My husband and I both have papers from Universal Ministries
stating that by paying a small fee and filling out an online application, we
now may perform any number of ceremonies like marriages or even baptisms. This certificate, which also comes in pocket-size,
is mostly symbolic and in no way means that either of us is particularly
religious in any way. The certificate’s
powers allow us to perform weddings and we have; he has 2 (almost 3) and I have
1…not that I’m keeping score. Anyway,
we’ve both stood in front of a gathering of people and pronounced a couple
married. Recently though, someone told
me that we “officiate,” we don’t actually marry people. It took some prodding, but it seems the
distinction this individual was trying to make is that because my husband and I
are not ministers for any church this person accepts, we therefore only
officiate legal unions like a justice of the peace. Seems like splitting hairs to me. Verb choice really? That’s the distinction? A ceremony presided
over by a JoP is somehow not really marrying the couple, it’s just
officiating? Apparently to be a marriage
for this person, it must be blessed by church official like a priest since she
indeed declares that she will be a Catholic until she dies. I’m not sure I buy her argument that the
ceremonies my husband I have performed are in any way less valid or true
marriages. Have you ever really
investigated the history
of marriage? No? Let me enlighten you on what I have found.
Guidelines about marriage began as a way to make sure humans
kept having babies and passed property down bloodlines. Way back when we humans
lived mostly nomadic and tribal style lives, marriage was really open and I do
mean open to interpretation. Not only did men actually go and essentially
kidnap women for sex, in some tribes the males could be with whatever woman
appealed to them and then the children from these unions belonged to the whole
tribe. Fascinating, yet primitive by
our Western sensibilities I suppose.
Personally, being thwacked over the head and led away for mating,
childbearing, and no real monogamous connection does not appeal. I am a product of that whole feminism
movement after all and I enjoy being able to rebuff or prosecute such
advances. Speaking of feminism, ancient
Romans seemed to have the first equal status for males and females in
marriage. Interestingly, when
women and men held equal rank in marriage, the birth rates declined! The declining birth rate led Augustus to
impose mandatory marriage laws. So much
for freedom and equality. As societies
moved to more agriculture based societies, the issue of property rights emerged
as a concern and males wanted assurance that the kids born of their wives were
actually theirs so that the possessions of the father went to his sons. Enter the age of marriage as a contract.
From this lovely idea of property rights, humans gained reinforcement
to the idea of women as chattel. Now
instead of being open and available to all men, women were property of a man and marriages were often business
dealings. The love we now associate with
marriage actually was relegated to the realm of prostitutes, male lovers, or
concubines. Marriage was business so if
you wanted monkey business, seek it outside the marriage bed. Early civilized societies had the practice of
prearranged marriages complete with either the male’s family giving the bride’s
family money for the woman, or the woman’s family giving the male’s family
money and property for taking that pesky female off their hands. Either way, it was business and the woman was
not in control. Marriage secured
property rights for heirs and also for churches through the wills of the
deceased family members. As the churches gained more control over
societies, religious influence also reached marriage. Around the 12th century marriages
added blessings and prayers which then gave way to full on religious
involvement in marriage ceremonies.
Despite this, some civilizations insisted on a secular union before a
religious one because a religious union was simply not enough. Essentially, as
humans progressed through the ages, the definition of marriage and how to
define it varied considerably
and changed based on the needs of the society. This idea of government sanctioning marriage
for legal reasons also helped shape America’s ideas of marriage.
In Colonial America,
because so many of the early European settlers escaped religious persecution
elsewhere, colonies
opted for civil, legal marriage rather than religious based ceremonies. They looked to the idea of usus for their
marriages which stated that living
together for a year as husband and wife provided enough of a proof for marriage
needed to be legally accepted. If the
wife stayed away three nights, the marriage was voided. This idea should sound familiar since its
modern version morphed into common law marriage. Only Virginia Colony held on to religious
over civil, but this too gave way eventually.
With a brief knowledge of the ancient origins through early American
views on marriage, it appears that marriage frequently falls under the heading
of legal contract, and that religious involvement was discretionary. Therefore, I felt obligated to investigate
specifically Catholic views on marriage to completely understand the point of
distinction mentioned earlier in this article.
In my digging for information I made rather startling
discoveries regarding the Catholic Church’s involvement in marriage. For example, in 866 Pope Nicholas I held that
even if
a marriage was consummated, if either party objected to the marriage, the
marriage was then void. Hmmm,
veh-wee een-teresting. By this belief,
even if the two had sex, either the man or the woman could still oppose the
union regardless of whether or not it was arranged by the families. In the 13th century the church
took control of marriage as a ceremony, but still held that marriage “sprang
from partners and neither the parents, nor priest, nor government could affect
validity.” Holy smoke! If a marriage springs from the individuals’
consent, then the priest really was there as set dressing even though the
church saw marriage as a sacrament. By 1563, the sacrament of marriage
appears in canonical law, but throughout the 1500’s, marriages without
witnesses or priests were still common. Furthermore, according to the Catholic
Encyclopedia, marriage is a “legitimate union between
husband and wife” with the term legitimate defined as being sanctioned by
some kind of law: natural, evangelical, or legal. Again, marriage through the ages changes even
in the sometimes unyielding Catholic Church.
By including legal in the definition of legitimate, even a civil
marriage between gay and lesbian partners would be recognized as a
marriage. The priest’s blessing supposedly
elevates the marriage’s union as an offering of the marriage in “importance and
sacredness,” but a marriage that satisfies “legitimate union” still qualifies
as marriage. Furthermore, “most
people, including most Roman Catholics do not realize that the ministers of the
sacrament are the spouses themselves.” WHAT?
So the Roman Catholic Church still follows the age old tradition that
simply declaring yourself married is enough?
Just so you know, the author of this article, Scott P.
Richert, is a Catholic who along with his wife attends a traditional Latin
mass and he holds an advanced degree from Catholic University of America. By this teaching, the two people who want to
get married, are married as long as they say vows to one another that say they
intend to contract a marriage with one another.
That’s it. Priest or “officiant” not
needed unless you want that added bonus.
By this argument, my Catholic ‘til death person is right about us not
performing marriages; but neither do priests.
They too are just “officiants.”
Even with that nugget of revelation, marriages that are legally
recognized like the ones my husband and I perform=valid even under Catholic
scrutiny.
Therefore the only barrier to defining the unions and the
act of performing those unions that my husband and I perform as marriage is the
individual in question. That is her
issue to resolve if she indeed views our marriage rites as less than marriage. For me and my husband, those ceremonies and
the ones yet to come are marriages.
Period. For that “Catholic until
the day I die,” she can have her marriage.
She can call it marriage in whatever fashion she defines it along with
her husband. Those other couples though--
asked us to be a part of one of the most important days of their lives. Clearly, those couples’ marriages satisfy any
definition of marriage out there…and I refuse to diminish the status of those
marriages or our role in celebrating them to anything less than the beautiful
portrayal of love and devotion that they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment