ARTICLES

the reality of God as the source of these spiritual rela- generation of artists conceived it. For a cultivated public ENDNOTES 5 See Billy Childish and Charles Thomson, Remodernism, http://www. stuckism.com/remod.html (accessed October 16, 2016); cited hereaf- tionships and purifes the soul in its perception of and no longer discovering God through scripture and ter as R. The manifesto of this movement is cited in the text as RM. sacrament, the artistic symbol can provide a new avenue 1 For a study of the emergence of Remodernism from the earlier move- abandonment to the divine person disclosed through ment of Stuckism, see Katherine Evans, The Stuckists: The First Remodern- 6 R 2. the artistic symbol. In both its expressive and peda- toward transcendence. The authentic artist functions ist Art Group (London: Victoria Press, 2000). 7 R 2. gogical functions, art meeting Remodernist criteria like a priest who permits the viewer to enter into 2 Billy Childish (born 1959) is an English artist who specializes in photog- 8 In 2005 the CBGBs 313 Gallery in New York City hosted a Remodern- evokes a reality in which the rational soul constitutes communion with God through the artwork. In this raphy, music, and poetry. He has published forty poetry collections and ist exhibition entitled Addressing the Shadow and Making Friends With Wild four novels. Musically he is best known for his work with the rock band Dogs: Remodernism. the central actor in what is ultimately a spiritual drama perspective, art is neither an ally of nor complement Medway Poets, which he founded in 1979. He cofounded the Stuckist 9 R 2. of recognition and purifcation. to religion; it has become an alternative to religion for artist group in 1999. 10 Kevin Radley, “Re Modernism: Trajectories towards the NU Modern,” 3 Charles Thomson (born 1953) is an English artist who specializes in This emphasis on the reality of the human soul il- those skeptical of an institutionalized faith. http://magnifco.org/exh_pgm/2002/ReMo_essy.html (accessed painting, photography, and poetry. He cofounded the Stuckist artist group The link with the earlier Romantic sacramental October 4, 2016). luminates the primacy accorded authorial voice in the in 1999. An activist against government support of postmodern art, he has art criticism generated by the Remodernist movement. conception of art indicates one of the ways in which led campaigns against the Tate Gallery’s awards and grants. 11 R 2. In his essay for the catalogue accompanying the “Mag- the Remodernists remain faithful to modernity and 4 The Deatrick Gallery in Louisville, Kentucky, has become the central 12 R 2. nifco: Re Mo” exhibition of visual art at the University hostile to any retrieval of the medieval. If God remains gallery for the exhibition of Remodernist artworks. 13 R 2. of New Mexico in 2002, the Berkeley art critic Kevin central to the Remodernist vision of art, it is a God Radley celebrates the return of the singular author’s who is no longer accessible through participation in a voice as central to artistic creation and interpretation. church grounded on God’s self-revelation represented “There seems to be a re-emergence of confdence in through scripture, sacrament, and clergy. The mani- the artist’s singular voice—a renewal of the belief that festo’s realist afrmation of the existence of a God Do Catholics Need Ecclesiastical an artist can explore their [sic] own natures without the who exists independently of the human mind and restraints of the ironic, the cynical, or the didactic. To who transcends the material representations that point re-contact the notions of presence, re-invent their sense toward God remains addressed to a modern post- Permission to Divorce? of beauty, and renew our need for intimacy. Is this a Christian public still clearly the grandchildren of the Enlightenment. return to earnest individualism? … I suggest we let the artist decide.”10 In explicit reaction against the postmod- Edward N. Peters intelligent (but not canonically trained) persons, inter- ernist tendency to emphasize the disparate cultural fac- Conclusion Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit ested in promoting Church teaching on marriage, have tors that inform the genesis and content of a particular come across these canons and—notwithstanding the anons 1151-1155 of the Code of Canon heavy logistical demands that adopting their propos- artwork, Radley insists on the centrality of the unique oth the practice and theory of Remodern- artist who has fashioned the work and whose distinctive Law state that Roman Catholics wishing als would place on bishops and their staf—assert that ism in the artworld suggest directions, indeed to separate from their spouses must obtain observance of these norms must forthwith be urged by style refects the unique soul of the artist. Respect for moral imperatives, for the retrieval of realist the self-expression of the artist’s idiosyncratic interpre- B ecclesiastical permission for the cessation bishops and pastors upon pain of pastoral dereliction. perspectives in a more philosophical metaphysics. At- Cof conjugal life. Canons 1692-1696 set forth the pro- I think, however, that such calls, at least insofar as they tation of the real replaces ironic deconstruction of the tention to the real rather than to the desires of the cedure for obtaining that authorization. Yet, of the tens claim to rest on canonical imperatives, are ill-founded. I artwork as the fulcrum of aesthetic analysis. will underscores the pre-existence and independent Fourth, the Remodernists emphasize a new con- of thousands of Catholics who separate or divorce each will ofer here several observations toward either aban- existence of the external world glimpsed and ana- year in the United States, virtually none of them makes doning such proposals or reformulating them in light of nection to God in the reemergence of art rooted in the lyzed by the human mind. The afrmation of purpose any efort to comply with these norms. “As a matter of canonical arguments that could be raised against them. spirituality of the human soul. “The Remodernist’s job within the natural and interpersonal spheres contests fact, cases of