The following comes from a June 27 posting on the website of the archdiocese of Washington.
In the wake of the Supreme Court decisions of this week, I would like to return to a question I have asked before: Are we coming to a point where we should consider dropping our use of the word “marriage?”
It is a simple fact that word “marriage” as we have traditionally known it is being redefined in our times. To many in the secular world the word no longer means what it once did and when the Church uses the word marriage we clearly do not mean what the increasing number of states mean….
The latest actions by numerous states and the hat-tip that the Supremes gave Same sex unions mean that increasingly, the secular world’s definition of marriage no longer even remotely resembles what the Catechism describes.
To be fair, as we have previously noted, this is not the first redefinition of marriage that has occurred in America. The redefinition has actually come in three stages:
- In 1969 the first no-fault divorce law was signed in California. Within 15 years every state in this land had similar laws that made divorce easy. No longer did state laws uphold the principle which the Catechism describes as a partnership of the whole of life. Now marriage was redefined as a contract easily broken by the will of the spouses.
- The dramatic rise in contraceptive use and the steep drop in birthrates, though not a legal redefinition, amount to a kind of cultural redefinition of marriage as described in the Catechism which sees the procreation and education of offspring as integral to its very nature. Now the American culture saw this aspect as optional at the will of the spouses. Having sown in the wind (where we redefined not only marriage, but sex itself) we are now reaping the whirlwind of deep sexual confusion and a defining of marriage right out of existence.
- This final blow of legally recognizing so called gay “marriage” completes the redefinition of marriage which the Catechism describes as being a covenant, …which a man and a woman establish between themselves. Now secular American culture is removing even this, calling same-sex relationships “marriage”.
Proposal: So the bottom line is that what the secular world means by the word “marriage” is not even close to what the Church means. The secular world excluded every aspect of what the Church means by marriage. Is it time for us to accept this and start using a different word? Perhaps it is, and I would like to propose what I did back in March of 2010, that we return to an older term and hear what you think.
I propose that we should exclusively refer to marriage in the Church as “Holy Matrimony.”
According to this proposal the word marriage would be set aside and replaced by Holy Matrimony. It should be noticed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to this Sacrament formally as “the Sacrament of Matrimony.”
The word “matrimony” also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complementarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = “mother” and mony, a suffix indicating “action, state, or condition.” Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from secular muddle that has “marriage” for its nomen.
Problems to resolve – To return to this phrase “Holy Matrimony” is to return to an older tradition and may sound archaic to some (but at least it isn’t as awkward sounding as “wedlock”). But clearly a new usage will be difficult to undertake. It is one thing to start officially referring to it as Holy Matrimony. (Which, by the way I have done in my parish – we no longer prepare people for marriage, but for “Holy Matrimony”) But it is harder when, for example, a newly engaged couple approaches the priest and says, “We want to be married next summer.” It seems unlikely we easily train couples to say, “We want to enter Holy Matrimony next summer.” or even just to say, “We want to have a wedding next summer.” Such dramatic changes seem unlikely to come easily. Perhaps you, who read this blog can offer some resolutions to this problem.
Perhaps, even if we cannot wholly drop the terms “marry, ” “marriage” and “married” a more modest form of the proposal is that we at least officially discontinue the use of the word marriage and refer to it as the “Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.”
What do you think? Do we need to start using a new word for marriage? Has the word been so stripped of meaning that we have to use different terminology to convey what we really mean?
When I proposed this two years ago this very time, many of you we rather unconvinced and some were even perturbed that we were handing on over our vocabulary to the libertines. That may be, but we already know that “gay” will never mean what it used to, and it would seem that “marriage” will never again mean what it did.
A secondary but related proposal is that we begin to consider getting out of the business of having our clergy act as civil magistrates in weddings. Right now we clergy in most of America sign the civil license and act, as such, as partners with the State. But with an increasing number of states interpreting marriage so differently, can we really say we are partners? Should we even give the impression of credibility to the State’s increasingly meaningless piece of paper? It may remain the case that the Catholic faithful, for legal and tax reasons may need to get a civil license, but why should clergy have anything to do with it?
Frankly, I am uncomfortable signing DC marriage licenses, and do so only because my Ordinary has indicated we should continue doing this. I am happy to obey him in this and defer to his judgment in the matter. There is a reason his is the Ordinary and I am not. That said, I have told him what I think. But for now, it seems clear we must stay the course and still sign them until the Bishop says, no more.
