tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post6982235983626516559..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: 7. Remedial ReadingTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-32581769672710870392007-11-15T09:55:00.000-05:002007-11-15T09:55:00.000-05:00IT,I think the issue is the inability to "consumma...IT,<BR/>I think the issue is the inability to "consummate" -- although in the debates between what made a marriage in the middle ages (consent vs consummation) consent generally won out, consummation was still there as a necessary element in the "full" recognition of marriage -- that is, in becoming "one flesh" the couple truly accomplish this "end." As the RCC does not permit artificial insemination or invitro fertilization, that is ruled out in this case. I agree that there are some serious logical inconsistencies here, if only in once again putting the biological above the truly human virtue of love, care, and support.<BR/><BR/>Rick,<BR/>I think you are correct in dating the English custom to Lanfranc -- thoguh I think there was a misunderstanding about the difference between private vs. clandestine marriage. This was a major issue in the role of the church as the public witness -- rather than in "making" the marriage as such. The issue was validity.<BR/><BR/>The English eventually got out from under this by creating civil marriage (the registry office) in the 18th - 19th centuries. The French, of course, did the same in a much more violent fashion!Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-65605368590641971602007-11-15T00:19:00.000-05:002007-11-15T00:19:00.000-05:00"I would say this is a problem created by the Tren..."I would say this is a problem created by the Trent, which made the presence of the church a necessary condition for validity."<BR/><BR/>That was indeed a reform mandated by Trent, but according to Blackstone it was also English law in the eighteenth century. He specifically states that a clergyman must be present for the exchange of marital promises to be valid.<BR/><BR/>It's not quite clear where his rule comes from. Obviously the Tridentine legislation had no authority in England. Blackstone says that the rule originated with Innocent III, which is probably incorrect. On the other hand, Maitland, in his great book on medieval English law, quotes the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lanfranc, in the eleventh century, condemning private wedding vows as a kind of fornication.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-88065728655121594782007-11-14T22:51:00.000-05:002007-11-14T22:51:00.000-05:00I've just read this all in one go and I'm still wr...I've just read this all in one go and I'm still wrestling with the idea that the RCC believes that a quadraplegic who can't have sex (but can certainly father a child, with some minimal assistance) CAN'T be married, but an 80 year old couple who in no way can have children but can have sex, CAN be married.<BR/><BR/>I mean, even leaving same sex marriages out of it, there is no logic there.<BR/><BR/>Well, yet another example that Catholicism is never logical, which is yet another reason why I am no longer Catholic.<BR/><BR/>ITAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-89037508092496066622007-11-13T15:42:00.000-05:002007-11-13T15:42:00.000-05:00Fr TobiasThank you for your reply and for the link...Fr Tobias<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your reply and for the link to your excellent article.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it's not surprising that the official church struggles with this. In our modern world this sets up quite a theological and practical minefield, where cohabiting couples could be deemed to be married, and those who have previously cohabited with someone else considered to be "divorced", although no formalisation of any marriage ever took place.<BR/><BR/>I can just imagine individuals having to prove that there had been or had not been an intention to stay together for the rest of their lives, that both partners had or did not have that intention, and the church having no means of verifying either claim.<BR/><BR/>Add in same gender couples and you can really see why those who need clear labels find it all so terribly threatening.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-45837127474803832592007-11-13T12:54:00.000-05:002007-11-13T12:54:00.000-05:00Dear Erika,You've hit the proverbial nail squarely...Dear Erika,<BR/>You've hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head and hammered it home in one blow. Gay and lesbian people are, as far as I am concerned, and I believe as far as God is concerned, married when they commit to each other in the same form of lifelong monogamous and faithful commitment as a mixed-sex couple. They do this whether the state or the church recognize it or not. This is a natural right of the human person.<BR/><BR/>If you'd like to read more on my thoughts on this from another perspective, my thesis on the subject is here: <A HREF="http://home.earthlink.net/~bsg/lj.htm" REL="nofollow">Lawfully Joined</A>.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-6009849058162378732007-11-13T09:58:00.000-05:002007-11-13T09:58:00.000-05:00Thank you Fr Tobias.So could I go a step further a...Thank you Fr Tobias.