I believe that marriage is the bedrock of society. It is a gift from God in Creation. It has a public element, a public commitment made to one another and to the community. For richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health. Already in marriage, there are the ingredients of stability that children are looking for.
What we shouldn’t do is begin to create comparisons of the different family structures because I think that’s a dead end conversation.
Marriage is in creation, whether you’re Christian or not, there isn’t such a thing as “a Christian marriage” – marriage is marriage is marriage. The faith of course can help support it, but we’ve got to honour the institution of marriage ”“ the Holy Estate.
I’ve known people who were atheists who were very loving and caring in terms of that relationship. The only thing I said to them was it would be much easier if they knew that the source of romance is God.
Reading the whole thing, it’s even weaker than when I read part of it. In another section of the interview he says that the great thing about the establishment of the Church of England is that they’re there for everybody — everybody is entitled to a wedding, to a burial, “whether they go to church or not.” Yet study after study has shown that people draw closer to organizations with strict requirements and drift farther away from those with no requirements.
In the Catholic Church, it’s very clear. If you don’t belong to a parish church (if you aren’t a registered member and with some sense that you actually participate):
1. They are not going to baptize your kids
2. You are not going to be married there
3. You are not going to be buried there
If your kids don’t keep to a fairly strict yearly requirement for religious education in a fairly strict order:
1. They are not going to make their First Communion
2. They are not going to be Confirmed.
Catholics understand that the Church is not going to chase after them begging them do it a favor by receiving its sacraments. Instead — they are going to have to show committment and fidelity. The concept that “you don’t have to have any relationship to us at all — just use us (we’re begging you!) whenever you have a need and then return to your usual indifference” is frankly pathetic. It’s no different from any other relationship. If the Church of England values itself so little, why would anybody else value it more?
His comments about marriage get even worse. “There is no such thing as “Christian marriage” — there is just “marriage.” Gay relationsips are not be criticized — only “suppported.” Civil partnerships are a great idea. It’s a bad idea to suggest that any family structure is superior to any other family structure — they should all be “supported.” (Of course, but there is a huge difference between “supporting” someone and failing to state that the way they are living their life is problematic.) He goes out of his way to tell a story about how accepted in the church a gay couple that he knew as a child were. He goes 10 miles out of his way to show that he has ZERO criticism of homosexuality, homosexual partnerships, homosexuals raising kids, etc. etc. It’s just that “government shoudn’t define marriage.” Well, of course government shouldn’t define “Christian” marriage (which he doesn’t seem to think is any different from civil marriage) but it totally has the right to define civil marriage. So he gives away every point upon which any actual opposition could be based (lest he be seen any way, shape, or form, to be critical of homosexuals) and then clings to some point which is patently wrong.
If this is the best he can do, he would have been better to have said “no comment.”
The Archbishop said:
[blockquote] “We must not torture the English language. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and that’s marriage.
We supported Civil Partnerships (the bishops in the House of Lords), because we believe that friendships are good for everybody.
But then to turn Civil Partnerships into marriage, that’s not the role of government to create institutions that are not of its gifting.
I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just overnight, no matter how powerful you are. We’ve seen dictators do it, by the way, in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine what I call very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.” [/blockquote]
I personally don’t agree that endorsing civil partnerships was either necessary or wise.
But the fact remains that ABY has stood up and testified plainly: “We must not torture the English language. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and that’s marriage.”
For that he is undergoing strong personal vilification by extremist liberals who are embedded in the structures of the Church of England. He deserves our support for making this statement and I am very happy to give that support.
The main problem with gay marriage is that it victimizes the English language? Marriage is “set in tradition and history and you can’t just change that overnight?” It’s not set in the Word of God and you CAN change it if you wait long enough? I don’t it I’d ban anything on the strength of that argument.
Since the Archbishop of York did not say that the main problem with gay marriage was that it victimises the English language, you don’t have to worry.
