[Marriage predates natural law theory]

Neither the Catholic Church nor the government instituted marriage. Marriage--our English word-- has been used to represent a reality that obviously predates any modern nomenclature. The question, in my mind, is what is the reality represented by the word ‘marriage”?

The book of Genesis does not institute marriage. It recognizes a reality that goes back to pre-history: a man and a woman become one flesh. The survival of the human species, the natural continuation of human life, is optimized when the human process of reproduction is in some way recognized and valued, through some public social/communal ritual and regulation. The Western notion of “natural law” may be helpful to some, but in my view it did not “establish” male-female marriage as a norm. Natural law is a theory based on abstractions. Marriage pre-dates natural law theory. The basis for understanding marriage as a relation between one (or more) man (men) and one (or more) woman (women) is simply rooted in the reality of how human life continues.

Adultery is condemned in the Decalogue because of the damage it causes to the family system and thus to the wellbeing of the community. Adultery is not a “sexual” sin, as much as it is a violation of an order aimed at preserving the common good. Jesus’ “from the beginning…” must be interpreted in continuity with the social importance of man-woman + children phenomenon as a factual reality, without which human life is unthinkable and, from a creation theology perspective, can be said to be intended by God: “God made them man and woman.”

The dignity and inviolability of the heterosexual affective, sexual, and procreative relationship stands on its own—without the need to be grounded either in natural law or blessed by the Church. That, at some point in its history, the Catholic Church re-enforced the already present sacredness of this relationship and celebrated the commitment as a sacrament, does not give the Church authority over marriage; certainly not the power to change the definition of marriage.

Today it might be enlightened to say “From the beginning God created them man and woman…and some of these persons were and are, made by God, LBGTT. This view frees us from natural law tyranny and Church intolerance that condemned, shunned, and even denied the identity of these our brothers and sisters. But the content of the world “marriage”—a word that refers to a reality over which neither State nor Church have “naming rights”—should not be altered to include the love and commitment of gay and lesbian unions. It would be a borrowed dignity, undermining the relationship of so-called traditional marriage and revealing the societal failure to find an “indigenous” word for same sex commitments.

richshields richshields, richshields@sympatico.ca
University of St. Michel's College

Ideas –and marriage–arise out of experience

Sixty years ago, Bernard Lonergan pointed out that ideas arise out of experience. In doing so, he was putting into plain English what Aristotle first discovered and what Aquinas was talking about when he said there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses. Ideas don't come out of nowhere. They come from insights into what is going on around us and inside us.

The word "marriage" (in many languages) has been around for centuries, but it has referred to social realities that can be quite different. In ancient Israel, it referred to both monogamous and polygamous relationships. The author of Ephesians says it refers to a relationship in which the husband takes care of the wife and the wife obeys the husband. In medieval Europe, it referred to a social system in which parents selected partners for their children based on family priorities, primarily the production of offspring to continue the paternal lineage and to own family lands. In the twentieth century, marriage came to refer to a social system in which partners chose one another and could choose to leave the relationship. Once children became an economic liability rather than an asset, family size diminished and couples could decide not to have children. In the twenty-first century, people of the same sex have fought for an obtained the legal protections enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

Sociologists refer to the predominant style of legalized cohabitation as companionate marriage. They observed what most people do, which is to find a life companion and protect that relationship with legal and social bonds. They also see that when couples no longer regard their spouses as companions, they go through a process of legal divorce and social alienation. Children complicate the divorce process, but they do not prevent it. In many countries, the sexual orientation of the partners does not matter when creating or dissolving a marriage.

The situation in the Middle Ages was quite different. As already indicated, people did not choose their spouse, and the objective of parents in choosing partners for their children was to produce offspring to work the family farm, continue the family business, and keep the family's wealth intact. Adjusting for wealth and status, this arrangement was as true for nobles as it was for commoners.

No wonder, then, that when Catholic theologians reflected on the families in which they were raised as well as on marriages in medieval society, they perceived that the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation and education of children. While that was true at the time, it is no longer the case.

Consider the following thought experiment. If the medieval schoolmen has not developed a theology of marriage that was believed to be unchangeable, and if Catholic intellectuals today were to develop a theology of marriage based on their social and personal experience, who among them would conclude that marriage is indissoluble, that the purpose of marriage is to have offspring, or even that the partners need to be of the same sex? There would be no way to verify those claims in our contemporary culture.