separation are rarely brought before eccle- Some preliminary points may be set out. Our focus is to bring God back into art but not as God was before the reduction of telos to a projection of the psyche. It siastical authorities. Many couples sue for a civil divorce is on Western canon law,2 but even so, I would observe (RM no.12).”11 The purpose of art is to rekindle awe also insists that judgments of natural or artistic worth only.”1 In more than a decade of diocesan work, I never that, over time and across various ecclesiastical genres, and ecstasy in the viewer, but not in a sectarian subser- are tied to the intrinsic perfection of the object or act saw or heard of a spouse seeking ecclesiastical permis- terms such as “separation” and “divorce” have been used vience to a particular set of dogmas. falling under normative judgment. The afrmation of sion for separation or divorce. with signifcantly diferent shades of meaning by ap- Like a jejune PBS special, the Remodernist the human soul’s spiritual personality underscores the This stark contrast between what appear to be plain proved authors. Thus apparent similarities in usage do Manifesto draws strict lines between the spiritual and subjectivity of the human agent as a diference in kind provisions of law and this apparent widespread disregard not always signify the same things, while diferences in the religious. An earlier thesis in the manifesto insists from nonrational agents and as a hermeneutical key in for those norms prompts some to wonder whether a phrasing do not necessarily denote disagreement. Next, 12 that “[s]piritual art is not religion (RM no.9).” A interpreting the very phenomenon of art. The afrma- multitude of lay Catholics are in violation of several Canons 1151-1155 (stating the conditions under which later thesis argues that “spiritual art does not mean tion of a God beyond human projection points to a canons intended to direct their behavior toward the spouses may separate or divorce) are almost identical to 13 the painting of Madonnas or Buddhas (RM no.13).” spiritual reality that precedes and that stands in judg- good; whether bishops are being negligent by not urg- Canons 1128-1132 of the 1917 Code. This continuity For Childish and Thomas, art appears to ofer a path ment on the play of social construction. Such theses ing lay Catholics to comply with requirements set forth allows us to invoke commentators on the old law for toward union with God much as an earlier Romantic constitute a substantial neorealist agenda. ✠ by a wise and loving Church; or whether noncompli- insights into the new.3 In contrast, Canons 1692-1696 ance with these canons is weakening the Church’s (outlining the procedure for seeking Church permis- witness to the permanence of marriage. Indeed some sion to discontinue conjugal life) are new and thus lack

60 61 ARTICLES signifcant roots in canonical tradition. Finally, all trans- Or again, “If the parties have already separated…with- Some say that the Church in no way allows spouses separation cases to civil courts, and even encourages lations herein are mine. out ecclesiastical authorization, the obligation [to seek to approach civil courts and that any sentence issued such deferral in certain cases. Once again, though, At the risk of beginning this analysis in the middle such authorization] need not be insisted upon nor the by a civil court would be illicit and would not protect canonists from English-speaking lands underscore the of the matter, I frst observe that during the post- parties disturbed.”7 This relaxed view toward observ- one’s conscience. rarity of such petitions being made to our Church Conciliar canonical revision process, as the Church ing canons on spousal separation was not limited to Others hold that spouses have the right to approach ofcials. “In practice (except perhaps in countries transitioned from the 1917 Code to the 1983 Code, our side of the herring pond: “No spouse may bring a civil courts if there is a statement to that efect from operating under a concordat with the Holy See), there was opposition to retaining the older norms on separation case before the civil court without the per- the Holy See (such as was made for England in 1860 requests to have the matter dealt with by the civil spousal separation in the projected law and to introduc- mission of the Ordinary; but in practice, he does not or France in 1885) but not in other nations. courts are about as rare as canonical judicial separation ing new norms for hearing such cases therein. usually require this formality.”8 cases, in efect almost non-existent.”10 For example in 1978 advisors to the Coetus on Clearly, then, even during a period of high regard Still others hold that in light of circumstances—such Finally—and stepping away from purely canonical Marriage “suggested that all the materials on separation for canon law, one free of the pastoral timidities expe- as pressing grave cause, while respecting Church doc- considerations for a moment—the basic moral liceity while the bond endures [the future Canons 1151-1155] rienced in later years, solid canonists, reading spousal trine about the exclusive authority of the Church over of Catholics turning directly to civil courts for separa- marriage cases, and with due regard for divine and not be retained in the Code but rather should be left separation canons nearly identical to ours, concluded tion and divorce issues seems refected in the fact that, canon law—the Church explicitly or at least implicitly to episcopal conferences which, if they felt it necessary, that they were not to be enforced according to their even among the most ardent hierarchical defenders of tolerates spouses going directly to civil courts to seek could enact local norms in accord with the practices of plain terms. To understand how such a seemingly the permanence of marriage, Catholics who are merely separation. their peoples.”4 The coetus replied that, because adul- anomalous situation arose, I suggest turning now to the civilly separated or divorced are eligible for holy Com- tery (the traditional factor triggering separation) was renowned Roman canonist Felix Cappello who, in his This view is the more well-founded, is practically