Are we doing enough to promote true marriage?

[Arandur]

I hear a lot of talk in the aftermath of the SCOTUS decision about how to deal with it, the ramifications, and what to do next. Yes, I know this all started long in the past, and we are reaping the fruits of relativism, sexual permissiveness, contraception, abortion, and no-fault divorce.

Yet I hear mostly people saying that what we need to do most is just work on our marriages, be living witnesses, raise our children well, and catechize and prepare people better for marriage.

I just don’t think that’s enough.

I think that tremendously underestimates the power of the culture as the driving force that reaches most people. People have been inoculated against Christianity; it’s not quite just like Roman times. People are inundated and easily distracted by the other messages of the world. Few pay attention to anything else.

If you want to reach people you need to meet them where they are, right? So we need slick media campaigns and to find other ways to promote the truth of marriage and relationships, family, true love and true compassion, healing and grace, true friendship and the rights of children and parents.

After all, how do you think all these shallow counterfeits for the above were sold to us?

I think we also need incremental laws like we have been passing for years in the abortion arena. It’s a recognition of reality. Our culture has created whole generations of people with no concept of morality or moral discussion. It has infantilized most citizens. The Law has become the great teacher, because people have no other reference for right and wrong.

The culture has kept the majority of people in unexamined, immature states of moral reasoning. Children need rules. Rules teach them. And because so many are so immature and ignorant in these areas, they think what is legal is what is right (except where the media pushes opposition with slick insidious campaigns and entertainment, and activists intimidate and attack).

So I think we need to package and promote Truth well in order to reach people.

I think we need to promote laws that help rebuild a healthier understanding of marriage:
– Shore up the rights of children to their parents and parents to their children. (and religious liberty rights, of course)
– Work towards the end of no-fault divorce, and promote permanence of marriage
– Focus state benefits (and employer benefits) on the dependents, not on a marriage in general, to show that marriage exists for children and the family, not just a bonus for a certain adult sexual/living arrangement (e.g., tax benefits should only be for the legal dependents in a household, those without separate significant incomes; insurance coverage subsidies for dependents, not for the first individual or a non-dependent spouse)
– More assistance to two-parent families and parental benefits to care for their children

We can focus on the positive (loving, lasting, chaste, solid marriages and two-parent families for children). We can focus on things that should be easy common ground – like providing for the rights of children and parents, and focusing benefits on children.

But we can’t just put our heads down, build a bunker, try to live better and hope that people will notice.

What do you think?

 

[QuestLove]

Yet I hear mostly people saying that what we need to do most is just work on our marriages, be living witnesses, raise our children well, and catechize and prepare people better for marriage.
I just don’t think that’s enough.

It is not enough but it is the best place to start.
Who is going to listen to the church when we clearly don’t have a handle on our affairs. It’s asking someone else to clean their house while ours stinks to high heaven.

We have to be honest with ourselves. We are all humans but:
Who will listen to us when we are railing against SSM while we are on marriage number 4?
Who will listen to us when we see religious leaders and so called devout followers having affairs?
Who will listen to us when our churches are still trying to get a grip on child rape and cover up of child rape?
Who will listen to us when we mistreat our spouses?
Who will listen to us when the very supporters of anti-abortion laws are found pressuring others to have abortions to cover up an affair?

This why we are challenged on our claim that we have the moral authority.
These are all stories that have been in the media in recent times.
Is the media out to “get us”? probably.
But how does it excuse us being caught in these situations over and over again.

I do believe we have the right answer. I just don’t think we will have people listening to us until we get our act together.

 

[Nozzer]

It is not enough but it is the best place to start.
Who is going to listen to the church when we clearly don’t have a handle on our affairs. It’s asking someone else to clean their house while ours stinks to high heaven.

We have to be honest with ourselves. We are all humans but:
Who will listen to us when we are railing against SSM while we are on marriage number 4?
Who will listen to us when we see religious leaders and so called devout followers having affairs?
Who will listen to us when our churches are still trying to get a grip on child rape and cover up of child rape?
Who will listen to us when we mistreat our spouses?
Who will listen to us when the very supporters of anti-abortion laws are found pressuring others to have abortions to cover up an affair?

This why we are challenged on our claim that we have the moral authority.
These are all stories that have been in the media in recent times.
Is the media out to “get us”? probably.
But how does it excuse us being caught in these situations over and over again.

I do believe we have the right answer. I just don’t think we will have people listening to us until we get our act together.

I agree with this, but I also think that we should lead from the front and get people to listen to us by setting them an example of how to behave. Only then, I think, will they actually take what we’re saying seriously.