[blockquote] We must not torture the English language. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and that’s marriage.
[/blockquote]
While it sounds like a comment in passing, outside of “marriage is set in tradition and history and you can’t change it overnight” that is ALL that he said in opposition to gay marriage.
He did say “there isn’t such a thing as a ‘Christian marriage'” (!) and you must not “diminish, condemn, criticise, patronise any sort of same-sex relationships” With those two statements, he’s destroyed any possible coherent argument against gay marriage in the Church and pretty much any argument against civil gay marriage.
He may be a great guy and the only one willing to make any statement whatsoever against gay marriage, but in this case he’s done more to damage the argument than to help it.
Catholic Mom,
1. You wrote:
[blockquote] “While it sounds like a comment in passing, outside of “marriage is set in tradition and history and you can’t change it overnight†that is ALL that he said in opposition to gay marriage.”
[/blockquote]
That misrepresents his position. What he said was:
[blockquote] “Marriage is in creation, whether you’re Christian or not, there isn’t such a thing as “a Christian marriage†– marriage is marriage is marriage. The faith of course can help support it, but we’ve got to honour the institution of marriage – the Holy Estate.
I’ve known people who were atheists who were very loving and caring in terms of that relationship. The only thing I said to them was it would be much easier if they knew that the source of romance is God.
We must not torture the English language. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and that’s marriage.” [/blockquote]
2. You wrote:
[blockquote] “He did say “there isn’t such a thing as a ‘Christian marriage’†(!) and you must not “diminish, condemn, criticise, patronise any sort of same-sex relationships†With those two statements, he’s destroyed any possible coherent argument against gay marriage in the Church and pretty much any argument against civil gay marriage.” [/blockquote]
As to the first statement, that is simply a statement of Christian doctrine. Marriage existed before the Church did, and in God’s eyes the marriage celebrated outside of a church is no different to the one celebrated inside it. For example, if I destroy another couple’s marriage because of my adulterous relationship with one of them, I stand just as much under God’s judgment whether it was a “christian” marriage or not – When Jesus said “What God has joined let no man put asunder” he made clear that he was speaking about ANY marriage.
Teaching truth does not destroy the coherence of any argument.
As to the second statement, I think it is clear he is being reactive. He is acknowledging that there may be same sex relationships that have some validity (and he is using “relationship” in a very broad sense to include “friendships”) but that the bottom line is that we must not call any of them marriages. I personally would go much much further, but I am glad that he is at least saying as much as he is.
[blockquote] and in God’s eyes the marriage celebrated outside of a church is no different to the one celebrated inside it. [/blockquote]
Really??? That has never been the teaching of the Church in 2,000 years, but maybe it’s a Protestant thing. And what is the definition of a “marriage celebrated outside the church?” Meaning one that the state recognizes? Is that the whole requirement/definition for a valid marriage? So if two people are shacking up together without a piece of paper from the state, they are committing sin, but the state has the authority to grant them a piece of paper which makes their relationship holy and a symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church? Who knew that the state had such power? Especially when you’re then turning around and arguing that they don’t have the power to marry gay couples. But, in fact, the Church no more recognizes civil marriage than it does civil divorce. (Except from the perspective of normally requiring couples who wish to marry to be civilly able to do so.)
The historic teaching of the Church is that there is absolutely such a thing as “Christian” marriage and that Christians are not to live together except as having entered into a “Christian” marriage and that this marriage has numerous specific characteristics which define it as such. Chief among these is that the couple solemnly vow to enter into a relationship which meets all the obligations of a Christian marriage, including the intent to remain faithful to one another until death do them part. And that, except in case of grave necessity, the couple is required to fulfill the form of marriage in that 1) it be public and 2) it be solemnized by a priest. And that any other marriage is not a Christian marriage and the parties involved are free to leave the relationship (and indeed, if they are both Christians they should either enter into a Christian marriage or separate) and to marry others in a Christian marriage. Now, it could be that a couple has privately, and between themselves, vowed these things to each other and with the same intent that the Church has when it asks them to make these vows, and that their marriage lacks only the formality of solemnization. In this case, indeed, it would be adulterous for either one of them to have a relationship outside this marriage. Nonethless, the marriage is still irregular and they would be counciled to regularize it as soon as possible.