safe, munion regardless of whether they utilized a canonical discussed in Scripture, these proposed canons should be Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis,9 addresses this and should be preferred. For, on the one hand, [direct process for the cessation of conjugal life.11 Is it plau- retained in the law. Of course, many things are discussed matter with respect for canonical principles and a sense recourse to civil courts] is not intrinsically evil, else sible that prelates such as then-Cardinal Ratzinger or in Scripture that are not found in canon law, and canon for pastoral practicality. the Holy See would not have, indeed could not have, Archbishop Chaput would not have cautioned simply law provides for many matters not found in Scripture, Cappello, like Bouscaren and Ellis, Halligan, and issued permissions for it; on the other hand, Catholic separated or divorced Catholics against approaching for so the reasoning here is less than persuasive. Naz, advised priests against requiring Catholics unaware doctrine [for example, on the ultimate authority of holy Communion if their failure to seek ecclesiasti- Likewise in 1979 advisors to the Coetus on Proce- of the canonical separation requirements (which would the Church over the marriages of the baptized, dis- cal authorization for the cessation of conjugal life had dural Law argued that “this title on separation cases [the have been most Catholics, then as now) to undertake cussed below] stands, as do divine and canon law, and itself been gravely at odds with Church doctrine or future Canons 1692-1696] should be suppressed because a formal canonical process in regard to discontinuing grave cause could exist, indeed most serious cause discipline? spouses never bring separation cases to ecclesiastical tri- conjugal life, but Cappello ofered more analysis than could exist, for turning to civil courts especially in One may yet ask why Canons 1151-1155 and 1692- bunals, or the whole matter should be left to local law.”5 did the others and his insights are illuminative for us. regard to preserving property rights. 1696 are in the 1983 Code. Two possible reasons suggest The coetus replied, however, that these canons “cannot Cappello began by noting that the Holy See had themselves. not be in the general law” and retained them despite signed a concordat (treaty) with Italy recognizing, among In short, notwithstanding spousal separation canons First, as noted above, various countries have con- concerns that they would remain essentially unused. other things, wide state authority over marriage and that, in terms virtually identical to those used in the cordats with the Holy See whereby some canonical Some might look at the dates of these objections generally permitting Italian Catholics the option of ap- 1983 Code, required all Catholics to obtain ecclesiastical marriage decisions are given civil weight. In some other (the late 1970s) and attribute them to a wider post- proaching civil tribunals in these cases. In addition, Cap- permission to discontinue conjugal life, canonists of the nations, including Islamic ones, civil law itself some- Conciliar malaise regarding the defense of marriage or pello noted that some nations, on their own, recognized prestige of Cappello held that Catholics who did not times recognizes religious tribunal rulings.12 For both see in the apparent disregard of current spousal separa- marriage-related decrees from religious tribunals—in live in “concordat nations” could directly approach civil scenarios, canonical norms for separation and divorce tion norms just one more example of the modern fail- which situation Cappello expected Catholics to approach tribunals in most such cases, provided only that they did cases would be needed to guide parties and ecclesiasti- ure to respect canon law. Against such a view, though, Church tribunals before turning to civil courts. But in not regard a civil decree of divorce as settling canonical cal ofcials whose actions and decisions could carry civil stands the fact that the nonuse of spousal separation either case, the idea that a state, by treaty with the Holy issues such as the validity of their marriage. Doubtless consequences. The Code might be considered a conve- canons, which, as noted above, were present in the 1917 See or otherwise, might accept an ecclesiastical separation some impressive canonists could, as suggested by Cap- nient place to locate such norms. Code in terms nearly identical to the current law, was ruling (as opposed to, say, the state simply granting civil pello himself, be cited in disagreement with his view (I But again, to my knowledge no such marriage well known before Vatican II. recognition to religious weddings) scarcely enters the fnd Halligan, for example, uncharacteristically ambiva- concordats or social observances exist in common law Consider this advice from the standard pre- mind of American Catholics, yet it is crucial, I shall sug- lent in this area), but such disagreements among experts countries, leaving the canons on spousal separation Conciliar canon law textbook used in American semi- gest below, to understanding why canon law might con- only reinforce my main point, namely, that canonists with “no practical application in English-speaking naries during the twenty years leading up to Vatican II: tain norms on spousal separation and divorce issues (and see, and have long seen, more than one appropriate way countries as couples who wish to obtain a legal 13 A party seeking separation should normally be re- not just on, say, wedding rites or sacramental validity). to read legal texts that amateurs might think are un- separation have recourse to the civil courts.” The ferred to the Ordinary. However, since people usu- In any event, Cappello considered, fnally, the dif- equivocal. drafters of the 1983 Code would have done better, in ally hesitate to enter into direct communication with fculties faced by Catholics living in countries without This variety of options for Catholics seeking my view, not to include in universal law norms that diocesan ofcials in these matters, it will usually be special, usually diplomatically achieved, provisions for separation or divorce is refected in the modern Canon are needed only in certain regions; but included they well not to insist on this obligation if the parties are separation and divorce matters (that is, the situation 1692, which restates the priority of diocesan bishops were, with the result that today, some people coming unaware of it, especially if the separation is already in faced by, among others, American Catholics), and he or judges in hearing separation cases among Catholics across these canons understandably, but wrongly, efect and there is no great scandal connected with it.6 identifed three opinions: but also underscores the authority of bishops to send conclude that, like most other canons in the Code,