Joseph Martos, martos@ai.edu Louisville, Kentucky

[The two models for marriage: procreative and relational]

I applaud and support everything Joe Martos said yesterday, and add just one more thought for further clarification. One way to come to grips with and understand any human reality is to model it. A model is not the thing in itself but an imaginative construct that correlates a set of observations (and ignores others) of the thing. I love the parable first told by the English astronomer Arthur Eddington to explain how models work. A scientist was studying deep-sea life using a net with a three-inch mesh. After bringing up and analyzing repeated samples, he concluded that there were no deep-sea fish less than three inches in length (missing, of course, the fish less than three inches long that slipped through his net). The parable teaches that the method of fishing determines what we catch; the model enables us to understand some aspects of reality but misses others.

There have been two major, and now competing, models of marriage in the Catholic tradition: marriage as a procreative institution and marriage as an interpersonal spousal relationship. In the procreative model, which dominated from Aquinas in the 13th century to the Second Vatican Council in the 20th century, marriage is the union of man and a woman for the purpose of procreating offspring. Two gay men and two lesbian women who could not procreate together could not, therefore, be married in to this model, though Pius XII explicitly taught that infertile and menopausal heterosexual couples could be validly married if in their sexual intercourse they intended to procreate (pure fantasy, of course). In the spousal relation model, marriage is the union a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a consortium vitae or communion of life. Fertile, infertile, and menopausal heterosexual couples can and do create together this communion of life and there is plenty of experiential and social scientific evidence that so can and do gay and lesbian couples. The present problem with the theology of marriage in the Catholic Church is that when all you have seen and continue to see is three-inch long fish, it is very difficult to consider the possibility of one-inch long ones.

Michael G. Lawler, michaellawler@creighton.edu
Creighton University

Same-sex marriages in the Evangelical Lutheran Church

Thank you to Michael Lawler and Joe Martos for their well-reasoned posts that challenge us to rethink marriage, which has never been a static institution that can be boiled down to one definition. Marriage has been repeatedly redefined.

In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), we allow for same-sex marriages and the ordination of members of the LGBTQ community. In the spirit of sola scriptura, we in the ELCA had considerable debate about the Bible's position on those who are not cisgender. The bottom line is that the Bible doesn't really address the issue. The modern concept of homosexual relationships and the idea of people being transgender are anachronistic vis-a-vis Scripture. Passages such as Romans 1:24-27 seem to condemn some form of sexual activity involving same-sex couples, but it is not the case that these passages condemn all homosexual/transgender activity and identity for all time. (Moreover, Romans 1 in particular seems to say that people switched from heterosexual to homosexual activity as an expression of their idolatry. Of course, we know that sexual orientation doesn't work that way, and neither does idolatry)

Regarding theology and ecclesiology, the Lutheran Confessions do not address the issue in any substantial way. Luther most certainly would have regarded same-sex relations as sinful, but Lutherans are not required to follow Luther on every point (thank goodness). By focusing on Scripture first and the Confessions second, but also by drawing from theologians, be they Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, as well as by drawing from the wisdom of other religions and secular disciplines, we in the ELCA have been able to conclude that same-sex relations are not sinful and that such marriages can be blessed by the Church.

David VonSchlichten, vonschlichten@setonhill.edu
Seton Hill University

[Same-sex marriages in the Episcopal Church]

I am so glad that David VonSchlichten has presented so succinctly and so well the theology of the ELCA, which is, in every respect, congruent with that of the Episcopal Church in the US — as is fitting, since our two churches are in full communion. I like to think we Episcopalians led the way, but in any case we are likewise fully committed to making all the sacraments available to all who seek them in faith. Because of this, I was able to preside at my daughter’s wedding to her wife several years ago, with a permission signed in *very* large letters by my old friend Bill Franklin, who is now about to retire as bishop of western New York. It was, in fact, the ability of the Episcopal Church to move forward, through cooperative work by laity and clergy, toward full equality that made me decide to join it, and subsequently to become one of its priests. It has been deeply fulfilling to be part of this opening, and to offer public testimony, both in church gatherings and before the Vermont state legislature, to help make it happen. Blessings and thanks to you all,

Linda Maloney, lmmaloney@csbsju.edu

[Loyalty to the church and sympathies for the new social order]

I've been reading Rich Shields now since I joined join-in. This short essay on marriage, esp. its history and its answer to "Who's in charge?" I enjoyed very much. I tend to stay within the "Christian" world in my thinking and am quite taken with Rich's essay which succeeds in placing Christian naming and direction of marriage in its much broader context of human and biological history. Although I wonder about his apparent dismissal of natural law theory I can see why he pushes the root of marriage into the pre-human era. Or at least borders on that. I am reminded of John Dewey' fine work, Logic, in which I first encountered a "theory" which placed the development of the moral in pre-human forms of life. Watch a gorilla mother take care of her infant!