<BR/>So could I go a step further and say that some of us believe in the possibilty of same gender marriage before God, and that those of us who see our relationships reflected in the traditional Christian ideal of what a marriage is, ARE indeed married in the eyes of God, whether the official church "validates" this or not?<BR/><BR/>There is an important difference in terms of whether the church indeed stops GLBT people from getting "married", or whether it simply refuses to give that marriage an official seal of approval.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-18287265722511049622007-11-13T09:29:00.000-05:002007-11-13T09:29:00.000-05:00Dear Erika,You've put your finger on the problem. ...Dear Erika,<BR/>You've put your finger on the problem. The Christian tradition, up until the Council of Trent (hence, after the split between Rome and England) was that "the couple make the marriage." The RC Church still teaches that the "ministers of the sacrament" are the couple themselves. Unfortunately, they've introduced this notion of "validity" which -- to my mind, not only confuses things, but is logically a mess. Baptized non-Romans who get a civil marriage have a "valid" marriage; but a RC couple who get a civil marriage without a dispensation have to have their marriage "convalidated" to be officially recognized in the RCC. I would say this is a problem created by the Trent, which made the presence of the church a necessary condition for validity.<BR/><BR/>From the Anglican perspective (which represents the broader Christian consensus prior to Trent), this has not been confused, as we recognize the full validity of marriage (whether people are members of the Episcopal Church or not) as well as marriages performed in other churches, without the need for dispensations and so on (except, of course, in the case of a divorced person remarrying). The sole function of the church in marriage is to witness and to bless: the marriage itself is made by the couple. (And, of course, in some places the church acts as the civil authority as well.)Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-45958341756348324972007-11-13T04:44:00.000-05:002007-11-13T04:44:00.000-05:00Fr TobiasI found your conversation with Fr Michael...Fr Tobias<BR/>I found your conversation with Fr Michael fascinating, but I keep stumbling over my lack of understanding of what the church does when it "marries" a couple.<BR/><BR/>I thought that during a marriage service the church recognises and confirms the couple's marriage, rather than create it.<BR/>The church publically affirms that which God has already created.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure whether that distinction has any practical consequences, but it strikes me that a couple could theoretically feel (be?) rightfully married even if the church withholds that official recognition.<BR/><BR/>I would be grateful for some clarification.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-50423992133830619042007-11-09T10:06:00.000-05:002007-11-09T10:06:00.000-05:00Fr Michael,Thanks for the further elucidation. The...Fr Michael,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the further elucidation. The matter is very complex, and has taken us rather far from the primary concerns of this series.<BR/><BR/>I will stand by all of my previous comments apart from the statement that "A civil marriage [between baptized non-Catholics] may be 'licit' but it is not 'valid'." I acknowledged that it is sacramental, in virtue of the couple being the "ministers" of marriage. I see that a civil marriage between non-catholics is granted its validity on the basis of civil law. However, I think I am not mistaken in thinking that if <I>Roman Catholics</I> entered a civil marriage, there would be a question of validity -- per the canon I cite. The matter is made all the more complex due to the changes in canon law from the time of Trent (<I>Tametsi</I>) up through the 18th century reforms and then <I>Ne Temere</I> -- and now the current code, which gradually relaxed the requirement for church marriage for all persons in a jurisdiction. Perhaps this is yet another example of the falsity of "as we have always taught"!<BR/><BR/>In any case, as you note, we have wandered very far from my original thesis: that the church does not require fertility for a valid and sacramental marriage. I will also note that The Episcopal Church diverges from the RCC on the matter of marriage for those suffering from permanent impotence. The capacity to perform sexual intercourse is required under the RCC canons; but TEC only declared impotence an impediment if it was undisclosed prior to marriage. This reference has since been removed from our canons.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-41263228120728338822007-11-09T00:31:00.000-05:002007-11-09T00:31:00.000-05:00Fr. Tobias, just a quick note.Canon 1 states that ...Fr. Tobias, just a quick note.<BR/><BR/>Canon 1 states that "The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church." They do not apply to non-Roman Catholics at all except for those who have some interaction with our Church, primarily through marriage or desiring to enter the Catholic Church as a candidate for Confirmation or a catechumen.