God bless,

Nozzer

 

[QuestLove]

I agree with this, but I also think that we should lead from the front and get people to listen to us by setting them an example of how to behave. Only then, I think, will they actually take what we’re saying seriously.

God bless,

Nozzer

agreed about setting an example.
Unfortunately, “do as I say but not as I do” will not work.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The Catholic Church needs to get it’s own affairs in order first. The majority of Catholics in the US support legal gay marriage, their divorce rates are on par with the rest of the world’s, etc.

If the people in your church aren’t buying the Catholic lifestyle, how do you think you’ll sell anyone else on it?

 

[Mark86]

We are living in very interesting times. The pendulum of culture is once again swinging away from Christian principles, and that means we no longer have the luxury of being the prevailing or dominant voice. We can no longer “coast” on “being Christian” …we have to prove it. This Supreme Court decision is a wake up call to the reality of the world around us that has been brewing for quite some time. It’s also a remarkable opportunity unlike any we’ve seen in a long time. Think of this way, now that people with same-sex attraction have full legal rights to marry each other, and with growing public acceptance of this, they have won this round. They have gotten what they wanted. Their worldview is no longer the “persecuted minority” view, so they can’t really play that card anymore. They are the mainstream now, and being mainstream means they become part of the “big bad political bully system” that they once viewed themselves as fighting against. We as Christians though, as we become more and more marginalized, return to being like the original Church was, scorned and feared and misunderstood… just as Christ Himself was. What a remarkable time to live in.

God is going to bequeath the Church people of profound devotion in the coming decades as the rest of the world slips farther and farther along. We may see a birth of new religious orders. Just think about it. Those struggling with SSA now no longer face cultural or legal barriers towards falling into that lifestyle… so just imagine how strong their sense of devotion to God and the Church will be if, having the option in this current culture, still chose to be obedient to Christ regardless. This is a new cultural landscape ripe for “revival.” We’ve grown stuffy and cold over the years as we’ve slowly become complacent as “good Church-going Catholics”… but this is a world where we no longer can coast on that assurance. People will no longer assume we are virtuous because we’re Christian… we have to be virtuous first and foremost.

The early Church did suffer. They couldn’t assume that people thought they were virtuous and good just by being affiliated with “that Christ-cult.” In fact, as they grew in numbers, it became illegal for them to even call themselves “Christian” and they could be killed “en-mass” by attending “mass.” Not to mention that every time there was a plague or a fire or some kind of disruption in the social order, they were among those targeted as being the culprits. How often today do we hear that Christians are enemies of peace, love, and the social order because we teach a doctrine of peace and love that is at odds with the prevailing cultural view of peace, love, and social order? The “marriage equality” movement, in light of the supreme court decision has promoted this message in recent days saying “Love Won.” As if those who are against gay marriage are not in favor of “love.” This is where it’s heading for us.

1. I think what we need to do is stop referring to it as “traditional marriage.” We’re not for “marriage” merely because it’s “traditional.” On those grounds, our critics make a good point when they say that polygamy and the slavery of wives to husbands was also “traditional,” so why not be in favor of those “traditional” things as well? Instead, we’re for Christian marriage (one man, one woman…etc.) because it’s NATURAL. It is the union of man and woman, two distinct and equal flesh, becoming one flesh. We’re not opposed to gay marriage because we’re these “rigid traditionalists who want to deny and obstruct anything new that we can’t understand”… we’re opposed to it because we view marriage as being about something natural (true everywhere and at every time), rather than something purely cultural or “traditional.”
2. I think it’s time for a more clear separation between “civil” and “sacramental.” I think priests should no longer “officiate” marriages on behalf of the state. It’s clear that the “state” no longer marries people with the same intent that the Church does when the Church marries people. We don’t view baptisms as valid when they aren’t done for the same intention that the Church does them, and I think in this social climate we should stop the practice of Church-state overlap when it comes to marriages as well. This distinction will strengthen the Church’s internal meaning of marriage without making it seem like it only becomes legitimate if the “state” officiates it.
3. I think we should call it “Holy Matrimony” more exclusively. The term “marriage” in the wider culture that we live in has lost the meaning that Church gives it, and using the word confuses people these days as to what you mean. If we say “Holy Matrimony”… they know we’re for carrying out our faith as people married in the eyes of God and not necessarily needing the government to sanction such a union in order to make it legitimate. By using “marriage,” we make people think we mean the “social contract of two people to share their resources and receive benefits from the government”… which is not what we mean. We may have to concede the word “marriage” in order to further distinguish what it is we practice.

