Lighthouse at Brant Point, Nantucket: Image by Jerry Semones
I’ve just returned from a wedding celebrated on a glorious day in June on Nantucket. The ceremony was celebrated in the heart of the Lord’s Supper. Following readings from the Song of Songs, Paul’s letter to the Romans and the gospel of Matthew, Casey and Bryan testified that they had come “freely and without reservation to give themselves to each other in marriage;” that they promised “to love each other as husband and wife for the rest of their lives;” and that they would “accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church.”
Then in the presence of God and their family and friends they spoke those words that only a spouse speaks to a spouse: “I take you to be my wife… I take you to be my husband… I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.”
Rings blessed and exchanged, we moved to the table of sacrament where, as husband and wife, this couple’s first meal was the Lord’s Supper: the food that nourishes heart and soul as well as the body.
The reception was held at The Galley, a restaurant on the beach where the bride and groom competed with the magic of sunset for the guests’ attention and admiration. Having been nourished spiritually at the church, fine dining, dancing, and spirits of a different kind followed late into the evening as the moon bathed the island at the end of a near perfect day.
First thing the next morning I was on the high-speed ferry back to Hyannis to collect my car and head back to Concord. I took a seat on the aft deck to enjoy the sun and sea air and neither disappointed. Leaving the harbor the ferry approached Brant Point and its squat lighthouse. Folks on deck with greater knowledge of the local lore than mine began digging into pockets and purses for coins and gathering at the rail. Seems there’s a custom that when rounding Brant Point on departing Nantucket, one throws a coin in the water and makes a wish.The good spirit with which this all took place was not without a certain seriousness about the whole business. Those discovering they hadn’t a coin to toss were anxious to borrow one. I saw people toss a coin and then screw their eyes shut in an effort, I presume, to make their wish really count. The whole ritual was over shortly after it began and folks settled back into their seats on deck.
I wondered what wishes had been just been made. What hopes and dreams were envisioned behind those closed eyes? Wishes for happiness? for healings? for help with some difficulty? I wondered if folks were wishing for things they also pray for. And I wondered about the difference between praying and wishing. Do “wish-ers” address their hopes to some one, somewhere – the way “pray-ers” address their hopes to God? Is there something in the hearts of believers and non-believers alike that draws them to either a sanctuary or a ship’s rail – or both?
It’s not uncommon, in many faith traditions for ritual offerings to accompany prayers. At the wedding we had offered bread and wine in praise and thanksgiving for God’s love, imaged now in the sacramental union of Bryan and Casey. Is tossing a coin overboard a small offering to an unnamed provider who might grant a wish? Can a prayer or a wish be genuine without some sacrifice on the part of the one who makes it? Must I lose something in order to gain something I hope for?Prayers and wishes are, at different times, uttered in silence, whispered, spoken, sung or cried out loud enough to pierce the heavens or plumb the depths of a sea of tears. I only know that for a few moments on the aft deck of the Grey Lady on Sunday morning, some 50 people reached into their hearts and prayed, hoped, begged, pleaded – and wished – that in some way tomorrow might be better and brighter than yesterday.
The God I believe in delights in every heart that opens in hope, especially hearts that are wounded or burdened. May your prayers be answered, your hopes be fulfilled, your dreams come true – and your wishes granted!
And please say a prayer or make a wish for Casey and Bryan whose hopes and prayers are for a long and happy marriage!
(This post appeared first in this week's edition of the Concord Journal.) Voices of Faith
-ConcordPastor
What a lovely set of scenes you describe- all unique yet interconnected. I too wish Casey and Brian a long and love-filled life.
ReplyDeleteI started thinking about the prayer/wish thought and action behavior. Is it a "quid pro quo" with the potential grantor? Or more a "do et des"..."I give so that you may give". I like to think of it as a donation acknowledging belief in the deity or higher order: be it the Divine, secular or natural element. A sort of sealing of the deal acknowledging belief no matter the outcome.
Again, ConcordPastor, thanks for the thougthful commentary.
ConcordPastor, do you ever see a day in which you might attend or preside over a same-sex marriage?
ReplyDeleteThat day will not and cannot come.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised by that, CP!