On the topic of homosexual marriage I am at nearly at a loss. I am caught between the church's understanding and language and what seems to me to be the just call for social acceptance of those unions. What must the church do in response to the immense social moral change of view? Well, I'm at a loss when it comes to homosexual unions: it's simply the fact that I don't understand homosexuality. I am a dedicated heterosexual myself, and though my sympathies lie with the new social order, my understanding doesn't follow suit. I find myself looking at the situation from two apparently irreconcilable points of view, a religious tradition which some take to be binding and a social-legal order which has other than religious consideration to take account of.

So, in the practical order of things, I suggest this: The church and state are distinct, and each has its order and goals. The state must care for the common good of its citizens and so in its own time and for its own good reasons, it may find itself using the term "marriage" for other than the Christian/religious take on homosexual unions. The church in the current situation where the society-state must redefine "marriage" to include what is unacceptable to most Christians and may continue to be, the church is driven to find another term for what it takes to be a sacrament. Perhaps "covenant" would do to designate the reality which up till recently all recognized as marriage.

Joe Martos takes what I read to be a liberal and secularist view of the problem (for him it seems not to be either a problem or a question!), Hie thee off to a monastery, Joe, for a life of prayer and penance and count yourself lucky! Had we lived in the dreaded Middle Ages I would have been lighting the fagots!

William Shea, wshea@holycross.edu
College of the Holy Cross

Same-Sex Marriages: Reading the Signs of the Times

I have spent the last five days thinking of how to share my humble take on this topic in a way that I am truly faithful to the voice of the Spirit to whom one should always turn if one is to fully live out their baptismal identity. I think I am now ready to share my ideas. I want to approach it in two ways, first, I will speak from my own experience as a person who has experienced the gift of hermeneutic conversion and the second will be my attempt to ask some questions that might help us understand the unexplored aspects of the Roman Catholic theology on marriage.