<BR/><BR/>While our theology would address, to some extent, the marriages of non-Catholics, we work out of a general assumption that first marriages for everybody are valid and licit. So the marriage of two Southern Baptists before a justice of the peace, who have no denomination-specific requirements to be married before a SBC pastor, would be considered a valid, licit sacramental marriage by us. Likewise the marriage between a nondenominational Christian and an atheist before a civil magistrate would be considered a natural marriage by us. We have no canonical requirement that they would have to seek a Catholic bishop's dispensation to get married.<BR/><BR/>I suppose that this discussion of Catholic canon law is a bit of a sidetrack, but for the non-Catholic readers of your blog it might be instructive to note that marriage is one of the few areas of liturgical/worship/sacramental praxis where we consider non-Catholic practices to be equal to ours, at least potentially. That is, though our take on Ordination, Confirmation, Eucharist, Anointing, Confession, etc. is basically a stance of Catholic supremacy vs. questionable validity, but when it comes to marriage we assume a basic equality assuming the "basics" are intended: the unitive and procreative ends. So a young Baptist couple being married in a short summer ceremony in a country church is as "equally married" in our view as a couple married by Pope Benedict XVI in St. Peter's. <BR/><BR/>FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-17916614444246641192007-11-08T10:29:00.000-05:002007-11-08T10:29:00.000-05:00Dear Fr. Michael,Thank you for the response. As to...Dear Fr. Michael,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the response. As to Nero, I think you miss my larger point -- his excesses, whether Paul knew about them or not, do not qualify as "monogamous, life-long, and faithful" same-sex marriage. The fact that Suetonius reports these excesses does not mean, necessarily, either that they were accurately reported, or that Paul would have know about them. But my thesis is that Paul was not aware of same-sex marriages that were faithful, life-long and monogamous. His explicit writings strongly suggest otherwise, and we should stick with what he actually wrote rather than theorize about what he might have known. His only descriptions of same-sex behavior are intimately linked with idolatry and prostitution. (I will be addressing this at greater length in the following articles.)<BR/><BR/>When it comes to the theological issue, the question is whether the first two chapters of Genesis are meant to be exhaustive and limiting, or -- as appears to be the case -- descriptive of the etiology of an institution with which the authors were familiar. In any case, the Genesis 2 account emphasizes the social construction of marriage rather than the procreative end -- and this is the passage Jesus emphasizes in his teaching on divorce (contra the Jewish mandate for infertile couples to divorce.)<BR/><BR/>I do realize that the RCC Canons on marriage are complex. There is also a subtle difference between validity and licitness. My understanding is that a civil marriage between two baptized persons is not necessarily valid in and of itself. For instance, the couple who intend not to have children might well obtain a civil marriage, yet that marriage is explicitly invalid; as would be any of the other civil marriages that fell under one of the various ecclesiastical impediments, but which are legal under the civil law. If one of the parties is not baptized, a dispensation is required for validity -- and so such a civil marriage would not be valid under RCC law. The same would be the case with a Roman Catholic who divorced and remarried civilly. Finally, and most importantly, Canon 1108 states, (emphasis mine) "<B>Only those marriages are valid</B> which are contracted in the presence of the local ordinary or the pastor or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and in the presence of two witnesses...&c." This would appear to raise a question not about the sacramental nature of a civil marriage between baptized persons (since consent is the operative); but it does strongly suggest that the religious rite conducted by the legitimate authority is necessary for validity. A civil marriage may be "licit" but it is not "valid" -- at least as I understand the regulations. <BR/><BR/>Finally, I do understand the RC position on the differences in forms of incapacity to have children. My point is that in both cases of sterility and same-sex relationships the incapacity is not merely related to the act, but to the persons. Part of the problem here is that RC thinking is still rather stuck in the medieval (i.e., Aristotelian) world-view that didn't understand the operation of the reproductive system, and the nature of sterility. This undercuts the philosophical/theological foundation from underneath the teaching: that is, it was based on a false understanding of reality. In both cases, sterility involves both the act and the persons -- as acts can only be performed by persons, this is, philosophically speaking, a somewhat questionable distinction in any case, and especially in this one. Moreover, sterility and "gender" are both "accidents" rather than "essences" -- which indeed is part of the problem: RC thinking has erroneously applied essentialism to gender (which contradicts the doctrine of the Incarnation, as I've shown before).