If we did stop signing civil licenses, we would surely need a strong catechesis directed to our faithful that reiterates that civil “marriage” (what ever that means anymore) is not Holy Matrimony and that they should, in no way consider themselves as wed, due to a (meaningless) piece of paper from a secular state that reflects only confusion and darkness rather than clarity and Christian light.
Here too, what do you think? Should the Catholic Bishops disassociate Catholic clergy from civil “marriage” licenses?
To read original article, click here.
Monsignor Pope writes: “If we did stop signing civil licenses, we would surely need a strong catechesis directed to our faithful that reiterates that civil “marriage” (what ever that means anymore) is not Holy Matrimony and that they should, in no way consider themselves as wed, due to a (meaningless) piece of paper from a secular state that reflects only confusion and darkness rather than clarity and Christian light.”
Hello! It’s not a MEANINGLESS piece of paper, as the couple will discover when it comes to buying a home, filing their taxes, signing up for insurance, and so many other things that are important for families. Maybe the good Monsignor doesn’t need to worry about such things, but normal families DO.
I believe it also shows that, in the United States (unless many countries), our Church has the POWER to determine marriage, and when one of our priests witnesses the sacred vows, the couple are indeed MARRIED in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the United States of America. Separating the two would make the Church ceremony look like some cute little afterthought, or some quaint ritual that the government believes has no basis in reality.
You make excellent points, Simon.
“Separating the two would make the Church ceremony look like some cute little afterthought, or some quaint ritual that the government believes has no basis in reality.”
It’s odd that I posted on this exact topic under the DOMA page on CCD a few days ago. I think, as I wrote then, that separating the two would acknowledge reality and deal with facts rather than ignore them: We haven’t had committed marriage in this country for decades. Holy Matrimony would become a quaint ritual only if the two partners treat it that way. What is more likely to happen is that the civil ceremony will be a signing ceremony followed by the real deal.
The best thing the Church could do is name the Sacrament clearly and register it as a trademark, so some lesser “equivalent” won’t replace it.
BUT in the Catholic church of Christ…Marriage is not re-defined and it still means what the church has always taught so we shouldn’t consider those thoughts because we are not to view things like the world, we are to stand out by declaring the truth.
so the answer is NO NEVER…..when the definition is the way God intended not the way wicked mankind intended!
I agree with Abeca — as Church, we don’t need to dump the word marriage.
We certainly did not do so when the Mormons abused it to allow one man to have a whole harem of wives, and we don’t need to do so now.
Abeca, I agree with you. I am tired of people taking symbols which express something created by God and twisting them. The rainbow is another example.
Thank you Simon and Tracy…lets give thank to our Lord for these precious holy truths. They are what will set us free from the evil influences of wicked men.
We are to live the way our Lord intended not the changing ways of men and women. Our Lord is so precious…..He does not need us to grow more in pride. Lets offer up some prayers that honor the Holy family, in reparation for these modern day abuses.
PAX CHRISTI
Civil marriage is all about money and property. If Catholics break away from that, then there will certainly be a whole lot of problems.
Even though the Church is commanded to go into all corners of the world, as far as this nation’s govt is concerned, the Church has already fulfilled her mission I would suppose. Thus, the lesson Jesus provides us to shake the dust off our feet when we are rejected because of Him, seems to be appropo at this juncture in state and religious interactions. In other words, the hell with the damned govt and get the Church the hell outta Dodge might be the answer being slipped to us by the Lord. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, in today’s case meaning give the gays and the abortionists to the power of Caesar and give God our holiness (would be a miracle for the bishops to come to even a remote understanding of this, although this monsignor seems to nail it pretty good).
This is exactly what I’ve been saying for months here: “we would surely need a strong catechesis directed to our faithful that reiterates that civil “marriage” (what ever that means anymore) is not Holy Matrimony”. The gay community has been hard at work for years now teaching citizens the difference, and I’m very sure we would welcome the Church in teaching the differences.
Recall that I often use the terminology “issuance of marriage licenses”, because everyone knows that that is a state function and everyone understands that that is not the same thing as the Sacrament of Matrimony. I use this terminology, even if it is awkward, because very very few people understand what we say when we talk about “civil marriage”. And even fewer can tell the difference between civil marriage and the Sacrament, because priests perform both at the same time.