 

[ack]

1. I think it’s time for a more clear separation between “civil” and “sacramental.” I think priests should no longer “officiate” marriages on behalf of the state. It’s clear that the “state” no longer marries people with the same intent that the Church does when the Church marries people. We don’t view baptisms as valid when they aren’t done for the same intention that the Church does them, and I think in this social climate we should stop the practice of Church-state overlap when it comes to marriages as well. This distinction will strengthen the Church’s internal meaning of marriage without making it seem like it only becomes legitimate if the “state” officiates it.

Ed Peters has a some good commentaries on this argument, linked here: canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/a-chronology-of-mostly-my-comments-on-ecclesiastical-cooperation-with-civil-marriage/

Summarizing the gist of his commentaries – this is not as good of an idea as it may first seem. Civil society has given the church the privileged to civilly join two people in marriage, and we should not relinquish this privilege without carefully considering the message that doing so would send.

Quoted from the most recent commentary:

Certifying as married, couples that are married, is a good! The fact that others might certify as married, couples that are not married is a bad, but their bad action does not make our good action into a bad.

 

[Arandur]

It is not enough but it is the best place to start.
Who is going to listen to the church when we clearly don’t have a handle on our affairs. It’s asking someone else to clean their house while ours stinks to high heaven.

We have to be honest with ourselves. We are all humans but:
Who will listen to us when we are railing against SSM while we are on marriage number 4?
Who will listen to us when we see religious leaders and so called devout followers having affairs?
Who will listen to us when our churches are still trying to get a grip on child rape and cover up of child rape?
Who will listen to us when we mistreat our spouses?
Who will listen to us when the very supporters of anti-abortion laws are found pressuring others to have abortions to cover up an affair?

This why we are challenged on our claim that we have the moral authority.
These are all stories that have been in the media in recent times.
Is the media out to “get us”? probably.
But how does it excuse us being caught in these situations over and over again.

I do believe we have the right answer. I just don’t think we will have people listening to us until we get our act together.

The Catholic Church needs to get it’s own affairs in order first. The majority of Catholics in the US support legal gay marriage, their divorce rates are on par with the rest of the world’s, etc.

If the people in your church aren’t buying the Catholic lifestyle, how do you think you’ll sell anyone else on it?

So the Catholic Church has to be perfect before it can say anything? All Catholics must have perfect marriages first?

We have many faithful Catholics, and many good marriages. QuestLove, only a relatively few people are involved in the faults that you list.

Moreover, we must promote the ideals and the reasons for them if we ever hope anyone to have any idea what the ideal is – the good and beautiful thing for which we should strive.

 

[Mark86]

Who will listen to us when we are railing against SSM while we are on marriage number 4?

*“What do you say to the gay person who says, well Mr. Trump, what’s traditional about being married three times?” * --Jake Tapper of CNN

This is exactly what people are asking.

Summarizing the gist of his commentaries – this is not as good of an idea as it may first seem. Civil society has given the church the privileged to civilly join two people in marriage, and we should not relinquish this privilege without carefully considering the message that doing so would send.

Think of it this way… the early Church married people at a time when the “state” had declared it illegal to even be a Christian. Christian marriage, and even being Christian therefore, does not need to be officiated by the state in order to be legitimate in the eyes of God. If the state has become so corrupt and deviant in its understanding of marriage, why should Christians even want such a state to officiate or recognize their own? That sends a message that the same state that officiates and recognizes a gay marriage is also officiating and recognizing a Christian marriage, viewing the two as on par with one another and affording equal rights and protections to both. If anything, by not seeking “state approval” we show how distinct we are from the state’s corrupt concept of marriage and how we hold their corrupted “approval” in contempt.

 

[ack]

If the state has become so corrupt and deviant in its understanding of marriage, why should Christians even want such a state to officiate or recognize their own?

Because living a common life and sharing property are essential elements of marriage. Property rights in our society are dictated by the state (sidestepping the question of where these rights come from – in practice, the state is the enforcer), so the primary way to enter into such a common life is by contracting civil marriage.

The church should not even allow for two people to get married in the eyes of God unless they also get married by the state, because if they avoid civil marriage, they would be withholding their assets and certain legal rights from each other.

(I think there are exceptions to this in extreme circumstances, but feeling the need to make a political point is not an extreme circumstance.)

 

[QuestLove]

So the Catholic Church has to be perfect before it can say anything? All Catholics must have perfect marriages first?

We have many faithful Catholics, and many good marriages. QuestLove, only a relatively few people are involved in the faults that you list.