<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for the comments. Your challenges continue to encourage me to think that I am heading in the right direction.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-51352150874154690942007-11-08T01:52:00.000-05:002007-11-08T01:52:00.000-05:00More responses:Fr. Tobias, you have a slight misun...More responses:<BR/><BR/>Fr. Tobias, you have a slight misunderstanding about the RCC take on non-Catholic marriages. We assume ALL civil heterosexual and monogomous marriages, not between divorced persons, are valid unless demonstrated otherwise. Thus the pastoral nightmare of conducting a Catholic annulment process of a wedding between two divorced non-Catholics because one of them subsequently wants to marry a Catholic.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, we assume ALL valid marriages between baptized non-Catholics are sacramental. That is, they are incapable of being dissolved by any human power.<BR/><BR/>In your analysis (later in this thread) regarding the sterily of homosexual couples, I believe you to easily combine sterility deriving from a defect of a person (i.e. non-functioning reproductive system) with sterility from the nature of the act, as is the case with homosexual activity. These are much different moral cases in our view.<BR/><BR/>c.b. and Paul Stanley-- you clearly point out that the conservative and liberal take on marriage is based on whether it is a social institution or divinely instituted. That's why one doesn't find a lot of common ground here.<BR/><BR/>That being said, I hope Fr. Tobias keeps up this series because it is far better than anything else I have read from his side of the question. <BR/><BR/>FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-41626342442059111982007-11-08T01:37:00.000-05:002007-11-08T01:37:00.000-05:00Tobias, you last series of comments captured the n...Tobias, you last series of comments captured the nuance in the "good" of marriage that Mr. Allen and I were trying to get across. I'm glad you went to that lecture.<BR/><BR/>Here is a few short responses to various points made:<BR/> to Fr. Tobias-- I would like to point out to your question about whether St. Paul knew about Nero's excesses, that they were hardly secret. Even to our day Suetonius' chronicles of Nero's same sex "marriages" survive, and there is no reason to think he was the only one in the Empire to be aware of them. <BR/><BR/>to bls-- your example of the alcoholic couple is a clear one where their marriage could not have taken place in the Catholic Church since they positively excluded children.<BR/><BR/>Also, this question is neither political nor pastoral at its heart, it is theological. That is, was the marriage of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2, referred to by the Christ in His teaching on no divorce in Mk 10, the model for Christian marriage. The majority of Christians say yes. A strident minority says no. Politics and pastoral considerations naturally follow from this profound theological difference.<BR/><BR/>to Paul Martin-- I agree, we heterosexists (I love the label) disregard homosexual experience in favor of a predetermined theology. Since we hold that the theology of marriage comes from God via Scripture and Tradition, why wouldn't we? Contemporary human experience is a weak reed compared to Sacred Scripture and Apotolic Tradition.<BR/><BR/>FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-19805274553604535292007-11-07T10:20:00.000-05:002007-11-07T10:20:00.000-05:00Amen, Christopher. The other strange thing we've b...Amen, Christopher. The other strange thing we've been seeing is the collusion on the part of the state: how many politicians on all sides have said, in regard to the legalization of same-sex marriage, something like, "Marriage is a religious institution"? The church's late medieval assumption of the civil role in marriage was probably unwise, and has had various unintended consequences, among which is a devaluation of "civil marriage" rather than a strengthening of the social fabric.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-8603023436707018912007-11-07T10:08:00.000-05:002007-11-07T10:08:00.000-05:00I would also say that when marriage is so fully co...I would also say that when marriage is so fully co-opted by the church and no longer properly placed as social institution "good for neighbor" as Luther might put it, it loses its character within the secular realm, and hence, and its vocational quality as a way of living out the grace given us in Baptism and Eucharist amongst the rest of humanity around us. It sets up a sacred/secular divide not truly appropriate to Christianity.