So, yes, civil marriage is not the same thing as “Christian” marriage. Even in formerly Christian countries where the civil marriage ceremony imitiates to some degree the Christian marriage ceremony. Still less in non-Christian countries where it does not.
[blockquote] When Jesus said “What God has joined let no man put asunder†he made clear that he was speaking about ANY marriage. [/blockquote]
He was speaking about Jewish religious marriage. Are you under the impression that, for example, “what the State of New Jersey records in its databases” is the same as “what God has joined together?” In Jesus’ day (as today) any Jew not married under Jewish law was not considered to be validly married.
[blockquote] “”Are you under the impression that, for example, “what the State of New Jersey records in its databases†is the same as “what God has joined together?†[/blockquote]
Yes. If people commit to marry each other, then in God’s eyes they are married.
[blockquote] “In Jesus’ day (as today) any Jew not married under Jewish law was not considered to be validly married.” [/blockquote]
I don’t think this is correct, or relevant. As for Jewish belief and practice today, attitudes and beliefs differ widely between different branches of Judaism. I know for a fact that not all Jews believe as you assert.
As for what was jewish practice in New Testament times, Prof. Michael Satlow who specialises in this area considers that “Jews in the rabbinic period, by and large, did not understand their sexual and marital assumptions and practice as strong sites for a distinctive identity. … Jews more or less shared their understanding and practices of marriage and sex with their non-Jewish neighbors.” See his chapter in the Cambridge History of Judaism entitled “Rabbinic views on marriage, sexuality, and the family”
But this doesn’t matter anyway, because Jesus wasn’t referring to Jewish marriage.
[blockquote] “He was speaking about Jewish religious marriage.” [/blockquote]
No, he wasn’t. He was asked a question about the attitude to divorce in the Torah, but he responded by taking his listeners back to pre-Moses, pre-Abraham, and even pre-Noah days and reminding them of the prescriptions God laid down for all marriages. Jesus’ point is, in effect, ‘God laid down rules for marriage at the time of Adam and Eve. A later provision for divorce given to the Jewish people cannot override the original commands that were given’.
Here is the passage from Mark 10 in full:
[blockquote] “Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?â€
“What did Moses command you?†he replied.
They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.â€
“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,†Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.— [Mark 10:1-9] [/blockquote]
Catholic Mom wrote at #7,
[blockquote] “Really??? That has never been the teaching of the Church in 2,000 years, but maybe it’s a Protestant thing.” [/blockquote]
I suggest you need to do more study about the teaching of the Church over 2,000 years. So far as I am aware, we have no reason to think that the early church had ANY ceremonies for marriage. All marriages were what you would call ‘pagan’. This applies well into the patristic period. Even when marriage blessing services began to come into vogue in the early Middle Ages they were not thought of as displacing normal legal marriage. Its true that some theologians (Augustine is the earliest I can think of) asserted a “sacramental” marriage, but even that doesn’t mean that they also asserted that non-sacramental marriages were not valid, which is what you are asserting.
[blockquote] “So if two people are shacking up together without a piece of paper from the state, they are committing sin, but the state has the authority to grant them a piece of paper which makes their relationship holy and a symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church?” [/blockquote]
This is precisely what liberal theologians and philosophers say. However, marriage is more than just a “piece of paper”. It is a life-long commitment by two people made solemnly and publicly. And yes, when two people make that committment, they are no longer comitting sin in their shacking up.
But by all means focus exclusively on the piece of paper, if that is what is important to you.
If you are affronted by the idea that every marriage is indeed holy, then take it up with Jesus Christ. He is the one who makes the rules, not me.