62 63 ARTICLES signifcant roots in canonical tradition. Finally, all trans- Or again, “If the parties have already separated…with- Some say that the Church in no way allows spouses separation cases to civil courts, and even encourages lations herein are mine. out ecclesiastical authorization, the obligation [to seek to approach civil courts and that any sentence issued such deferral in certain cases. Once again, though, At the risk of beginning this analysis in the middle such authorization] need not be insisted upon nor the by a civil court would be illicit and would not protect canonists from English-speaking lands underscore the of the matter, I frst observe that during the post- parties disturbed.”7 This relaxed view toward observ- one’s conscience. rarity of such petitions being made to our Church Conciliar canonical revision process, as the Church ing canons on spousal separation was not limited to Others hold that spouses have the right to approach ofcials. “In practice (except perhaps in countries transitioned from the 1917 Code to the 1983 Code, our side of the herring pond: “No spouse may bring a civil courts if there is a statement to that efect from operating under a concordat with the Holy See), there was opposition to retaining the older norms on separation case before the civil court without the per- the Holy See (such as was made for England in 1860 requests to have the matter dealt with by the civil spousal separation in the projected law and to introduc- mission of the Ordinary; but in practice, he does not or France in 1885) but not in other nations. courts are about as rare as canonical judicial separation ing new norms for hearing such cases therein. usually require this formality.”8 cases, in efect almost non-existent.”10 For example in 1978 advisors to the Coetus on Clearly, then, even during a period of high regard Still others hold that in light of circumstances—such Finally—and stepping away from purely canonical Marriage “suggested that all the materials on separation for canon law, one free of the pastoral timidities expe- as pressing grave cause, while respecting Church doc- considerations for a moment—the basic moral liceity while the bond endures [the future Canons 1151-1155] rienced in later years, solid canonists, reading spousal trine about the exclusive authority of the Church over of Catholics turning directly to civil courts for separa- marriage cases, and with due regard for divine and not be retained in the Code but rather should be left separation canons nearly identical to ours, concluded tion and divorce issues seems refected in the fact that, canon law—the Church explicitly or at least implicitly to episcopal conferences which, if they felt it necessary, that they were not to be enforced according to their even among the most ardent hierarchical defenders of tolerates spouses going directly to civil courts to seek could enact local norms in accord with the practices of plain terms. To understand how such a seemingly the permanence of marriage, Catholics who are merely separation. their peoples.”4 The coetus replied that, because adul- anomalous situation arose, I suggest turning now to the civilly separated or divorced are eligible for holy Com- tery (the traditional factor triggering separation) was renowned Roman canonist Felix Cappello who, in his This view is the more well-founded, is practically safe, munion regardless of whether they utilized a canonical discussed in Scripture, these proposed canons should be Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis,9 addresses this and should be preferred. For, on the one hand, [direct process for the cessation of conjugal life.11 Is it plau- retained in the law. Of course, many things are discussed matter with respect for canonical principles and a sense recourse to civil courts] is not intrinsically evil, else sible that prelates such as then-Cardinal Ratzinger or in Scripture that are not found in canon law, and canon for pastoral practicality. the Holy See would not have, indeed could not have, Archbishop Chaput would not have cautioned simply law provides for many matters not found in Scripture, Cappello, like Bouscaren and Ellis, Halligan, and issued permissions for it; on the other hand, Catholic separated or divorced Catholics against approaching for so the reasoning here is less than persuasive. Naz, advised priests against requiring Catholics unaware doctrine [for example, on the ultimate authority of holy Communion if their failure to seek ecclesiasti- Likewise in 1979 advisors to the Coetus on Proce- of the canonical separation requirements (which would the Church over the marriages of the baptized, dis- cal authorization for the cessation of conjugal life had dural Law argued that “this title on separation cases [the have been most Catholics, then as now) to undertake cussed below] stands, as do divine and canon law, and itself been gravely at odds with Church doctrine or future Canons 1692-1696] should be suppressed because a formal canonical process in regard to discontinuing grave cause could exist, indeed most serious cause discipline? spouses never bring separation cases to ecclesiastical tri- conjugal life, but Cappello ofered more analysis than could exist, for turning to civil courts especially in One may yet ask why Canons 1151-1155 and 1692- bunals, or the whole matter should be left to local law.”5 did the others and his insights are illuminative for us. regard to preserving property rights. 