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10400109177404296836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-10543007590633722082007-11-07T09:51:00.000-05:002007-11-07T09:51:00.000-05:00Thank you, Paul and C.B. I have touched on some of...Thank you, Paul and C.B. <BR/><BR/>I have touched on some of these issues earlier in the series, and agree 100% concerning the different models of marriage not only in human culture, but in Jewish and Christian history. The facts show that the religious attitude to marriage is not only multivalent, but positively ambivalent, both in practice (in the forms it took) and in the symbolic values attributed to it. Thus, as I noted in a previous article, the image of God in relation to Israel and Judah could be modeled onto a polygamous and incestuous marriage (it is a violation of the Law for a man to marry a woman and her sister, yet God is portrayed as married to Judah and her sister Israel.) Similarly, the movement from Augustine's statement that all sex, even within marriage, serves as the locus for the transmission of Original Sin, gets smoothed out or downplayed by the time of Aquinas, and is fairly well forgotten these days, as part of the rearguard effort to shore up what are perceived to be "threats" to marriage. Marriage is, to a very large extent, a "social construction" even within the Church. Just as the church was forced to reexamine its approbation of the cultural institution of slavery (which Paul also used as a symbol for the Divine/human relationship!), so too a reexamination of the social construct limiting marriage to mixed-sex couples (purportedly joined for life) is also subject to <BR/>reexamination.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-79637051223834876662007-11-07T09:29:00.000-05:002007-11-07T09:29:00.000-05:00Tobias - Here's 2 more cents, if I may. The disagr...Tobias - Here's 2 more cents, if I may. The disagreement between you and Rick, to me gets at the crux of the disagreement between progressives and conservatives on this issue. Is marriage as described in the Bible neutral or "good" in of itself? From the answer to the question much flows.<BR/><BR/>For conservatives it matters very little what the "gay experience" is - because to allow it to matter would mean that they would have to reexamine their assumptions about marriage.<BR/><BR/>But what I am constantly, constantly struck by is not only the blindness to the "gay experience" of sexuality, but of our experience of family. All this talk about the place of sex and procreative sex - please - while we blather - the gay community, to which the church has a calling to reach out to, has moved on - not only are gays not going to be celibate - they going to have faithful unions and they ARE going to have children (one way or another). Lots and lots of children who are going to be unchurched - because the church does not recognize that "goodness" of their parents' non-celibate union. But somehow can find a way to recognize polygamous marriages (in Africa) and serial marriages (in the West). Good Grief!!C.B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17691002620980933111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-2813636434767970022007-11-07T05:06:00.000-05:002007-11-07T05:06:00.000-05:00Thank you Tobias, that's very interesting, particu...Thank you Tobias, that's very interesting, particularly on the sacrament question.<BR/><BR/>One thing I think we sometimes lose sight of in these discussions is that while "marriage" is an ancient institution its <B>significance</B> (the social functions it serves) and all manner of expectations about it have changed quite a bit over time. There's a certain risk in assuming (I don't say you do) that "marriage" is always and everywhere the same institution with the same expectations and functions.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate that seems more a sociological point than a theological one. But there may be some mileage in the idea that marriage is a social institution, conformable to our created natures and acceptable to God, and which the Church participates in as it may many aspects of our lives, rather than a divine institution, whose outlines must be regarded as "fixed"--the subject of template that is immutable in saeculo saeculorum.<BR/><BR/>That, after all, is not an unprecedented way of looking at institutions (the sabbath created for man etc). There is also a long but sad history of getting these things backwards. Thus, for instance, the idea that our political institutions may be of concern to God becomes "divine right" or its puritan successor--the subtly but damagingly different idea that God has "ordained" some particular form of government.<BR/><BR/>So, it seems to me, with marriage. One starts with a social institution, meeting human needs. Because our family relationships are so close to the core of our being, God properly belongs there, and the Church properly takes an interest in the marriages <I>we</I> make. Because "human needs" and social structures are not fixed or static, the institution exhibits a certain degree of flexibility over time and place.<BR/><BR/>But then a subtle process of reversal takes place, and the idea that marriage is a social institution in which God is concerned is transformed into the idea that marriage is a divine institution in which society happens to be interested. The consequence is, as usual in these cases, arbitrary and rigid inflexibility, fearful conservatism, and a displacement of sensible and answerable questions ("Is this fair? Does it work? Is it damaging people?") with abstract and unanswerable ones ("Is this the Divine Will, with respect to marriage?").P Stanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182003625248535299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-23771940820581362062007-11-06T17:55:00.000-05:002007-11-06T17:55:00.000-05:00Dear Paul (S),Now that my mind has been refreshed ...Dear Paul (S)<BR/>,<BR/>Now that my mind has been refreshed by hearing that excellent lecture on the Christological controversies...