The church has lost control of marriage

[rug]

by Fr. Peter Daly | May. 20, 2013

Our county courthouse is across the street from our parish church. Weddings are performed on both sides of the street. We both use the "vocabulary" of marriage, but the words don't have precisely the same meaning.

Let's face it -- the church has lost control of the cultural conversation on marriage. Just about any parish priest can tell you that. Even devout Catholics often ignore the church's teaching and views on marriage.

They live together before they are married. They have babies outside of wedlock. They get married outside the church, often in entirely secular settings. They don't stay married very long. They divorce with the same frequency as the general population. They remarry without benefit of annulments from the church. They often don't consult with us on whether they can go to Communion. And lately, in a dozen states and 14 countries, some very Catholic, they are marrying people of the same sex and bringing their babies to church for baptism.

The church was the dominant voice on marriage for a long time. For about 1,000 years, it defined marriage in Western Europe. From the time of Gregory the Great (pope from 590 to 604) until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the law of the Catholic church was basically the law of Western Europe on marriage and family life. Admittedly, the enforcement was spotty. Different social classes and different cultures obeyed in different ways. But if you wanted to get married, you had to come to church. If you wanted an annulment (no divorce) you had to ask the church.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/parish-diary/church-has-lost-control-marriage

[BlueStreak]

1. The irony is that they could have kept the term "marriage" if they hadn't insisted on calling

everybody else perverts. If they would have taken the position:

- "Marriage" is a religious function that the church can define

- We support civil unions that provide 100% equality of rights with marriage

then civil unions would be the trend now. It is only because the Christian extremists insisted on being dicks that they lost the whole thing.

But their consolation is that this is obviously God's will, even though they will never understand why. I don't know. If my god kept doing all the things I hated, maybe I'd look for another god (or maybe a completely different approach to my life).

Oh well, they still have Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas --- for now.

[IrishAyes]

2. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water

An institution that's lasted 2K years + obviously has been of value to society whatever its own shortcomings. We ignore this source of wisdom and guidance to our own detriment. That doesn't mean leaving our brains home when we attend Mass or that we dishonor our own free will. It means that when we as individuals decide we don't need nuthin' from nobody, we are ripe for a big fall.

Besides, the church is nowhere near as monolithic as some imagine. Jesuits especially are sharp debaters.

[BlueStreak]

3. My view is that committed relationships are good for society

And if some people of the same sex want to have as committed relationship as I have with my wife, they should have all the same legal and tax benefits that I receive.

Committed gay relationships aren't going to destroy society. Uncommitted straight relationships do far more damage to society, IMHO.

Wouldn't we all be better off if we focused on THAT problem?

[IrishAyes]

7. Wouldn't we all be better off not jumping to conclusions?

Although that's all the exercise some people get.

Where did you get the idea that I DON'T pay attention to "THAT" problem? No, you assumed, and you know what that spells. If you 'assumed' you know where I stand in the matter, that might be your next mistake.

If you want a gentler reply next time, try not to phrase your questions in a manner that sounds so belligerent. And self-righteous. And ...

[BlueStreak]

8. I said "we". i did not say "you".

I have no idea what you do personally. But I know the 'Sanctity of marriage" crowd, in general, does not exhibit any concern for the other issues I mentioned. They are focused on the single objective of condemning those who are different.

And once again, please note the previous 2 sentences are not talking about you in particular. I'm talking about the movement, and if that shoe doesn't fit you individual, don't wear it.

If you think my characterization of the movement is inaccurate, well, that's a different kettle of fish.

[IrishAyes]

9. I'm included in 'we'

Re-read your post. My decision hasn't changed.

[BlueStreak]

10. I did not mean it the way you are reading it. I am sorry for any confusion.

[IrishAyes]

11. Sometimes we don't fully realize what we sound like unless someone else tips us off.

And I'm including every human being in the history of the world in that comment. It's a good thing to listen to one another, and I hope no one lost any skin in this exchange.

[rug]

5. Actually the Catholic Church is a distinct minority in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas.

You may be thinking of Baptists.

[BlueStreak]

6. Actually I was thinking of the "Sanctity of marriage" crowd at large

and the Catholics are the least of the problems. On the batcrap crazy scale, the Catholic Church is towards the sane end. Their problems are more about bureaucracy.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

4. In the story

Fr. Daley says "I hope the church both listens and speaks." This single statement shows a couple of major problems. When he says "the church", he means "the institutional Church" -- i.e., the hierarchy. Now, there are two Catholic Churches. Sociologists divide organizations into two types, the Gesellschaft and the Gemeinschaft (it was obviously a German sociologist who came up with these terms). A Gesellschaft is a formal organization, with officers, written rules, etc. A Gemeinschaft is an informal organization. The hierarchy runs the Gesellschaft, but the Gemeinschaft is the Body of Christ. The Church is neither a function of the hierarchy nor a function of the magisterium.

A more serious problem is that the hierarchical Church has a well deserved reputation for NOT listening. When I was in training to become an army officer, I was taught that loyalty runs both ways. A superior expects loyalty and obedience from the subordinates, but the subordinates deserve loyalty from their superiors, including the right to have their concerns listened to. I do not really feel that I am getting this sort of loyalty from the hierarchy.