1696 are in the 1983 Code. Two possible reasons suggest The coetus replied, however, that these canons “cannot Cappello began by noting that the Holy See had themselves. not be in the general law” and retained them despite signed a concordat (treaty) with Italy recognizing, among In short, notwithstanding spousal separation canons First, as noted above, various countries have con- concerns that they would remain essentially unused. other things, wide state authority over marriage and that, in terms virtually identical to those used in the cordats with the Holy See whereby some canonical Some might look at the dates of these objections generally permitting Italian Catholics the option of ap- 1983 Code, required all Catholics to obtain ecclesiastical marriage decisions are given civil weight. In some other (the late 1970s) and attribute them to a wider post- proaching civil tribunals in these cases. In addition, Cap- permission to discontinue conjugal life, canonists of the nations, including Islamic ones, civil law itself some- Conciliar malaise regarding the defense of marriage or pello noted that some nations, on their own, recognized prestige of Cappello held that Catholics who did not times recognizes religious tribunal rulings.12 For both see in the apparent disregard of current spousal separa- marriage-related decrees from religious tribunals—in live in “concordat nations” could directly approach civil scenarios, canonical norms for separation and divorce tion norms just one more example of the modern fail- which situation Cappello expected Catholics to approach tribunals in most such cases, provided only that they did cases would be needed to guide parties and ecclesiasti- ure to respect canon law. Against such a view, though, Church tribunals before turning to civil courts. But in not regard a civil decree of divorce as settling canonical cal ofcials whose actions and decisions could carry civil stands the fact that the nonuse of spousal separation either case, the idea that a state, by treaty with the Holy issues such as the validity of their marriage. Doubtless consequences. The Code might be considered a conve- canons, which, as noted above, were present in the 1917 See or otherwise, might accept an ecclesiastical separation some impressive canonists could, as suggested by Cap- nient place to locate such norms. Code in terms nearly identical to the current law, was ruling (as opposed to, say, the state simply granting civil pello himself, be cited in disagreement with his view (I But again, to my knowledge no such marriage well known before Vatican II. recognition to religious weddings) scarcely enters the fnd Halligan, for example, uncharacteristically ambiva- concordats or social observances exist in common law Consider this advice from the standard pre- mind of American Catholics, yet it is crucial, I shall sug- lent in this area), but such disagreements among experts countries, leaving the canons on spousal separation Conciliar canon law textbook used in American semi- gest below, to understanding why canon law might con- only reinforce my main point, namely, that canonists with “no practical application in English-speaking naries during the twenty years leading up to Vatican II: tain norms on spousal separation and divorce issues (and see, and have long seen, more than one appropriate way countries as couples who wish to obtain a legal 13 A party seeking separation should normally be re- not just on, say, wedding rites or sacramental validity). to read legal texts that amateurs might think are un- separation have recourse to the civil courts.” The ferred to the Ordinary. However, since people usu- In any event, Cappello considered, fnally, the dif- equivocal. drafters of the 1983 Code would have done better, in ally hesitate to enter into direct communication with fculties faced by Catholics living in countries without This variety of options for Catholics seeking my view, not to include in universal law norms that diocesan ofcials in these matters, it will usually be special, usually diplomatically achieved, provisions for separation or divorce is refected in the modern Canon are needed only in certain regions; but included they well not to insist on this obligation if the parties are separation and divorce matters (that is, the situation 1692, which restates the priority of diocesan bishops were, with the result that today, some people coming unaware of it, especially if the separation is already in faced by, among others, American Catholics), and he or judges in hearing separation cases among Catholics across these canons understandably, but wrongly, efect and there is no great scandal connected with it.6 identifed three opinions: but also underscores the authority of bishops to send conclude that, like most other canons in the Code,

62 63 ARTICLES these norms must be applicable everywhere. if not always in technically accurate terms, that the Second, the Church has, to be sure, fundamental Church has something more to say about the perma- Religious Warfare jurisdiction over the marriages of all the baptized,14 nence of their marriage than can be gleaned from a civil even though she chooses not to exercise that jurisdic- divorce decree, and specifcally, that such a decree is not tion over marriages involving only baptized non-Cath- sufcient to allow them to enter a subsequent “marriage Jude P. Dougherty for at least two centuries. Nietzsche already in the nine- olics or, as a rule, even to involve herself in the civil in the Church”; Cappello would have found that degree School of Philosophy, The Catholic University of America teenth century observed that the West no longer pos- consequences of marriages between Catholics.15 Still, of awareness and acceptance of Catholic teaching on sessed the spiritual resources that had formerly infused the retention of norms such as Canons 1151-1155 and marriage to be a pastorally acceptable starting place for he shift from a predominantly Protestant its existence and without which it could not survive. 