ReplyDeleteI too was a bit taken aback by the "crispness" of ConcordPastor's comment (11:34pm)
ReplyDeleteAlthough I acknowledge the RC churches stand on marriage - perhaps a day will arrive when same-sex commitments are blessed. Would this outcome be acceptable according to teachings? I am not a theologian, or a GLBT individual, however, loving relationships appear to take many forms and should be treasured and supported.
I'm not surprised at all. CP is just being realistic. The vatican has a long way to go before they condone same sex marriage. It certainly doesn't mean CP doesn't welcome those into the church that DO get married in the same sex; it's just that, I think, he doesn't see the day happening in the near future that he be allowed to celebrate such a marriage. If celibacy hasn't been done away with as of yet, I sincerely doubt same sex marriages will be allowed in CP's lifetime.
ReplyDeleteLonger than CP's lifetime. The church's stand on same-sex marriage is the same as its stand on abortion and adultery: These acts can never be approved, they are grave offenses (mortal sins) that cut one off from grace and from God. This is not to say one cannot come back from sin to grace (through Reconciliation) or that Catholics should not show compassion to individuals (we should and must love our neighbor). But this is God's law.
ReplyDeleteconcord pastor: do these sins, cut one off from grace and from God, as the last anonymous states? There are so many different circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI know abortion and adultery are sins, but I do not believe same sex marriage is a sin. How could two people loving each other be a sin? We have beautiful people in our parish and town that have same sex marriages. The are wonderful parents and loving people. How could these people be cut from grace and God?
Mary-
ReplyDeleteI am Anonymous with the 7:04pm post. Thank you for your most recent comment. I share several of your thoughts and concerns. Loving relationships should be encouraged and valued through community support.
If the RC church will not participate in same sex marriages would it consider blessing commitments? Is the RC church saying that homosexuality is a choice? One can choose to/choose not to have an abortion or enter into an adulterous relationship.
Who are we to decide that God cuts someone off?
Mary: your question demonstrates the complexity of issues here and how our words do not always convey the complete reality we're trying to communicate. For instance: you state that you know adultery is a sin -- and -- you ask, "How could two people loving each other be a sin?"
ReplyDeleteWell, which will it be?
What if two people in an adulterous relationship do, in fact, love each other? Would their love make grace of their infidelity? The Church's answer to that question (perhaps yours, too) is no. And yet, might two adulterous persons truly love each other in spite of infidelity to a spouse? That is certainly possible.
(For the record, and to be careful with my own words, I am not equating or comparing adultery with same-sex relationships.)
Pithy comments and quotes (from anonymous commentors or the Catechism) can sometimes stake out the territory of Church teaching on an issue. Of course, Church teaching is never exhausted in such references. Apart from the Church's pastoral proclamation and implementation of its message, such statements can appear stark, cold and without respect for those to whom they are addressed.
Such might have been your perception, Mary, in reading the anonymous comment above and weighing your experience of others in your parish. 'Twixt those two points, you may be trying to discern and distinguish between genuine love and circumstances which might hedge that love.
The anonymous comment and your example and questions, Mary, are not easily dealt with in a blog's combox. From a few short lines, Anonymous can be thought to be saying, "It's in the Catechism: read it, weep and go to confession!" On the other hand, from your brief comment, Mary, some might think you're saying, "Look - if it's love -- it's ok!" I don't think those summaries are what either of you intends. That's not a critique of either of your comments but, rather, an acknowledgment of the limitations of this forum.
Wow!
ReplyDeleteThe major issues continue to appear here and "Anonymous 7:04" articulates another with the question,
"Who are we to decide that God cuts someone off?"
As indicated by Anonymous 1:50 (Dear God, PLEASE move all the Anonymous commentors to adopt a screen name!), a major ministry of the Church is to announce God's law and its implications for and implimentation in peoples' lives.
We live in a time when there is a great deal of debate (inside and outside the Church) about what God's law is and what it means to say that something is God's law. One thing that I don't believe is debatable is the reality that the Church understands itself to be charged with announcing and teaching the Word and the law of the Lord.
Please understand that the Church correctly understands this ministry as a service to God's people since living according to the Lord's word is the path of salvation. That the Church would send up a red flag when it sees danger for its own is of the nature of the Church: we don't refer to her as "Mother" without reason.
It's not the Church who decides that God "cuts someone off" but it is the Church's mission to teach what draws and what distances us from God.
I understand that some might disagree with when and why red flags are raised but I hope that all here see that guidance on the Christian journey is a legitimate work of the Church.