[blockquote] “And that, except in case of grave necessity, the couple is required to fulfill the form of marriage in that 1) it be public and 2) it be solemnized by a priest. And that any other marriage is not a Christian marriage and the parties involved are free to leave the relationship …” [/blockquote]
That has never been the historic teaching of the Church. Nobody gets a free pass from their marriage just because it wasn’t solemnised by a priest.
[blockquote] “In this case, indeed, it would be adulterous for either one of them to have a relationship outside this marriage.” [/blockquote]
True. It would also be adulterous for the members of ANY marriage to have a relationship outside of it. Not being married by a priest doesn’t get them off the hook.
Question: Is “common law” marriage the same as “Christian marriage” (i.e., equally valid) if the two persons hold themselves out to be married? If not, why not??
Let us imagine a couple who comes to you. For some reason they do not wish or cannot be married in the Church. They have the option of civil marriage, however. They state that they have completely committed themselves to one another, have consumated the relationship, and are holding themselves out as common-law man and wife. Other than for tidying up certain legal issues, would you tell them that was fine, or would you encourage them to enter a civil mariage, and, if the latter, why?
Second Question: Two people marry secretly in the Church (as for example, Romeo and Juliet) but live apart without acknowleding their relationship and without the civil authorities recording the marriage. Are they NOT married because they don’t publically hold themselves out as a committed married couple. (As, for example, Cranmer and his wife)?
Question: If two people marry secretly (as, for example, Romeo and Juliet) are they not married because the marriage is not acknowledged publcally? If not, why not?
On the other hand, if Romeo and Juliet were married even though
Obvious electron bleed on those last two sentences. Should not type while in the same room with teenagers playing loud video games. This shortcircuits ability to transmit thought to typing fingers. 🙂
Catholic Mom,
[blockquote] “Is “common law†marriage the same as “Christian marriage†(i.e., equally valid) if the two persons hold themselves out to be married?” [/blockquote]
Okay, just to be sure we are talking about the same thing, in most jurisdictions that I am aware of, a couple in ‘common law marriage’ must hold themselves out to the world as married. In other words, its not enough just to cohabit nor is it the same as a “de facto” relationship. Rather, the whole world thinks or assumes that the couple are married, being unaware that they don’t have the certificate. The couple themselves may also consider themselves legally married and even be unaware that registration exists (uncommon these days but, depending on where you lived, not so uncommon only a few decades ago).
I think its clear that Jesus would regard them as married, because common law marriage is an actual marriage at law.
[blockquote] “Let us imagine a couple who comes to you. …” [/blockquote]
Assuming in this hypothetical that I am a minister of some kind (which I’m not, but no matter) and assuming that for some reason they want to know my thoughts about their marriage, I would say to this couple that they are married in God’s eyes and they should do everything possible to strengthen that marriage. If they won’t do the church wedding thing, then I would marry them in another place. If they don’t want a minister involved at all, then I would suggest they at least go and make that extra formal commitment at the registry. It certainly can’t hurt and anything that helps keep marriages together is a good thing.
I am now taking off the dog-collar. Not used to it at all… :o)
[blockquote] “Second Question: Two people marry secretly in the Church (as for example, Romeo and Juliet) but live apart without acknowleding their relationship and without the civil authorities recording the marriage. Are they NOT married because they don’t publically hold themselves out as a committed married couple. (As, for example, Cranmer and his wife)?” [/blockquote]
They are married. They have done it in front of witnesses, even though it is clandestine, and I assume you are saying that the intent and commitment are there, as it was in both the examples you give.
[Off-topic, but I assume you mean Cranmer’s second wife, Margarete whom he married in 1532? He was open about his marriage to his first wife in 1515].