1692-1696 in universal law might help to preserve, at further catechesis. to a secular or humanist culture in North In more ways than one, from the last half of the twen- least in some “symbolic” way, the Church’s assertion of And so, I suggest, may we. ✠ America may be dated to the mid-decades tieth century to the present, the intellectual climate has her radical baptismal jurisdiction over marriage. I fnd of the last century, to the period some are been governed by the legacy of the French Enlighten- the cost of retaining in law “symbolic” norms, if that Tcalling the “cultural revolution.” Clearly a shift took ment. Views entertained in nineteenth-century drawing is what these canons amount to in many places, to be ENDNOTES place sometime in the last century, with the result, one rooms and in the academy of that day have become high (if only in terms of their potential to cause confu- may say, that the religious mind is no longer faced with mainstream. Diderot set the tone in his famous Encyclo- sion among the faithful), but the Legislator apparently 1 Örsy, Marriage in Canon Law (1986), 237. defning its vision of the contemporary meaning of concluded otherwise. Nevertheless, even “symbolic” 2 Eastern law treats the same issues in CCEO 863-866 and 1378-1382. pedie when he wrote, “Everything must be examined, 3 1983 CIC 6, 17. Christianity or Judaism against other religious outlooks. canons must be read in accord with their text and con- everything must be shaken up, without exception and 4 Communicationes 10:118. text,16 and the context of the canons on spousal separa- Each is now called to defend itself in the face of major without circumspection.” 5 Communicationes 11:272. secular attacks, hostile to all religious belief and practice. Voltaire urged the eradication of Christianity from tion strongly suggests that they are not to be applied in 6 Bouscaren & Ellis, Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (1946), 572. all countries the way they might be applied in some. It may take considerable learning and analysis to the world of higher culture, but he was willing to have 7 Halligan, Administration of the Sacraments (1963), 516. recognize the full extent of the secular threat to reli- it remain in the stables and in the scullery, mainly as In conclusion, most Catholics today, and certainly 8 Naz, Traité de Droit Canonique II (1954): 407. gion, but little refection is needed to recognize its social a moral force, lest a servant class emancipated from most Catholics living in countries such as the United 9 V (1947), 828-29. States, have no idea that any canons seem to require 10 Kelly, in Letter & Spirit (1985), 944. efects, namely, a general disintegration of religious the traditional sources of morality might pilfer. Like them to obtain ecclesiastical permission to cease con- 11 See, for example, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to commitment, manifesting itself in a startling rise in Diderot, he was convinced that the critical spirit could jugal life prior to fling for a civil separation or divorce; Bishops (1994), passim, and Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Pastoral Guidelines promiscuity, divorce, and abortion, in the widespread do its constructive work only after it had liberated man (2016), 3. Bouscaren and Ellis would have advised against calling acceptance of pornography and homosexuality, and in from the shackles of traditional belief. There are times 12 Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law (1993), 520. a growing tolerance of deviant behavior in its many when one must destroy before one can rebuild, he said. attention to the separation norms in such cases—as- 13 McAreavey, Canon Law of Marriage (1997), 202. forms. The rejection of the biblical sources of morality suming that such canons even apply in nonconcordat 14 1983 CIC 1671. Voltaire readily admitted his intolerance, declaring that nations, which is itself, as we have seen, highly question- 15 1983 CIC 1, 22, 1059. has its social consequences. Appeals to a natural moral his was an intolerance directed against intolerance. able. At the same time, most Catholics also recognize, 16 1983 CIC 17. order fare no better. Jeremy Bentham thought the state should actively On a more subtle level, the war against Christianity work to stamp out religion. His disciple, John Stuart has afected the college curriculum, insofar as it has led Mill, repudiated Christianity but not the religion of to the neglect of classical learning, ancient and modern humanity, which he thought to be, from the standpoint languages, history, theology and philosophy, disciplines of the state, a useful thing. August Comte was more be- all of which were pursued in part because they tradi- nevolent in his attitude toward Christianity than either tionally provided the materials through which revealed Voltaire or Mill. In spite of his denial of all metaphysical religion was received and developed. validity of religious belief, he was willing to accept as As many have observed, a community cannot long a civic good the moral and ritual traditions of at least exist without a core of common convictions. Some of Catholic Christianity, the social tensions in North America are but a refec- Emile Durkheim, carrying the Enlightenment spirit tion of a deeper confict between religious and secular into the early decades of the twentieth century, was not outlooks. If the secular is not totally to eclipse the reli- so positive. For him, a major task of the state is to free gious and become the measure of thought and conduct, individuals from partial societies such as the family, re- • representatives of the religious outlook will have to ligious organizations, and labor and professional groups. confront the challenge vigorously. The following refec- Modern individualism, Durkheim thought, depends on tions are an attempt to understand the causes that have preventing the absorption of individuals into secondary led to the present impotence of the religious mind and and mediating groups. its prospects for the future. Ludwig Feuerbach, whose materialism was to Skepticism with respect to Christian convictions have a signifcant infuence on Marx and Freud, as- catholicscholars.org has been forming among the occidental intelligentsia signed to reason the task of destroying the illusion of

64 65 Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK ...... Rev. Joseph W. Koterski, S.J.

