Marriage Matters

I'm not sure if you are following this topic - recent discussions on the recent rediscovery of a decision by the Council of Nicea to permit "second marriages" and allow those in them full participation in the sacramental life of the Church.  Some commentators, among them Sandro Magister, have been saying that this reveals that the ancient Church forgave and normalised second marriages for those who were separated or divorced.  As you expect with the Synod on Marriage and Family coming in October, some will seek to use this to push for a change in the Church's teaching on divorce, remarriage and the Eucharist.

However, things are not as they seem.  Given that the Church has not permitted second marriages for people with living spouses without an annulment, it would seem strange that if one of the most important Councils in the history of the Church permitted them why that decision was not implemented.  Well the answer to that is simple: the Council was not referring to the divorced or separated, but the widowed.  The rigorists corrected by the Council were those who believed that only one marriage was permitted for Christians and if widowed they were not permitted to marry again.  The Council of Nicea's decision on "second marriages" was to permit the widowed to remarry with the full blessing of the Church.  The only ones excluded from this was widowed priests who, not permitted the "use" of marriage since ordination (i.e. they were not permitted to have sex even though still married to their wives), were not permitted to remarry should their wives die. 

For more information on this see Ed Peter's blog.  Prof. John Lamot also offers a clarification.  This should serve as a warning to us in these days of debate and dialogue: be careful when it comes to citing Church history, ancient customs and Councils - they tend to be more orthodox and Catholic (and stricter!) that we moderns think.  I remember having a discussion with a young lady on the issue of the ordination of women. She had done a course on Church history, taught by a husband and wife team.  She learned from them that the ancient Church Catholic had ordained women as priests and they had had an active ministry in the Church for some time before being repressed.  I explained that some heretical groups may have had women in a ministerial role, but not the Catholic Church.  No, no, she insisted, it was the Catholic Church.  When I asked her to cite references she had none - but the husband and wife team were competent scholars.  When I asked her to tell me who they were she refused to do so.  

Moral of the story: do not take what dissidents say for granted - look for references, evidence, not in popular works, or the opinions of certain scholars with a particular ideology - evidence in standard historical works, and insist on original sources in their original context.  So many have been led astray by people with a notion relying on scholars with unsubstantiated opinions.

St Nicholas Loses The Cool

I love to scandalise the faithful today. Well, not in a sinful way.  The one we celebrate today is so different from the image we have built up of him, and I like to upset, just a little, the sanitised image of St Nicholas of Myra.  St Nicholas was very much like St John the Baptist, and while we have so many wonderful stories and legends of his charity and kindness, we also have one which reveals his true colour - and yes, it was red - but the red of righteous anger.

St Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, renowned for his holiness, charity and defence of orthodoxy.  He had suffered for the faith, imprisoned during the persecution of Diocletian.  He attended the Council of Nicea which met to deal with the heresy the priest, Fr Arius, was preaching.  Nicholas may have been one of those holy confessors referred to by historians, who bore the scars of their suffering and met with Constantine at the beginning of the Council symbolising the reconciliation between the Roman Empire and the Church.  Anyway, if he was scarred, he lost none of his fire.  According to accounts which may be legend (but who cares it's a great story) during one of the debates, so fired up with zeal for the orthodox faith, Nicholas set upon Fr Arius and gave him a good slap (good man Nicholas!).  For his zeal, the venerable Bishop of Myra, on orders from the Emperor and his fellow bishops, ended up in the clink for a few days to cool off (that reconciliation was short lived!).  He had to eat humble pie, and ask forgiveness for his violent act. 

So Nicholas was no cuddly grandfather sipping the whiskey as he trots around the globe shedding gifts - he was in the style of the great Bishop defenders of the Church - of Basil and Gregory, of Augustine and Ambrose, of Hiliary and Martin.  That makes him an even more interesting and attractive figure.  Now I would not recommend that we should go around clocking the heretics in our midst, if any should exist, of course.  But his zeal might be no harm to emulate.  That zeal was fueled by his intense love of Christ whom he knew to be God and man. 

St Nicholas reminds us that the Saints cannot be sanitised, or dismissed - they are more that the categories we like to create for them.  They are more complicated, yes they were sinners, but they were also great lovers, and that love transformed them so they saw that being a disciple of Christ was not a humdrum, stale or respectable affair - it is an adventure!  That's a good Advent message for us all.

One interesting detail of the story of Nicholas at Nicea tells us that during the night, as Nicholas was reflecting on his behaviour, Jesus and Mary appeared to him.  "Why  are you in jail?" they asked him.  "Because of my love for you", he said.   Jesus then gave him a book of the Gospels, and Our Lady gave him the omophoron - he stole of a bishop. Consolation indeed, forgiveness too.  Dare we say, also a pat on the back?  Dear me, no!