<BR/><BR/>I think the difference of opinion about the status of marriage as a sacrament may reflect some of the disagreement here between Rick and Father Michael, and myself. <BR/><BR/>Part of it is, of course, another question of the meaning of a word, in this case, "sacrament" --- which as you point out, Anglicans define in such a way as explicitly to exclude marriage. And one of the reasons marriage was so regarded by Anglicans had to do precisely with the fact that, as <I>The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church</I> so pungently puts it, the Anglican divines were hesitant "to recognize as [a sacrament] a rite which did not appear to be manifestly productive of grace." (This is what I mean when I say that vows do not confer the grace to keep themselves.) This view derives from Saint Augustine, who --- it might be said --- in the long run had more influence on Anglicanism than he did on Rome! As the same dictionary says, Augustine "concentrated on the negative aspects of the union and did not see in matrimony a means of grace."<BR/><BR/>The same source notes that "from Saint Thomas Aquinas onwards the schoolmen taught that [matrimony] conferred grace." It is the last of the Christian rites so to be recognized. So in answer to your question, a sacramental character in marriage was fairly broadly recognized in western Christendom for about 300 years from the mid-13th century to the mid-16th century. Hardly the "2000 years of Christian teaching" one so often hears about.<BR/><BR/>As to the distinction between sterility and impotence, I think the Roman Catholic Canons are really quite clear. They duly recognize the medical reality of both, and distinguish between them. Given this recognition I do not think the canons assume that anyone physically capable of sexual intercourse is also theoretically fertile. I think the present edition of the canons has accepted the findings of modern science in this regard. It is certainly true that the earlier teaching of the Church concerning "openness to procreation" has not quite caught up with the canonists' more precise and realistic thinking. <BR/><BR/>As I read the present Roman Catholic Canons, it appears to me that rather than being "open to the possibility of procreation" (which makes no sense for sterile couple) that what is required is that the couple understand that procreation is a primary function of marriage, and not willfully choose to frustrate it. This would cover the situation that Fr Michael mentioned: that is, a fertile couple who came to him and said that they deliberately intended never to have children (not that they are incapable of having children) could not properly be married. As the Canons put it: "For matrimonial consent to be valid it is necessary that the contracting parties at least not be ignorant that marriage is a permanent consortium between a man and a woman which is ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation. Such ignorance is not presumed after puberty (Can 1096)" Further, "if either or both parties through a positive act of the will should exclude marriage itself, some essential element or an essential property of marriage, it is invalidly contracted. (Can 1101) " <BR/><BR/>What I have suggested, of course, is that a same-sex couple would fall under the category of a sterile couple. One could well argue that if the church wanted to have a consistent position, it should have stuck with the Jewish law that required fertility. However, a sounder biblical view shows us that procreation is not the primary purpose, from God's point of view, for marriage: "it is not good for the man to be alone" attests to the fact that the society of persons engendered through marriage is equally valuable in the sight of God.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the questions, as it does advance the discussion.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-50966851207876182902007-11-06T10:14:00.000-05:002007-11-06T10:14:00.000-05:00Rick, as we are trying to understand Saint Paul, t...Rick, as we are trying to understand Saint Paul, then I think it important to see that he is indeed saying that marriage is the "cure" for a situation that is "forbidden." It has nothing to do with marriage being "good-in-itself" or morally neutral in itself. The issue is the "end" or "good" of marriage as Paul, and the later tradition, have defined it. It is a "remedy for fornication" --- and I don't think that can be stated any more clearly than the church stated it.<BR/><BR/>Yesterday, I attended an address by the Rev, Dr. Paul Clayton, at the General Theological Seminary, on the subject of Theodoret of Cyrrhus. One of the problems in the Christological controversies of those days revolved around the different meanings or shades of meaning that the Antiochian and Alexandrian theologians gave to the same words. (Obviously there was more to the division than just these differences of meaning; but the differences of meaning exacerbated their inability to communicate effectively.)