PRESIDENT’S LETTER ...... William L. Saunders ARTICLES 40 Serving the Divorced and Remarried Well ...... Thomas J. Nash Numbers 1/2 Amoris Laetitia and “Pastoral Discernment”: Spring/Summer 2017 Areas of Concern ...... Rev. Thomas V. Berg The Canonical Position of Amoris Laetitia ...... Edward N. Peters Michael Novak, 1933-2017 ...... William L. Saunders The Vibrance of Reality: On Being a “Rigid” Thomist ...... Rev. James V. Schall, S.J. The Catholic Mind ...... Jude P. Dougherty Implications of Obergefell for the Catholic Church in the U.S...... Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. Obergefell v. Hodges: A Judicial Flight into Fantasyland ...... D. Q. McIner ny Lessons from the Jürgen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger Debate ...... Eduardo Echeverria Keeping Men Open to the Divine: James V. Schall on Modernity and Catholic Social and Political Thought ...... Brian Jones Remodernism: A Revival of Realism ...... Rev. John J. Conley, S.J. Do Catholics Need Ecclesiastical Permission to Divorce? ...... Edward N. Peters Religious Warfare ...... Jude P. Dougherty BOOK REVIEWS The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church by Monica Migliorino Miller ...... Catherine Brown Tkacz The Servant and the Ladder: Cooperation with Evil in the Twenty-First Century by Andrew McClean Cummings ...... D. Q. McInerny A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss...... D. Q. McInerny ISSN 1084-3035 Christianity, Democracy, and the Shadow of Constantine ...... George E. Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou, editors... Jude P. Dougherty Fellowship of Catholic Scholars P.O. Box 495 Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Order Notre Dame, IN 46556 by John Horvat II ...... Christopher H. Owen catholicscholars.org God or Nothing: A Conversation on Faith by Robert Cardinal Sarah with Nicholas Diat ...... Steven C. Abell Fr. Joseph Koterski, SJ, editor [email protected] Mary—Ten Test Questions for the World’s Finest Woman by William P. Welty ...... Msgr. Charles M. Mangan Prof. Elizabeth C. Shaw, associate editor [email protected] OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS

Spring/Summer 2017 1 BOOK REVIEWS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS (As of February 2016) connection between the dogmas of the the mystery of Mary also ofer pro- Welty’s comments on the refer- CURRENT OFFICERS PAST PRESIDENTS Immaculate Conception and the As- found matter for our own refection on ences to Mary in the Qur’an and on the sumption, Welty reaches this judgment how God works in us. Here is his list: hostile treatment aforded the Mother President Rev. Joseph W. Koterski, SJ, PhD Rev. Kenneth W. Baker, SJ, PhD about the latter: “There is no biblical “Test #1: Are you willing to trust God of Jesus in the Talmud opens up his William L. Saunders, JD (2008-2014) (1989-1991) support for this teaching. It came to with your whole life? Test #2: Are you discussion to certain Islamic and Jewish Senior Vice President and Sr. Counsel Associate Professor Editor be promulgated because human death willing to give God your expectations views. His presentation of the Matthean Americans United for Life Fordham University Homiletic and Pastoral Review springs from human beings having a about your life? Test #3: Are you will- and Lucan genealogies (8-12) is helpful. Vice-President Bernard Dobranski, JD William E. May, PhD sinful nature, and therefore Mary could ing to walk with God into heartbreak? And he gives his readers a glance at the Susan Orr Trafas, PhD (2005-2008) (1987-1989) not have died if she had been born Test #4: Will you give God your illu- fascinating debate about the meaning Co-Chair, Honors Program Dean Emeritus and Law Professor without possessing such a nature” (8). sion of personal security? Test #5: Will of the terms alma and betulah in Isaiah Msgr. George A. Kelly The Catholic perspective is that Luke you give your most important posses- Benedictine College Ave Maria School of Law 7:14 (22-23). He minces no words in (1986-1987) 1:28 provides strong evidence for the sions to God? Test #6: How will you dispatching with the preposterous—re- Secretary Ralph McInerny, PhD related doctrines of the Immaculate bear the loss of your spouse? Test #7: Rev. Earl A. Weis, SJ ally, blasphemous—and totally unschol- (2003-2004) Conception and the Assumption. Here Will you remember who Jesus really is? Msgr. Stuart W. Swetland, STD (1983-1985) arly theory that Almighty God sexually it is important to note that the As- Test #8: Will you believe what God has President Bernard Dobranski, JD Professor Emeritus sumption is about the entrance of Mary said about the Messiah? Test #9: Will violated Mary of Nazareth (47-49) to Donnelly College (2002-2003) Loyola University Chicago efect the conception of Jesus. On this body and soul into heavenly glory and you give your dreams about your child Rev. Thomas Dailey, OSFS, STD Msgr. William B. Smith, STD not per se about her death. With respect to God? Test #10: Are you willing to topic he writes: “She was chosen by divine will and the young lady