If this question was ever asked of me some decades ago when I was still living in Nigeria, I would have given the answer I knew best, follow the church’s teaching on this issue. I was very comfortable with the saying, Roma locuta, causa finita est (When Rome speaks, case is closed). But today, that is definitely not the case. Experience has taught me that nothing is ever closed. Rome can never have the last word. Even in matters of dogma, Rome cannot have the last word. The last word must always be discerned from the experiences of humans and not from the mental reasoning of men sitting in an air-conditioned hall whose deliberations are simply based on logic or on their own experiences that are completely different from the ones they intend to make decisions on. As I read Michael Lawler’s post on this topic, I laughed joyfully at the example he gave about the fishing metaphor. That was truly an insightful metaphor to use. My own hermeneutic conversion on these issues, whether on sexuality, ordination of women, and so on, began when I experienced the very abuse of power by many entrusted with leadership in the church. Rather than live delusional life by saying that one has to make a distinction between the church and the religious leaders who have lost their way, I began to ask myself the honest question, can there be a church without humans? If one is to use one of the Pauline ecclesiological metaphors, can there be a tree without branches? Yes, Christ is the tree and we are the branches, the relationship between the tree and the branches is real and reciprocal. The tree needs the branches and the branches need the tree. That said, to speak of church, one must always recognize the double reality – a church of saints and sinners. This reality leads to a humble realization, that the church’s perspectives on any topic, whether doctrinal, ecclesiological, social, political, economic, cultural must never be seen as the final word. This creates an opening for generosity and humility when confronted by a different perspective. Applying this to the topic of same-sex marriages, the church ought to ask itself the following questions, what does it know about such relationships? How much listening has the church done as it pertains to same-sex relationships? Prior to my encountering same-sex couples, I never knew anything about it. I simply thought it was strange. However, my moving to the United States opened my eyes to some realities I never knew before. My first interaction with the subject was at the seminary when I took a graduate course on same-sex relationships and the Scripture. It was co-taught by a New Testament scholar and a moral theologian. I recall vividly during one of our seminar discussions, I was asked my opinion on the topic from the perspective of Africa, I responded in a way that came across as though I was being dismissive. My response was this, “These issues are for those who have had enough to eat and drink. In Africa, the main focus is not about what happens in people’s bedrooms. Our focus is on how we are going to get our next meal. The church should focus on existential realities and not be prying into what happens in people’s bedrooms.” My colleagues felt offended by my response. However, later on, as my priestly formation progressed, I was sent to work with a priest who self- identifies as a gay man. A noticeable shift occurred in my perspective on same-sex relations. I have worked under many priests in the twenty-three years of my seminary and religious formation. This priest stood out amongst all of them. He was fully and truly alive. He demonstrated for me what I thought priesthood was about. As we got to know each other better, I realized that what made his priesthood so life-affirming was not his ability to spew out theological lingo to back-up church teachings, rather, it was the creative power of his sexuality that brought life to all he encountered. That was truly unsettling for me. I could not put this truth in any of my theological boxes. Rather, I was faced with a truth I had to either embrace or reject. I chose the former. I recall him taking me to a gay bar in West Hollywood, California, for dinner with some of our parishioners who are gay couples and I walked into a bar full of life-affirming men and women who embraced their sexuality with joy and love. It was then I realized I had to abandon my own homophobia and be open to read the signs of the times with all honesty and humility. Since then, I have chosen never to look back. I currently teach at a Catholic university and enjoy the fact that my students who identify as members of the LGBTQ+ community feel comfortable to seek me out as an ally. I humbly remind them that it was a journey for me that began when I encountered real LGBTQ+ people and saw how humane they were and how faithful they were to their relationships. Consequently, I honestly believe now that any discourse on marriage by the church ought to begin and end with the human experience. Heterosexual persons ought to learn to listen with humility and be open to receive what the Spirit wants them to learn from the insights of the sexuality of members of the LGBTQ+ community. Reciting church teachings or scripture will not work. Scripture was used to defend slavery for centuries. Scripture was used to defend apartheid in South Africa for decades. Tradition continues to be used to exclude women from ministry in the church. But hardly do we turn to the Spirit who is the ultimate source of truth for us all. This spirit dwells in our world. It lives in each of us. We ought to listen to what it says via the voices and experiences of those we encounter, women, straight, gay, name it all.

Let me now articulate the second part of my reflection. My research does not focus on the sacramental theology of marriage, so if my questions have already been answered by other theologians, then, apologies for my ignorance. What makes a relationship moral or immoral? The church has argued for openness to fecundity in all sexual acts for them to be considered moral. Canonists have argued that consummation of a marital contract occurs when there is an unobstructed penile penetration of the vagina even if there is no climax. Let us pause for a minute and reflect on what is problematic about these approaches to human sexual relationships. Sexual relations cannot be reduced to mere acts. Ask anyone who has ever fallen in love when was the moment they fell in love, and you would notice that their responses will always be that it was a process. We currently are reaping the baggage inherent in the scholastic model that preferred to see things as acts and which was eventually concretized in the Enlightenment era where precision and accuracy became the focus. We are today realizing that all that is problematic. Relationality is not an act. It is always a process. Applying this to the discourse on same-sex marriage, what makes same-sex marriages immoral and heterosexual marriages moral? Is it that it is because the persons involved are two men or two women? What role does feeling play in judging the morality of a marital contract? Why do people get married? It is because they fall in love with each other. Why don’t we condemn friendships between two men but are quick to do so when we call it marriage? If we are being honest with how our logic plays out, one would realize that we are still fixated on sex as the issue that defines our moral judgment on marriage. If this is the case, then, we have not made any progress since Thomas Aquinas who argued for the morality of what is a proper sexual act between heterosexual couples (sexual positions, days for having sex, intentionality for the sexual act and so on).

I am more inclined to embrace the argument based on relationality as the focus of marriage. If this is the case, then all that happens within a marriage ought to be seen as a continuum and not as separate realities. Thus, when two men or women decide to celebrate their bond together, it ought to be seen as an expression of something larger than the exchange of vows. In African indigenous cultures, marriage is not an act but a process. It is not only about two individuals, rather it is about the community and the individuals. It is not only about sex, it is also about the wellbeing of the couples and that includes their ability to live out the fullness of their humanity. That said, I think my comments made during my seminar meetings at the seminary some years ago are still valid today. The church should stop wasting its energy on issues it has no right over. What happens in people’s bedrooms is their choice and right. Rather than say marriage is between a man and a woman, it ought to be said that it is between people who want to express and celebrate their love for each other. Love holds first place. Fecundity, sacramentality of the union and so on, only have their validity within the context of the love between the couples and not outside of it. A radical shift ought to be made that goes beyond the current focus which is sex and how the sexual act ought to be expressed.

