« One vision of hell | Main | Chapter 11 in Tuscon »
September 20, 2004
The Marriage Shibboleth?
Interesting piece from Christianity Today
This is why I believe same-sex marriage is a dangerous shibboleth: It reinforces the status of government as the custodian of the institution of marriage. If the church not only abets but actively furthers the notion that marriage owes its legitimacy to the state's approval, then the battle for the family is all but lost.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834362c3153ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Marriage Shibboleth?:
Comments
Hmmm. Nice sentiment, but I note that the author of the piece did not see fit to say that Tolkein was a Roman Catholic whereas Lewis was more-or-less Anglican. And glosses over when the various Protestant churches thought it was perfectly peachy for people to get married and remarried in church ceremonies after divorce. I suppose that's the problem when religious rules are based on the popular vote of the congregation -- the more popular sins will be given a pass, and thus people have church weddings after being married several times before. And no one thinks anything of it.
I do agree that Christians need to clean house, which is separate from the secular concept of marriage.
Posted by: meep at Sep 20, 2004 1:02:54 PM
I agree with this article, basically, but the issues are complex. We human beings always like "one." One way of doing things, one unifying principle of physics, one Church, etc. But our life is full of paradoxes and contradictions.
Marriage is, IMHO, both a spiritual reality, a sacrament, rightly governed by the Church (for those in the Church), and also a social construct, rightly goverened by the existing laws of the land. I agree that it is dangerous at worst, and a waste of time at best, especially in our post-Christian, pluralistic, multi-cultural, religiously tolerant society to try to force civil law to conform to ecclesial law.
Divorce is another example, as mentioned in the article. Already civil law (and many churches) have no problem with multiple divorce and remarriage; the the Roman Catholic Church still refuses to bless such marriages. They are already disconnected. Also abortion. Also contraception. Also the death penalty. In most states, adultery is not a crime, nor gluttony, lust, idolatry, drunkenness, etc. "Sin" and "Crime" are distinct; religious morality and holiness are not subjects of civil law in our land (rather, equality and individual responsibility seem to be central.) I would also say that, on the other hand, civil notions of equality and individual responsibility are much over-promoted in the Catholic Church in the U.S. The Church is not a democracy, we should not think of "equality" between clergy and laity; rugged individualism really has no place, etc.) The Church and the civil society are two differen things, with different rules and different aims; they are in contact, and we live in both. But they are different.
Besides, history has shown that in those times when Christian Countries tried to conform civil law to ecclesial law, life was not that great. More often than not we had abuses of power, resulting in many deaths, in the name of our Christian God at the hands of secular powers.
Let Caesar rule the world; let God rule the Church, until Christ the King.
Posted by: b at Sep 20, 2004 1:12:01 PM
Interestingly, the author arrives at a conclusion 180-degrees from that reached by Pope John Paul II in his "Theology of the Body" regarding Jesus' response to the Pharisees regarding divorce.
The author seems to say that Jesus was actually endorsing divorce, because of our "fallen state".
The Holy Father concludes that Jesus was rejecting Moses' acquiesence to the realities of fallen mankind, since Jesus himself was ushering in the Kingdom age of grace.
This difference typifies the distinction between Catholic and Protestant thought on the subject.
Posted by: Esquire at Sep 20, 2004 3:29:53 PM
I think I posted on this before, but here it goes again:
In the US, churches that are recognized as legitimate are allowed to perform marriage ceremonies that are recognized by the civil government. This is not the case everywhere.
In most of Europe, England & Russis, first you marry at the notary office or courthouse. Why does the government care who is sleeping with who? Fact - it doesn't. Not only does civil status give the married persons access to benefits, it also imposes civil responsibilities so that the government doesn't end up responsible for abandoned children and dependent spouses. Just as probate laws & statutory inheritance schemes prevent open warfare among relatives, creditors, and loved ones; marriage laws have legal provisions regarding division of property at divorce and provide for the needs of offspring at divorce and family responsibility laws that can make a solvent spouse responsible for the necessities of life for a spouse or minor child without sufficient funds.
Other than vague Christian sins that address being responsible for your loved ones and not to physically harm them, the Church has no teeth to enforce the behavior it is trying to encourage.
Summary: the state is more concerned with the non-violent passage of property to creditors, heirs and dependents and with avoiding state financial responsibility for dependents and spouses. Today, family law also has the duty and ability to deal with child abuse and negligence to a much greater degree than in the past. It's focus is on the here & now - physically and financially.
The church's focus is more on the next life and creating new souls for God in this life. If the church doesn't want to get involved in same-sex unions, I can't see how the state could force it to do so.
It's my understanding that Holy Matrimony in earlier times did not involve formal church ceremonies except where there was property and dynastic issues involved. Perhaps, somebody out there knows more about this than I do, but weren't marriages recognized by the community and church if the persons made at least a verbal commitment to each other, consummated the marriage physically and held themselves out to the community as a family unit. I remember the friar witnessing Romeo & Juliet exchanging vows, but wasn't he just a witness on behalf of the church and nothing more? In other old time stories and operas, the folks being married signed all kinds of contracts and no church ceremony was involved. That would come later & was just a blessing of a union that already existed.
Some of this I remember dimly from law school.
Anyhow, I think the writer is correct in insisting that civil marriage laws not be linked with any particular religion's ceremonial and eligibility requirements - such as: a man and woman with no living spouses; a man with multiple wives as young as 12; woman must be a virgin; no pre-marital contracts allowed; marriage contract and dowry required; modest clothing for the woman; permission of parents no matter how old the marrying couple, etc., etc. I can think of lots more religeous rules and customs that churches/synagogues/mosques might want incorporated into the civil law. I remember seeing a Shinto wedding in Tokyo and can only guess what might be required of the bride & groom; then there's Confucionist weddings; and Farsees. We have them all in this country now.