<BR/><BR/>It occurred to me on the subway trip home that perhaps our difference of opinion over the word "good" is of a similar nature. I am speaking of good in the moral sense, that is in the sense of virtue. So what I mean when I say that marriage is morally neutral is that in themselves the marriage vowels do not enforce or enable the couple to keep them; that, as I say, there are good marriages and bad marriages. It now occurs to me, in light of reflecting on it, that you are perhaps using the word more in an ontological sense. If that is the case, then I can agree that "marriage is good" --- in the same way I can say that "food is good." That is, the existence of the institution itself is a good thing. So, perhaps, we can put that aspect of the argument behind us -- if, that is, I have understood your intent.<BR/><BR/>So, in light of the present discussion, one of the reasons marriage is good is that it provides a forum or institutional way for a couple to live a moral life rather than an immoral one. This appears to be what Paul is saying --- as the Church has understood --- that one of the "goods" of marriage is as a remedy for fornication.<BR/><BR/>What I have been suggesting in this piece is the extension of this institution to include those for whom heterosexual marriage would not provide a remedy, and who are not equipped with the gift of celibacy. As I said in the article, it is doubtful Saint Paul would have seen this as appropriate, in his day and in his culture; we have no way of knowing if he'd change his mind on this (as he did on other things, Damascus Road experiences notwithstanding) were he to be around today to address the matter -- with the advantage of the understandings of human nature that have accumulated since his time.<BR/><BR/>But Paul is not with us at this moment, and the responsibility falls upon us to make the best use of what we have not only inherited from him, but accumulated in the centuries since he wrote.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-30567070042839050022007-11-06T06:21:00.000-05:002007-11-06T06:21:00.000-05:00"I'm not really sure what point, if any, you are t..."I'm not really sure what point, if any, you are trying to make."<BR/><BR/>I thought we were trying to understand St. Paul. And my point was simply that I thought you misapprehended his take on marriage. I don't read in him the critical attitude that, say, Augustine exhibits when he puts sexuality under a philosophical microscope. <BR/><BR/>If, then, we look to Paul to help understand what our religion teaches us about the way to live, I don't think we ought to treat marriage as a remedy for relationships that are otherwise forbidden. I don't doubt your good intentions in trying to do so, but I think you go far beyond any principles that Paul would recognize. That's all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-71931173171695489342007-11-06T04:03:00.000-05:002007-11-06T04:03:00.000-05:00"I've said there are good marriages and bad ones. ..."I've said there are good marriages and bad ones. I'm not really sure what point, if any, you are trying to make."<BR/><BR/>I get the impression that people believe we try to devalue marriage because only then can we have a claim to be married too. If it's a holy state we cannot aspire to it, so we have to show that it's only second best.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-14858989385717259242007-11-05T14:18:00.000-05:002007-11-05T14:18:00.000-05:00Paul,I'll have to get back to you on that. I'm jus...Paul,<BR/>I'll have to get back to you on that. I'm just heading out to a meeting.<BR/><BR/>Rick,<BR/>I think this is tendentious. First of all, it is a comparative, as you note. It is not a statement that "marriage is good" in the abstract. It is dealing with a specific situation that might even be about fathers marrying off their daughters.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I fail to see the relevance to anything I'm discussing -- as I've never said "marriage is bad." I've said there are good marriages and bad ones. I'm not really sure what point, if any, you are trying to make. Do you disagree that recognizing same-sex marriage is "better" than forcing people unequipped for it to live in celibacy or promiscuity? That is the real issue.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-23717596938173532532007-11-05T14:16:00.000-05:002007-11-05T14:16:00.000-05:00"I have in mind that an arcane rule of property la..."I have in mind that an arcane rule of property law (the rule against perpetuities) proceeded on the basis that a woman was *never* "past childbearing"."<BR/><BR/>Oh, no! The Case of the Fertile Octogenarian! Can we never escape these nightmares of the past?<BR/><BR/>[Though seriously, I think what might have been of greater influences were all those biblical tales, beginnng with Abraham and Sarah, where a couple thought incapable of children turned out to be nothing of the sort.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-21289616321546376362007-11-05T14:11:00.000-05:002007-11-05T14:11:00.000-05:00"The underlying principle in Paul's teaching is no..."The underlying principle in Paul's teaching is not that marrige is "good." On the contrary, while he admits it "is not sin" he does not portray marriage as good-in-itself. As my NT professor used to say when we asserted Scripture "said" something, "Show it to me in the text.""<BR/><BR/>I think it's there in v. 38:<BR/><BR/>"...ho gamizon ten eautou parthenon kalos poiei kai ho me gammizon kreisson poiesei." <BR/><BR/>It's pretty literally a good/better rather than a bad/good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com