There is another assumption about the discourse on marriage that I never see theologians talk about and it has to do with polygamy. Many simply assume that it is a given that marriage is between two persons. I recall one of my seminary professors teaching us that it was within the context of natural law that marriage is to be understood as between a man and a woman. After allowing him to articulate his theology on marriage, I asked him the following questions, have you ever lived in a culture where polygamy is the norm? How did you conclude that monogamy was natural law? What role does western cultural practices (Roman marital traditions) play in shaping this argument of appealing to natural law to defend monogamous marriages? I was generous enough to inform him that I come from such a culture. My grandparents were polygamous on both sides. Those who practice it enjoy the full expressions of their relationship. Their struggles are similar to those of monogamous couples. Why do I bring up this other aspect? It is to stress the point that any discourse we have as a church ought to begin with the human experience broadly construed. Using the cultural realities of the west or the global south alone is insufficient. The church is catholic and if it is to live out its name, it ought to take seriously the breadth of our human expressions, straight, gay, monogamy, polygamy, and so on.

SimonMary Aihiokhai, aihiokhais@yahoo.co.uk
University of Portland

The saramentality of marriage

I am in agreement with the points made throughout the discussion. By way of apology, I usually read these issues, although I have seldom written in reply. This case is different.

I think the starting point should be the question of sacramentality and marriage. As has been correctly pointed out, marriage as a social institution has varied through human history. The issue, I think, is not to ask, “What is marriage?” (a clear variable) but what part of marriage makes it a sacrament, viz. “a visible sign instituted by Christ to give grace.”

The Gospels are not entirely clear on this, speaking mostly of fidelity when a marriage has been consummated. Paul offers far more about the obligation to make a Christian marriage different from the civil one in his times. To bolster the meaning of fidelity to one’s spouse, he introduced a series of prohibitions against sexual activities outside of marriage. One of such activities was same-sex in nature. He concluded that the fidelity together with avoidance of certain behaviors was analogous to the love of Christ for the Church and this was a road to being fruitful, i.e. producing more Christians.

Can we equate “producing more Christians” to the reproduction of heterosexual contact? Certainly, Christian couples raise their children in the faith, but I believe Paul was more clearly focused on conversion to Christianity as the result of exemplary matrimonial fidelity. That would place the analogy on adoptive children rather than natural children.

I believe, therefore, that when the II Vatican Council asserted the importance of mutual love and support=companionship to Christian marriage, it was reaffirming the basic Pauline theology. This was added to the existing definition of marriage taken from the Aristotle/Aquinas synthesis of generic marriage and a sacrament.

[PS – Aristotle defined relationships by function as a general rule and was abstracting from the various sexual arrangements in his society to define the function of heterosexual marriage ONLY. Aquinas, as was his custom, added a Christian value to Aristotle’s definition. However, Thomas wrote primarily to show the points of congruity between pagan philosophy and Christian teaching. It is unfortunate that his pronouncements in this particularized purpose of comparison became the sum total of theological teaching on marriage].

The basic meaning of marriage as a sacrament is to “give grace” or, more artfully expressed, to “help each partner live a life faithful to the Gospel.” The love between the partners and the hospitable family setting they create by that love is the “sign=sacrament.” Whenever the love is absent, the sign value of the relationship is lost: whenever it is present, the sign value is achieved.

I am not trying here to recommend decrees in favor of same-sex marriage or against traditional theology. However, as long as our discussions are trying to mend a frayed and broken blanket, I think we will only be temporizing in our conclusions. Rethinking this issue from the meaning of sacrament is, I submit, a better departure point for thoughtful consideration of today’s reality of marriage.

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, stevensa@ptd.net
Brooklyn College professor emeritus

To Anthony,

Good Point: “Rethinking this issue from the meaning of sacrament is, I submit, a better departure point for thoughtful consideration of today’s reality of marriage.”

Perhaps re-thinking, transfiguring, trans-valuing all theology from the meaning of sacrament might be a better departure point for resolving the polarization in the Church today.

Lea Hunter, D.Min, SFCC, 4vatican2rite@gmail.com