This is probably the best post dealing with the issue on CCD that I’ve read.
In the civil society the Lord handed down the natural law and it does not re-define marriage either….so in order for mankind to live in peace they must follow the natural law even if they are not of faith….and it begins with the natural law in the family unit. Re-defining it disobeys the natural law as well.
THOSE WHO ARE FAITHFUL TO GOD”S NATURAL LAW PRAY A NOVENA TO THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS.
Canon Law professor Dr. Ed Peters says that Msgr. Pope’s idea is a very bad idea. Visit his blog to read why.
No surrender! The state does not own the name of marriage and ought not have it without a fight. I see no advantage to couples themselves in compelling them to go through two ceremonies. The solution to this corruption of words is sound catechesis, before and after marriage and from the pulpit (and in my classroom). Pilate and Jesus disagreed over the meaning of “king”, after all, and Our Lord did not surrender the title.
Tom B., you are right that sound catechesis is the answer.
But many US Bishops commit the sin of omission by not doing their own job of teaching.
They refuse to ask all literate Catholics to meditate on the Bible and study the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” at home.
Any many US Bishop by their example of not enforcing Canon 915 & Canon 1399, aid and abet (participate) in the mortal sins of: SACRILEGE, SCANDAL, HERESY, and SCHISM.
These Bishops encourage relativism, and completely ignore 1 Cor 5:9-13.
(On the net see: ” The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin” by (Cardinal) R L Burke. )
If there was sound Catholic catechesis, evil politicians (who appoint judges of like mind) would not have been elected in CA or the USA.
How about alternate language – such as CM vs CP = Catholic Marriage (or the equivalent) versus Caesars Partners…
It is time to get Out of the ‘civil’ marriage business, as well as all business where the Church can be sued by the newly empowered Gaystapo for failure to pander.
The Abomination is trying to Destroy the Church – through its Mandatory ‘kulture of death’ as well as forcing us to Deny the Scientific Basis of Gender and the Complimentary nature of Catholic Marriage.
The radical homosex attack on Marriage in CA was Not to gain the benefits, as partners either already had them – OR – all items could easily be covered by Contracts.
For instance, having an existing Will / Trust for disposition of property etc. after death, precludes any need for the State to provide Legal Presumptions about inheritance by operation of the law (called Intestate succession – based on degrees of relation) – which is only a default for those without prre-existing wills / trusts…
Further – I submit that Proposition 8 also placed in the Constitution the definition of Male (XY) & Female (XX), and those have Not been overturned.
The Church will see both Male Drag Queens masquerading as ‘womyn’, as well as Steroid Dykes masquerading as Men (with or without surgical mutilation)- trying to attack Catholic Marriage by making it Deny Gender.
The infiltration and trashing of the Mass & Eucharist by Male Drag Queens masquerading as ‘nuns’ – should be a wake up call to the future, now that they have been emboldened in their Hate Campaigns by ‘catholics’ (small ‘c’) like Tony Kennedy.
If men dressing as women can use the ladies rest rooms in the State of CA – then anything can happen under the law.
The US Supreme Court ruled in Prop 8, that the VOTERS of CA have “no standing”. Only the Governor and their other elected officials can overturn sodomy marriage.
Hence – Catholics have got to STOP voting for the DEMOCRATIC Party of DEATH, and all evil politicians.
Bishops where are you on this issue? Where are you regarding voting as Catholics must vote?
Many you are right. We the people cannot take our case to the Supreme Court because we the people do not have jurisdiction ! I say what we have is tyranny. We , as Catholics, must stop voting for Democrats and their Culture of Death and Sin.
Many – Actually this is not quite true. The Governor of CA cannot stop marriages between same sex partners. The Federal courts overturned Prop 8, returning California to the same legal state in place before election day 2008. At that point, the state was marrying same sex partners, not because the Governor said so, but because the California Supreme Court ordered it so in the state marriage cases. So you have to replace the CA Supreme Court and then get them to overturn their own ruling that they made in early 2008.
Because of the wording of the US Supreme Court’s wording on DOMA, Militant GAYS will bring suit against States that will not marry them. Within the next few years they will bring suit for discrimination against Churches that will not marry them.
(They have already sued and won against Catholic adoption agencies in the Boston area and other places where they wanted to force straights to give them their children.)
Also it is not helpful when people like Cardinal Donald Wuerl of the Diocese of Washington DC chastise a good Priest for enforcing Canon 915 for an admitted homosexual woman and her female partner.