consid- (2002) (1982-1983) to the comment just cited from Welty, wait on God to fulfll his promises for Professor ered herself having been singled out by we should also be remindful that Jesus, your life?” (165-66). DeSales University James Hitchcock, PhD too, did not possess our sinful nature Our author argues that Mary “passed God as the highest of human privileges. (1979-1981) but accepted death in obedience to his nine out of the ten tests splendidly. So she obediently acquiesced to the Gerard V. Bradley, JD Professor Emeritus beloved Father. She stumbled in her faith only once, announcement with full cooperation” (1995-2001) Saint Louis University Some of Welty’s comments seem but ultimately prevailed, obtaining an (49). Such cooperation in no way implies Professor Rev. Ronald Lawler, OFM Cap, PhD unthinkable sexual violation. University of Notre Dame speculative and beyond the evidence. astonishing 95% on her series of spiri- (1977-1979) For instance, at one point he contends: tual tests of her faith and obedience to Welty fnishes his volume with this Ralph McInerny, PhD “It’s possible that one of the reasons God’s plans and purposes for her life” comment: “both Roman Catholic and (1991-1995) Jesus waited until the age of thirty to (2). Welty holds that Mary did not pass Protestant believers in the Lord Jesus begin his ministry was because he was Test #8, but admits that neither did she the Messiah may say with one voice waiting for the youngest of Mary’s fail it: “Will you believe what God has that Mary’s magnifcent poem of praise PUBLICATIONS EDITORS ELECTED DIRECTORS children to grow up and move out on said about the Messiah?” (147-53). The to God has been abundantly fulflled his own” (68). Given the dogma of the pertinent passage here is Mark 3:20- throughout the centuries since genera- Rev. Joseph W. Koterski, SJ, PhD (2014-2017) (2015-2018) Perpetual Virginity of Mary, formu- 22, notably verse 21: “When his family Fordham University tions all over the earth have called her Rev. Anthony Giampietro, CSB, Rev. Peter Ryan, SJ, STD lated in the classical phrase ante partum, heard about it, they went to restrain blessed” (166). Along with the Chris- editor, FCS Quarterly in partu et post partum, the Catholic him, because they kept saying, ‘He’s out PhD Sacred Heart Major Seminary tological hymns found in scripture, the Ofce of Development Church does not accept the notion that of his mind.’” (This citation is from the Elizabeth C. Shaw, PhD Sr. Sara Butler Magnifcat is the gold standard of New Archdiocese of San Francisco Mary had other children but positively Holy Bible: International Standard Version, The Catholic University of America Testament paeans to our Creator. Blessed Trinity Missionary Cenacle teaches against it. The Protoevangelium which Welty uses throughout his book.) associate editor, FCS Quarterly Dr. Denise J. Hunnell, MD Given the importance of its subject Thomas Cavanaugh, PhD of James (c. 145 A.D.) had for its focus, Catholic commentaries on scripture editor, FCS proceedings Human Life International matter and the wealth of information according to the acclaimed patrolo- ofer various thoughts on this passage, editor, Teaching the Faith University of San Francisco Christopher Tollefsen, PhD gist Fr. Johannes Quasten, “to prove including questions about the meaning it contains, Welty’s book is most wel- University of South Carolina the perpetual and inviolate virginity of of “family,” whether Mary was present, come. As its cover, it uses a modern (2016-2019) forensic projection of the Mother of Mary before, in and after the birth of and whether “they” refers to the subject Rev. Thomas Weinandy, OFM Cap, PhD Carol (Sue) Abromaitis, PhD Christ” (Patrology 1:120-21). We revere or to another group. In light of such Jesus painted by Dean Packwood that Dominican House of Studies, Loyola University Maryland the Mother of Jesus as the Ever-Virgin diferences of opinion, we can certainly is based on the Shroud of Turin. It also Washington DC and (semper virgo, aeiparthenos). hold that Mary, given her unparalleled contains two helpful appendices, one Gregorian University, Rome Max Bonilla, STD Despite such disagreements, we and consistent commitment to the by Timothy W. Dunkin (“Does Isaiah Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid should recognize the many trenchant salvifc mission of Jesus her Son, did not 7:14 Prophesy that a Virgin Would Grattan Brown, PhD observations that Welty makes. The “test waver even momentarily but actually Conceive?”) and another by Charles W. Belmont Abbey College questions” he has devised to penetrate passed this question on Welty’s test. Missler (“A Commentary on 2 John”). Rev. David V. Meconi, SJ, DPhil Saint Louis University

In order to submit an application for membership please go to catholicscholars.org

86 87 Fellowship of Nonproft Organization Catholic Scholars U.S. Postage PAID Quarterly Notre Dame, Indiana Box 495 Permit No. 10 Notre Dame, IN 46556

Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly

In order to submit an application for membership please go to catholicscholars.org

88