In private conversations among friends and priests, I have held the view for years that the way out of this dilemma is for states to keep marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but to create civil unions to allow two men or two women to have the same civil legal rights as married people do. That is, rights involving inheritance, taxation, health decisions, etc. For a while I thought this argument was going to win the day. This preserved our country's (and our Christian faith's) commitment to seeing marriage (between one man and one woman) as a social good, yet permit those homosexually oriented persons who wished to have some kind of permanent bond to do so. Their unions would come out from the shadows into civil law.
But voices advocating for so-called gay marriage argued, civil unions are "separate but equal," with all the opprobrium that this distasteful and terrible phrase from our racist past carries. This argument, civil unions are separate but equal, doomed marriage to be redefined. The voices for gay marriage said, rather, the issue is equality. This was noted by no less than His Eminence, Donald Cardinal Wuerl, in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post on June 28. He wrote:
Some have framed this debate in terms of "equality." That rings with a certain American appeal. Everyone wants to be treated equally, with the love and respect due all people. But focusing on "marriage equality" gets the question wrong. Equality requires treating like cases alike. We need to determine whether we have "like cases" at all. If we want to address the principle of equality correctly, we need to get to the truth of marriage first.
Cardinal Wuerl then goes on to offer the traditional definition of marriage. He concludes firmly:
No matter what a court, legislator, president or voter may claim to the contrary the essence of marriage cannot be redefined. Its meaning is intrinsic, grounded in human nature and discoverable by human reason with or without the aid of faith.
This is the traditional Catholic understanding and teaching about marriage. Cardinal Wuerl explains its Thomistic logic, with his usual clarity of expression. I agree 100% with this teaching, as the Catholic Church has taught it for centuries.
And the United States courts, legislatures, and people aren't buying it. "Equality" will win the day, every day, in our country. "Separate but equal" --in matters of race, gender, or now marriage--is dead and never to be accepted again. Those who stand for the traditional definition of marriage, whether Catholic, Christian, people of another faith or no faith, are forced to live with the reality that marriage now, and will, mean any state-sanctioned union between two persons.
You can see this change in the definition of the word marriage in dictionaries. Dictionary.com defines marriage as
1. a legally, religiously or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond;
a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitment, religious ceremonies.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender.
The online American Heritage dictionary is similar
1a. the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other;
1b. a similar union of more than two persons;
1c. a union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage;
1d. a common law marriage.
Note that in the first, the union is of "persons," and only in the second line is "man and woman" spelled out, as one among several options for the persons. The second definition has "man and woman" first, but also "between two persons of the same sex." It is interesting that the American Heritage definition also has "similar union of more than two persons," e.g., polygamy or polyandry.
I pulled out my two ancient American Heritage (real book) dictionaries off my bookshelf, to look up their definitions of marriage. The 1981 edition has this definition of marriage:
1a. The state of being husband and wife; wedlock.
1b. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The act of marrying or the ceremony of being married; a wedding.
The 1993 third edition of the American Heritage dictionary reads:
1.a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
1.b. Wedlock.
1.c. A wedding.
Note in both definitions it is explicit that marriage is between a husband (man) and a wife (woman). Same-sex marriage (two persons) and polygamy (more than two persons) as other meanings had not crept into the dictionaries. Between 1993 and 2013 they did.
Which brings me to my one thought. In the 1981 American Heritage dictionary, there is a wonderful add-on to the stated definition of marriage, synonyms. This is the authors's attempt to help the reader in being precise about words that are close, but not exactly the same, in meaning. Here it lists: marriage, matrimony, wedlock, wedding, nuptials. To distinguish, matrimony "applies to the state of being married, with emphasis on its religious nature."
Given the redefinition of marriage now going on in the courts, the legislatures, and our American culture, I think it is time for us Catholics to reclaim the word matrimony. The American bishops, among many voices, have for years tried to say, You can't redefine marriage. It is, as the archbishop of Washington said, intrinsic to the meaning that the word can only apply to one man and one woman. But that ship sailed. Marriage is redefined, in law and in common parlance. Marriage is no longer the word used to precisely and clearly refer to one of the seven sacraments. Let us use matrimony to mean (as the 1983 Code of Canon Law states) this definition.
The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055, #1)
It is interesting that the Latin word translated marriage or matrimony (as best I can see, interchangeably in the Code of Canon Law) is matrimonium. I have to admit, over the years I have never liked the word matrimony. To me it had a stuffy, snooty, Episcopalian ring to it, denoting only the most "high-church" ceremonies conducted for royals, with the most lavish of party afterwards. As a Catholic priest, I've been privileged to witness the vows of couples in cathedrals and other large churches, but also in small chapels and with the least amount of ceremony. All were loving expressions of the same sacrament of marriage.
But I have changed my mind. From now on, I will be using matrimony when describing the Catholic sacrament, and marriage for any union of any persons.
As I was preparing this blog post, I came across this response to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions mentioned at the top.
It is becoming increasingly and abundantly clear that what secular law now calls 'marriage' has no semblance to the sacred institution of Holy Matrimony. People of faith are called to reject the redefinition of marriage and bear witness to the truth of Holy Matrimony as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between one man and one woman.
This is from Bishop Thomas Paprocki, head of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois. I couldn't have said it better myself.
And is the logical conclusion that as a priest your role should be to witness the sacrament of matrimony only and not the civil marriage?
ReplyDelete