The whole world does not have to think they have a legal certificate. The couple simply has to refer to themselves as “spouses.” That is — the woman says “my husband is coming to pick me up.” The man says “my wife wants me to stop by the grocery store on the way home.” In some states, even this is not necessary. I knew an old couple who had been living together for 40 years. If you referred to the man as the woman’s “husband” she would say “He ain’t my husband. He’s my boyfriend!” But if one of them went to court, there is a high probablility their relationship would be recognized as a “common law” marriage. The couple lives together but they have no certificate because they think, that “we don’t need no stinkin’ certificate.”
SOME states recognize this as “marriage” in the sense that it carries with it legal responsibilities — that is, if you act as if you have a contract with someone for 20 years, you cannot then walk away and state that you have no contract. However, to the best of my knowledge, NO state requires a “divorce” of the couple to “re-marry” because they are married only in that they have certain financial obligations to one another. In this sense, the relationship is exactly the same in which women have held out for “palimony” — “you made promises to me, you sucked up a huge amount of my time, now you owe me.”
The Catholic Church will absolutely marry a person who has been in a “common law” relationship with another person. Because they do not recognize this as marriage. They will also marry anyone who has been in a civil marriage provided that 1) a civil divorce has been obtained (not that they recognize divorce, of course, but so that they don’t break the law) and that 2) if the party being married in the Catholic Church is a Christian of some sort, that person’s own “ecclesial community” (as it were) does not consider them married. If the party who was in a civil marriage is Catholic, they can absolutely be married in the Catholic Church to another party because the Catholic Church does not recognize civil marriage for Catholics.
The standard for Christian marriage is extremely high. It’s only when the bar starts dragging on the floor that the question of things like “gay marriage” arises. This is why, IMHO, Sentamu is closing the barn door after the horses are already several counties away.
Bob and Betty live together and consider themselves married. Ergo, they are married.
Bob and Betty got a piece of paper from the county clerk. Ergo, they are married.
Bob and Bill live together and consider themselves married. Ergo…
Bob and Bill got a piece of paper from the country clerk. Ergo..
When you’ve already thrown away the concept of Christian marriage, the only argument you’re left with is “but, but, but, that’s not what “marriage” has historically meant in the English language!” Which is exactly Sentamu’s argument. So??? A hundred years ago a “website” was a dusty place in your house. Now it’s something else. Times change. The “historic” argument is not going to persuade anybody of anything.
Catholic Mom,
You are attempting to drag a myriad of red herrings into this (especially by using an extremely imprecise term such as ‘common law marriage’!)
You are trying to argue that couples who have not had their marriages blessed by a priest are free to split, without it being “divorce”.
Jesus’ teaching is clear – those who have committed to each other in marriage are married, and “what God has joined together, let no man put asunder”. Just because your marriage wasn’t blessed by a priest does not give you a free pass out of that marriage when you feel like it. You don’t seem to care what Jesus taught, but I can’t help that.
[blockquote] “The Catholic Church will absolutely marry a person who has been …” [/blockquote]
This may be important to you, which is fine, but what is its relevance to me, or to ++Sentamu? The Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Baptists et al., all have slightly different rules about how they will marry (none the same as the Roman Catholic Church). Good for all of them, but I’m not Eastern Orthodox, I’m not Baptist, nor Roman Catholic nor any of the others, so they have little relevance for me.
I’m trying to point out that there IS such a thing as “Christian marriage” and to say otherwise makes the State the arbiter of what is and isn’t marriage, and that’s what Sentamu wants to oppose but he doesn’t want to hold out the Church as the arbiter because he knows he would be howled down in post-Christian Britian. So he does this dance where he says there’s no such thing as Christian marriage but, on the other hand, the State has no power to define marriage, because somehow that’s defined by tradition and history and the English language.
I point out the rules of the Catholic Church because Britain, up until 500 years ago, was, in fact, a Catholic country (not an Eastern Orthodox or a Baptist country) so that when Sentamu appeals to “tradition and history” he needs to be correct in what he says about it. So that when he says there is “no such thing as Christian marriage” what he means is NOW — not in the history of Britain.