The Church should not CHANGE the NAME (vocabulary) of Marriage. Marriage, (wedding), divorce are in all of our BIBLES, CCC, and Church documents. However we can and should stress that Marriage is a SACRAMENT – which has been forgotten over the last 40 years.
CCC: ” 1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1). ”
There are 73 different paragraphs in the CCC that can be found by searching the word “Marriage”.
There are 11 different paragraphs in the CCC that can be found by searching the word “wedding”.
There are 10 different paragraphs in the CCC that can be found by searching the word “divorce”.
There are 13 different paragraphs in the CCC that can be found by searching the word “matrimony”.
(On the net, go to: “What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”
for a good search site for the CCC which is licensed by the Vatican.)
Because those practicing various forms of sodomy have transmogrified the word marriage, does not mean that we should change the word. Let us, who know better, use the word “pseudoagamy,'” which is what it really is.
Us?!?
Put aside the word marriage?!?
Why should WE do such a thing?!?
If others choose to pervert the word, that is not the problem of the Catholic Church, and it should not cause US to alter our sacred and traditional vocabulary.
The Pizzuto fellow whom someone named in the USF scandal is called in the article a “priest,” but he belongs to some “Celtic Catholic Church” sect which is no more Catholic than my dog.
The Episcopalians “ordain women priests,” but this also should not cause us to throw away such a revered word in our tradition.
The Mormons call young guys “bishops” who go door to door in white shirts and ties, but we don’t dump the word bishop because of them.
I say, the same thing with MARRIAGE.
I like to refer to marriage as “the holy covenant of Matrimony”.
As regard to the state, we should insist that licenses for a Catholic reception of the Sacrament of Matrimony, be labeled:
Matrimonial License, which then a priest can sign.
I am all for it. I think “Holy Matrimony” is a very good way of separating my upcoming Catholic marriage from the secular meaning. It is a sacrament which makes it holy.
“Marriage” will always be the term; it’s just we Catholics that get on board the “Holy Matrimony” gig. None of this will change. Marriage will still be marriage.
Clear and sound Catechesis?? What’s that? Haven’t heard, since the 60s, anything other than we’ve got to “feel good” !! And we wonder why polls show that most “Catholics” believe..and behave….no differently from the “average” citizen. Great work, Bishops !!!
Obama’s Court Marks Churches for Death By Daren Jonescu
The American Catholic Church, along with any other religious institution that resists granting “equal status” to homosexuality, is about to be killed.
If you doubt this, just wait and see. The death sentence has been issued and the U.S. Supreme Court, cheered on by Barack Obama, has just denied the final appeal.
The SCOTUS decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act in effect promises the prestige of explicitly upheld constitutionality to homosexual marriage. (I love my language; “gay” still means “joyful” for me, even if I’m no longer permitted to use it for fear of being misunderstood.) Barack Obama has already reassured his enemies, i.e., people of traditional Judeo-Christian religious views, that this decision will not affect their church practices.
Anyone who has seen a mafia film knows what the boss’s reassurance means in this context: the reassured man is about to be driven to the docks, where someone is waiting with an ice pick…
This is what comes of the evil mixture of moral relativism and a societal presumption in favor of central government micromanagement of individuals and communities. ..
Now comes the inevitable synthesis in this dialectic of social derailment: not only will homosexual marriage be granted constitutional protection (as Scalia warns), but every individual and organization that publically disapproves of it will henceforth be isolated by the state and, increasingly, the popular culture, as morally equivalent to white supremacists — or even Tea Party members.
America’s Catholic bishops, like too many of their religious kin throughout the modern world, have played willing stooges to the leaders of the progressive mafia for so long that most remain shell-shocked at the Obama administration’s active hostility toward them.
Everything they teach, and every noble thing their tradition has stood for through the centuries, has now been condemned as antithetical to “progress,” and reduced to antiquated bigotry.
Even when they noticed the driver turning toward the docks, they still had trouble admitting to themselves that this journey was meant to be their last.
The final destination has now been reached. The guy with the ice pick is waiting.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/obamas_court_marks_churches_for_death.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook#ixzz2Y0kV1dAH
Many countries have two forms of marriage. A couple goes to the court house and gets permission to live together from the state and then they go to the church for the sacrament. Even the church recognizes this procedure and says that no ceremony should take place “after” the church sacramental marriage. I see no problem with accommodating state legalities in this way and I think “Holy Matrimony” is a stupendous idea. I am going to start using it and spreading the concept.