I notice that because we don't distinguish anymore between civil and religious that brides today even in Catholic ceremonies are wearing strapless dresses with their boobs haning out!!!! So much for the meaning behind a white church wedding.
I say it's long past time to get the state out of the religious aspects of marriage. Remove the ability of religious clergy to perform civil ceremonies.
Posted by: Julia at Sep 20, 2004 4:37:45 PM
Let Caesar rule the world; let God rule the Church, until Christ the King.
If you're implying that we should accept the evils of society and not try to change them because they are "complex", I think that the Church disagrees with you.
Besides, none of these questions are specifically religious in nature. They are obvious positions that conform to the phenomena of everyday life. The fact that we can't recognize this shows just how far philosophical thought has fallen since the so called "Enlightenment" decided to ignore their philosophical patrimony. St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Posted by: bremlar at Sep 20, 2004 10:22:54 PM
Dear Bremlar,
I'm not saying that "we" should accept the evils of society.
I'm saying that our American, post-Christian, multi-cultural, pluralistic, tolerant society will not allow the morality developed by one religious tradition (Catholic, Moslem, whatever) to become the law of that society. The moral and philosophical basis of our society is now secular humanism.
So what can the Church do with her moral teachings? First, teach her own. All of those Vatican documents you referenced are first and foremost directed toward Catholics.
Let me ask you, Bremlar, how many Catholics in the U.S. have read those Vatican documents you referenced? How many agree with them? How many are praying with them? How many are trying to implement them? Converesely, how many American Catholics spit on them? How many oppose them, in words and heart? How many American Catholics quibble and waffle and feel uncomfortable about them?
Bremlar, start at the house of God. If the Catholics can't get behind these documents you reference, the larger society will realize that they are little more than nice philosophical and religious sentiments expressed by religious leaders but rejected by followers. Why should the greater society be concerned?
America will not be "saved" by Vatican documents. Sorry. But how do you live? How do I live? In our daily life? In our Christian life? Evangelium Vitae speaks of the need for an inner transformation so that we can walk as children of light (n. 95). Start from us. We will spontaneously be in dialogue with society in our lives as laity (forget liturgy committees and fighting over who gets to do what IN church). WE need to be light. In our life as regular human beings we then have the dialogue with society, and, God willing, some effect.
But it is so much more tempting to go the easy way of "yes, I'm a sinner, but let me tell you about this legislative campaign. I'm divorced, or a gambler, or I cheat on my taxes, or I had an affair...but let's work to outlaw the sins of that fellow over there..." It don't work that way anymore in the US.
Posted by: b at Sep 21, 2004 12:08:00 AM
This is more Sandra Miesel's territory than mine, but I'll mention a few things. In Judaism, marriage is a matter of contract, but that contract's a covenant. It is holy, and thus all sorts of religious authorities and laws, and the religious community, are involved.
Christian marriage started out from this base. Yes, it was the contractual consent of the man and woman which made the marriage; yes, it was also a covenant and sacrament; yes, the Church had rules about who should and shouldn't be marrying who. A priest not being prominent in a ceremony doesn't mean it's not a sacrament; you, me, and Uncle Josie the Pagan can all do valid Christian baptisms if need be.
Sharon Krossa has some late medieval marriage info up here:
http://www.medievalscotland.org/history/handfasting.shtml
And a bib on late medieval Scottish marriage:
http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/marriage.shtml
Enjoy!
Posted by: Maureen at Sep 21, 2004 1:17:35 PM
Good is good whether recognisable by reason alone or not: Catholics now end up defending the natural law, Protestants often argue the same side even if on a different basis. Insofar as we are political animals, and Catholic animals, we have to try to ensure that the laws of the land reflect the natural law as far as poss (prudential judgements coming into it, e.g. the possibility in contemporary Britain of making sodomy prosecutable). "Exclusivity, dependence, duration and sexual nature are not the relevant aspects why marriage is privileged by the State. They are only the conditions of those aspects that make marriage unique: the vital function of procreation and the socializing functions of bridging the male-female divide and raising children. When the State uniquely privileges marriage it takes the position that it is in the best interest of society for children to be born and raised in a community where they experience the cause of their biological and historical identity as a loving union preserved by each parent placing the needs of others over their own. By promoting marriage to be the exclusive union between one man and one woman, the State not only protects the rights of children, but encourages the values of commitment, restraint and diversity that are needed to preserve community at large. "
Look up the rest in an April 2004 Osservatore Romano, where the article from which this was taken was published. Dead good article by the way, should be easily available and not buried in the obscurity of L'O. R.
Posted by: berenike at Sep 21, 2004 2:57:41 PM
Since Maureen asked: marriage wasn't declared a scarment until the 12th C and a priest plus 2 witnesses weren't required until after Trent. (These are dispensible in a desert island situation.)The Romans had no particular marriage ceremonies. People were wed is they had exchanged the ring, the gifts, and the kiss and lived in a state of "marital affection. Christianity didn't immediately change this. Lots of medieval people got married through verba de praesenti followed by intercourse. Rich Tuscans in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance got married by notaries while only the poor did it in church. The bedeviling problem in all of this was determining who was married to whom. Bishops'court records make amusing reading now but were tragedies for the people involved. Church weddings and record keeping solved the problem until now. When churches start losing law suits over refusal to marry gays (as they easily might in Canada), they're going to have to give up legal effect for their ceremonies. Then we'll see who cares.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Sep 21, 2004 3:38:06 PM
"marriage wasn't declared a sacrament until the 12th C and a priest plus 2 witnesses weren't required until after Trent."
Is this true? And why did it change?
Is there an authoritative history to read about all this?
Posted by: Julia at Sep 21, 2004 10:21:39 PM