I do believe it's the church mission and journey to guide us on our Christian journey and path.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has their own beliefs and faith in every religion; and I deeply respect that.
CP, I know people who are married fall in love with other people. It ends up hurting the one they took their vows to be with and so many people around them. They will have to answer to God in their own time. Not for me to judge.
As for abortion. I've dealt with it on all perspectives. From the young person, from the mother, from the friend, and from the advisor. Again, I can't judge. I'm only so in tune with the heartache it all brings from every perspective.
As for same sex marriage ... that's not for anyone to judge but Jesus. And Jesus can "see" much more than we can.
I'm so grateful I've gotten advice from a priest that does not judge me or make me feel I've fallen from God's grace or love; despite the circumstances in my life. For all of you reading this who might feel they might not be worthy of God's love ... believe me ...you ARE.
Again, thank you Mary (I remain anon 7:04)and also to you CP for continuing to follow this thread.
ReplyDeleteI go back to CP's blogspot about the Nantucket marriage weekend and one of the concluding paragraphs where it is stated;"...people reached into their hearts and prayed, hoped, begged, pleaded- and wished- that in someway tomorrow might be better and brighter than yesterday. The God I believe in delights in every heart that opens in hope, especially hearts that are wounded or burdened.."
I believe this God finds us all worthy of love - in spite of our failures, circumstances or, for that fact successes.
Again, thank you Mary (I remain anon 7:04)and also to you CP for continuing to follow this thread.
ReplyDeleteI go back to CP's blogspot about the Nantucket marriage weekend and one of the concluding paragraphs where it is stated;"...people reached into their hearts and prayed, hoped, begged, pleaded- and wished- that in someway tomorrow might be better and brighter than yesterday. The God I believe in delights in every heart that opens in hope, especially hearts that are wounded or burdened.."
I believe this God finds us all worthy of love - in spite of our failures, circumstances or, for that fact successes.
From anon 1:50,
ReplyDeleteGod's love is unconditional, unimaginable, unchangeable. He knew us before He laid the foundation of the world; He knit us in our mother's womb; He freely underwent crucifixion to open Heaven to us.
He gives us laws to follow, not for His own delight, but to keep us from using our free will in such a way as to hurt ourselves. These laws are proclaimed by the Church.
Another explanation:
"The Church accepts people as they are. Jesus says the church is like a net, it pulls in everybody, everybody belongs to the Church, there are sinners, there are saints, there are people with wrong ideas. But the Church continues to proclaim what Jesus taught. There is no room in the Church for the acceptance of aberrational ideas. There is room in the Church to accept, to understand and to love people whoever they may be. Not to tell them that what they are advocating is right, not to justify it. That is quite different… There are some people who say the Church is intolerant—no! We accept people but we cannot be unfaithful to Christ. We will not accept gay marriage. The Church has explained this over, and over and over again and she will have to continue to explain it."
Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia, June 28th, 2008
I am a practicing Catholic, belong to a church, and believe in gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteFrom anon 1:50,
ReplyDeleteIf truth were a construct, then there could be truths -- my truth, your truth, Joe's truth. And if multiple truths existed, then contradictions could occur and be accepted.
If truth is a person, however, contradictions cannot co-exist. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." To embrace Jesus is to embrace Truth personified.
The Church teaches Truth exists and that it is knowable; that Jesus embodies Truth ("His name is Faithful and True"); and that He is the Head of the Church, which is the Body of Christ.
Followers of Christ have the privilege and the duty of adhering to the Truth.
From anon 1:50,
ReplyDeleteAn addition, on culpability and ignorance, vincible and invincible:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm
I worry that many of the Church's teachings are frequently used by some as ways to legitimize their perceived right to exclude. I am thinking here of families that denounce gay children/siblings. Remember how divorced people were formerly treated, shamed?
ReplyDeleteOn many occasions, I feel the Church misses opportunities to express/practice inclusiveness, the love of God for his children. We are all human and flawed in our own ways all the while yearning, and perhaps praying, for a better tomorrow on earth and in eternity.
These intense issues are a source of concern for many that identify as RC's - practicing, lapsed or otherwise. It would be great to learn that parishes/dioceses throughout the US would have forums for discussion of these topics. Perhaps Catholic colleges/univ. could help with a project of this sort. Lack of public discourse on hot button topics keeps many of us feeling isolated...afraid to bring up these topics for fear of being ostracized by fellow Catholics who have had perhaps more theological training.