Isn’t there also a common law marriage in law?
You are correct when you say, “what the secular world means by the word “marriage” is not even close to what the Church means.”
This has always been true in the U.S. For the Church it has always been a sacrament. For state governments and the United States government, it has always been a civil contract between two people.
There has always been civil marriage and religious marriage. They were never the same and never will be the same.
Some people in some faiths think, for some reason, that they own the word marriage. That has never been the case. A religious marriage has always been different then a civil marriage.
The recent discussion by the secular world and the decisions by the courts that reflect the intent of the state and federal constitutions have always dealt exclusively with civil marriage — not the marriages of the Catholic Church or any other faith.
At no time has anyone suggested that religious faiths should alter their sacraments or their marriage laws.
If the Church wants to change the name of its sacrament to “Holy Matrimony,” that’s fine, but that church certificate will still have to be taken to a county clerks office to be recorded as a marriage in the eyes of the law.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that various faiths have their own rules for marriage. And the state has its own rules for marriage.
While the states cannot impose their rules for civil marriage on churches, the church cannot impose its rules for marriage on the state. And I think that’s the critical issue many religious people have difficulty understanding.
Pat makes some good sense here.
For example, in the U.S. marriage can be dissolved quite easily through no-fault divorce — which is not the case in the Catholic understanding.
Also, in the U.S. marriage can be undertaken even if the couple have no intention of having children — very un-Catholic as well.
And of course in the U.S., when people promise “until death do us part,” what they really mean is “until it’s no longer fun for me” — which is EXTREMELY un-Catholic.
I have a philosophical issue with the use of the word marriage in this context. If same sex couples want a married state for tax purposes so be it. But doesn’t it mix church and state to bring in the word marriage? And isn’t it only done to make a statement against the very word they want to twist into something it was never intended to be.
Eileen, I don’t think it mixes Church and State to bring in the word marriage, because in this country atheists can get married.
Marriage does not necessarily have ANYTHING to do with religion.
However, for us Catholics marriage is MUCH more than just a legal or financial arrangement, of course — it’s a Sacrament, and lifelong commitment, and the start of a Home Church.
no. no.
Why should we be coerced into choosing a different word to express an arrangement that has meant the same since the formation of our language? I say don’t give an inch! Now is not the time to capitulate. The purple Mafia has won a battle but truth and justice will win the war! As a believing Christian, I am convinced that in the end, with the grace of God, goodness and light will prevail against the demons of the Zeitgeist.
Amen Anton!
” an arrangement that has meant the same since the formation of our language?”… That is an obviously false statement. Refer to the plural wives of the kings of Israel, group marriages in some Tibetan and Amazon cultures, and more. The farther back in time you look, the greater the diversity of marital arrangements.
Why shouldn’t Christian sacramental marriage deserve its own name to distinguish it from practice in other times and places? I don’t see that as “capitulation” but making the distinction clear.
Francis: Thank you for your comments. Polygamy and other “marital arrangements” exist even today, but none of them involve members of the same sex. That was my point. Polygamists have multiple wives. If they have “boy toys” I am sure they are quiet about them. At no point in history were homosexual couplings called a marriage. If you have evidence to the contrary. please provide evidence before calling my statement “obviously false”.
God was ok with polygamy, Francis, and even what we’d call “incest” for at least the second and third generations from Adam and Eve. God is still ok with polygamy, it would seem, when it occurs out of necessity or in some non-Christian culture.
Why should the state have anything at all to do with marriage? Money. But if the partners sign legal contracts, then the state has no need to intervene because disputes would be done in courts. This is done already, so what business does the state have in licencing a marriage? It should have none … unless of course that holy bishops catechize the state, ie disciple the nations. So, once again, the whole matter is the fault of unholy bishops. Maybe even there should be a holy test that a bishop has to take each year on Good Friday, and pass. If he fails it, then he is out for at least a year, and can only resume a throne somewhere when he passes the test.
Moreover, keeping in mind that what Jesus guarantees is the Church, and not individual bishops; so, why has there become a custom of “once a bishop, always a bishop”? This custom would not likely pass the magisterium test.
Interesting point you have brought up Skai…..its about money too….pretty good point there as well.