a human institution created by God to give spiritual guidance

9. Has the Church played a meaningful role in your life up to now? Yes or No

Explain.

10. Is it personally important to you to have a Church wedding? Yes or No

11. Do you foresee the Church playing a role in your married life? Yes or No

If so, what role do you foresee it playing in your married life? If not, why do you think it won’t?

Appendix #2: Post-Program Questionnaire

The following survey was given participants after they completed the program.

Post-Program Questionnaire: Name________________________________________

What is love to you? (Circle one) a feeling, an existential bond, God

Who do you think God is: (Circle one)

a construct of the human imagination

the Creator

the infinite being

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

a group of supernatural beings manifest in nature

a notion not provable, therefore not worth considering

Would you say that you have a relationship with God? Yes or No

If so, which word best describes the relationship you would like to have with God: personal, intellectual, socially driven, emotional, loving, fearful, abiding

Does this relationship impact your life in any significant way? Yes or No

If so, how does it impact your life?

Who do you say Jesus is?

A prophet of God

a charismatic leader like Buddha or Gandhi

an historical figure whom some believe is the son of God

the son of the living God

a legendary figure

How did you come to this conviction about Jesus?

Do you ever doubt this conviction? Yes No

How would you define the Church? (Circle one)

a social organization

a sacred place where sacraments are received

a community of people who seek to honor and obey God

a human institution created by God to give spiritual guidance

Has the Church played a meaningful role in your life up to now? Yes or No

Is it personally important to you to have a Church wedding? Yes or No

Do you foresee the Church playing a role in your married life? Yes or No

Appendix #2, page 2

If so, what role do you foresee it playing in your married life?

Did you find the conversations prompted by the program worthwhile?

If so, check which topics were worthwhile for you and briefly state why?

You and Love

You and God

You and the Gift

Opening the Gift

The Catch

Sinking Feelings

Body Language

The Defining Moment

The Threefold Proposal

You and the Church

You and the Wedding

Did you learn anything new about your fiancé(e)? If so, did learning this bring you closer together or did it distance you?

If it distanced you, do you think it will be possible to close the distance? If so, do you foresee your mentor couple or pastor helping you close the distance?

Did the reflections on scripture give you new insight into what it means to be Christian?

Did the discourse on the meaning of Church change your outlook on having a wedding and/or your participating in a Church community after your wedding? If so, what did it add to your understanding of Church, your wedding, and belonging to a faith community?

Did you find any of the reflections or topic discussions confusing or troubling? If so, which ones and why?

Did the program bring other questions about love and faith to mind? If so, what were these questions?

Would you recommend this program to other engaged couples? Why or why not?

Works Cited

Baker, J. Robert, Gibley; Gibley, Joni Reiff; Charles, Kevin, Eds. A Marriage Sourcebook. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1994.

Buber, Martin. I and Thou. Trans. by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Simon, 1970.

Camille, Alice L. and Schorn, Joel: A Faith Interrupted: An Honest Conversation with Alienated Catholics. Chicago: Loyola Press, 1994.

Champlin, Joseph M. Together for Life. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1970.

---. Should We Marry? Notre Dame, Indiana: Ave Maria Press, 2001.

Coombs, Marie Theresa and Nemeck, Francis Kelly. Discerning Vocations to Marriage, Celibacy and Singlehood. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1994.

Eklund, Bruce. Interview, 17 Nov. 2007.

Elliott, F. Robertson. The Family: Change or Continuity? London: Macmillan Education, 1986.

Elliot, P. What God Has Joined: The Sacramentality of Marriage. New York: Alba House, 1990.

Fiorenza, E. Schussler. In Memory of Her. New York: Crossroad, 1984.

Fleming, Austin. Prayer-Book for Engaged Couples. Chicago: Liturgy Training Press, 1990.

Florio, John and Betsy. Interview, 17 Feb. 2008.

Fraker, Stephen. Interview, 24 Jan. 2008.

Gaillardetz, Richard R. A Daring Promise. New York: Crossroad, 2002.

Garascia, Anthony. Before “I Do”: Preparing for the Sacrament of Marriage. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1999.

Hanson, R. Allegory and Event. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1959.

Hogan, Richard M. and LeVoir, John M. Covenant of Love: Pope John Paul II on Sexuality, Marriage, and Family in the Modern World. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.

Johnston, George Sim. “Looking Forward: The Promise of Pope Benedict XVI.” Crisis Magazine. 25 May 2005 <http//crisismagazine/May2005/Johnstonhtml>.

Kaas, Amy A. & Leon R. Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar: Readings on Courting and Marriage. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000.

Kasper, W. Theology of Christian Marriage. London: Burns and Oates, 1980.

Lawler, Michael G. Secular Marriage Christian Marriage. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1985.

---. Marriage and the Catholic Church. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002.

Leahy, Monica Mendez. 1001 Questions To Ask Before You Get Married. New York: McGraw, 2004.

Malone, R. and Connery, J. Contemporary Perspectives on Christian Marriage. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1984.

Molloy, Cathy. Marriage, Theology & Reality. Toronto: Novalis, 1996.

New American Bible.

Parrott, Les & Leslie. Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts. Michigan: Zondervan, 2006.

Pope Benedict XVI. God Is Love. Vatican City: Libereria Editrice Vaticana, 2006.

---. Jesus of Nazareth. Trans. by Adrian J. Walker. New York: Doubleday, 2007.

Pope John Paul II. Crossing the Threshold of Hope. New York: Knopf, 1994.

---. “Letter to Families.” [2 Feb. 1994] 6 Feb. 2008 http://www.vatican.va/

holy_father/johnpaul_ii/letters/html>.

---. The Theology of Marriage and Celibacy. Boston: The Daughters of St. Paul, 1986.

---. Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. Trans. by Michael Waldstein. Boston: Pauline, 2006.

Ruhnke, Robert A. For Better & For Ever: A Resource for Couples Preparing for Christian Marriage. San Antonio, TX: Marriage Preparation Resources, 1997.

Sansone, Paul D. and Champlin, Joseph M. Evenings for the Engaged: A Program Highlighting Matrimony as a Vocation to Love. New York: Sadlier, 2002.

Schillebeeckx, E. Marriage: Human Reality and Saving Mystery. London: Sheed, 1965.

Vienna, Joan, M.A. and Metoyer, Virginia. Picture of Love: Marriage Preparation Program for Engaged Couples. Denver: Living the Good News, 2002.

Vermes, Pamela. Buber. New York: Grove Press, 1988.

West, Christopher. Theology of the Body for Beginners. West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2004.

Whitehead, E. & J. Marrying Well. New York: Image Books, 1983.

Wojtyla, Karol. Love & Responsibility. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993.