Wow! Double Wow! I think this post and its follow-up in the combox has hit a nerve. I personally have known divorced people, gay single people, gay married couples, people who have had abortions and people who have had adulterous relationships. With each scenario can come pain and heartache. I think as Christians our duty is to love each person no matter what we may think of their actions. Judge not that ye be not judged. I have enough of my own sins and failings to worry about. It is not my place, nor my desire to castigate others. I actually pray for those in difficult circumstances and that includes most of all me!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous above,
ReplyDeleteIf you saw a train wreck in the works, wouldn't you feel obligated to call out a warning? If you saw a friend considering an affair or in despair, going to obtain an abortion, would you say, "I can't judge, it's not for me to say?" or would you try to persuade the friend to follow what you believed to be the right course?
It is a spiritual work of mercy to admonish the sinner and instruct the ignorant. It is highly recommended to regular Catholics.
It is required of those, such as Concord Pastor, who by virtue of their position and training, speak with authority and represent the Church.
This is not castigating sinners, this is promoting virtue.
Anon 1:50
For the record: the comments above are in response to a post about a Catholic wedding of a Catholic man and a Catholic woman in a Catholic church with a Catholic priest presiding. Having been there and been part of it, I can attest that it was a thoroughly orthodox, Roman Catholic affair.
ReplyDeleteThe combox, however, has led us to consider other possibilities.
I suspect that both sides of the conversation here may be waiting for me to weigh in. "Anon 1:50" has called me out in his/her last comment. To use Anon 150's own vocabulary (in the combox on a later post where this one has spilled over) there is "nothing new, nothing doctrinally incorrect, nothing startling" in what he/she has written. It is, indeed, "simple, boilerplate Catholicism." All very true. I would not argue a word of that.
It seems, however, that "boilerplate Catholicism" applied in this forum to other comments has had an offending, even hurtful impact. For this, Anon 150 has apologized.
Those who have been hurt have read Anon 1:50's position as an exercise in a presumed right to judge and exclude others from God's love. Of course, that is likely a judgment and right Anon 1:50 has never presumed to make or have.
Those who have been hurt by the boilerplate approach may be those whose own experience make them question Church teaching, which teaching they may or may not understand to begin with. Since all comments here are virtually anonymous (even those with screen names) we don't know the background of those in the discussion. There is evident, however, in those who counter Anon 1:50's stance, an approach which may be too simple by half in dealing with complex moral issues. And make no mistake about it, we are dealing with complex moral issues in this combox (and in the other where this discussion has wandered).
As is true of the comboxes on so many blogs, it's unlikely that conversion on either side of the issue will take place here. That's not to say that Anon 1:50 is too hardened in orthodoxy or that his/her opposition is too mired in liberal thinking to have a change of heart. What it does indicate is that while some light might be shed in a venue like this, it's doubtful that combox "dialogue" will convince either side of the other's stand.
The protest raised by some here is too simplistic to carry the day. And the trumpeting of church teaching by others is unlikely to have its desired effect.
I have just about enough time to write and moderate this blog. It's impossible for me to answer every question posed or comment on every idea presented in the comboxes. If you look over the majority of my posts, they focus on the Sunday scriptures, poetry, prayer, some music and (as the masthead announces) other commentary on life and ministry in my parish, in the RC Church and in the world around us.
I was asked above if I foresee the day when the Church might recognize or bless same-sex unions. My response? "That day will not and cannot come." That's even more pithy than Anon 1:50 and, talk about boilerplate!
I understand that many of the comments above come from those whose experience of gay and lesbian persons and their relationships leads them to question and struggle with what they know the Church teaches. And I believe these commentors are on at least one right track in sensing that some aspects of boilerplate theology are not always as accepting of our gay brothers and sisters as are those aspects of theology that call us to be loving and accepting, yes - even inclusive, of all. The Church's ministry, of course, is to engage and unite the two aspects. That's not accomplished by simply announcing Church teaching, nor by doubting the Church's authority to teach.
This will be my last comment in this series and from here on I will moderate future comments in this thread with a heavier hand than I have thus far. I don't wish to limit comment, but neither do I believe that this is the venue where such issues are best resolved.