Moreover, we must promote the ideals and the reasons for them if we ever hope anyone to have any idea what the ideal is – the good and beautiful thing for which we should strive.

These problems I’ve listed are not only in the Catholic Church, they are found in every branch of christianity. So my post was not just limited to the Catholic Church.
AFAIK, most christian denominations speak out against SSM but are plagued with alot of these problems.

No, the Catholic Church doesn’t have to be perfect. But the reality is that a more people look at how we live our lives rather than hear what we say. And if the church is barely making the cut, just doing only slightly better than the non-believers around her or worse yet doing just as badly…who do you think will listen to her?.

It is not about perfection. I don’t have to be perfect to tell my kids not to do drugs. But doing drugs on the weekend, in private with my friends will certainly weaken my message when my kids see me doing it.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The Catholic Church needs to get it’s own affairs in order first. The majority of Catholics in the US support legal gay marriage, their divorce rates are on par with the rest of the world’s, etc.

If the people in your church aren’t buying the Catholic lifestyle, how do you think you’ll sell anyone else on it?

Sadly, I think you are right.

Having said that, do you think it is worth promoting the loving marriage of one man and one woman for life, even if we get it wrong. We have laws that say don’t kill, don’t steal, the laws are good laws even though people break them.

 

[Mark86]

The church should not even allow for two people to get married in the eyes of God unless they also get married by the state, because if they avoid civil marriage, they would be withholding their assets and certain legal rights from each other.

I know this is a stupid question, but let’s say the state decides to do the 21st century equivalent of throwing Christians to lions (on account of our “discriminatory policies”)… would it really be all that necessary to seek that state’s approval when it comes to marriage and property rights?

I didn’t think so. hehe

 

[Xantippe]

I know this is a stupid question, but let’s say the state decides to do the 21st century equivalent of throwing Christians to lions (on account of our “discriminatory policies”)… would it really be all that necessary to seek that state’s approval when it comes to marriage and property rights?

I didn’t think so. hehe

What do you suggest instead?

 

[Mummsie]

The Catholic Church needs to get it’s own affairs in order first. The majority of Catholics in the US support legal gay marriage, their divorce rates are on par with the rest of the world’s, etc.

If the people in your church aren’t buying the Catholic lifestyle, how do you think you’ll sell anyone else on it?

Hi Blue Eyed Lady, Could you please give me your source for the “majority of Catholics” in both the legal gay marriage and the divorce rates?

Thank you so much,
God Bless You
Hazel Eyed Grandma

 

[Mummsie]

We are living in very interesting times. The pendulum of culture is once again swinging away from Christian principles, and that means we no longer have the luxury of being the prevailing or dominant voice. We can no longer “coast” on “being Christian” …we have to prove it. This Supreme Court decision is a wake up call to the reality of the world around us that has been brewing for quite some time. It’s also a remarkable opportunity unlike any we’ve seen in a long time. Think of this way, now that people with same-sex attraction have full legal rights to marry each other, and with growing public acceptance of this, they have won this round. They have gotten what they wanted. Their worldview is no longer the “persecuted minority” view, so they can’t really play that card anymore. They are the mainstream now, and being mainstream means they become part of the “big bad political bully system” that they once viewed themselves as fighting against. We as Christians though, as we become more and more marginalized, return to being like the original Church was, scorned and feared and misunderstood… just as Christ Himself was. What a remarkable time to live in.

God is going to bequeath the Church people of profound devotion in the coming decades as the rest of the world slips farther and farther along. We may see a birth of new religious orders. Just think about it. Those struggling with SSA now no longer face cultural or legal barriers towards falling into that lifestyle… so just imagine how strong their sense of devotion to God and the Church will be if, having the option in this current culture, still chose to be obedient to Christ regardless. This is a new cultural landscape ripe for “revival.” We’ve grown stuffy and cold over the years as we’ve slowly become complacent as “good Church-going Catholics”… but this is a world where we no longer can coast on that assurance. People will no longer assume we are virtuous because we’re Christian… we have to be virtuous first and foremost.

The early Church did suffer. They couldn’t assume that people thought they were virtuous and good just by being affiliated with “that Christ-cult.” In fact, as they grew in numbers, it became illegal for them to even call themselves “Christian” and they could be killed “en-mass” by attending “mass.” Not to mention that every time there was a plague or a fire or some kind of disruption in the social order, they were among those targeted as being the culprits. How often today do we hear that Christians are enemies of peace, love, and the social order because we teach a doctrine of peace and love that is at odds with the prevailing cultural view of peace, love, and social order? The “marriage equality” movement, in light of the supreme court decision has promoted this message in recent days saying “Love Won.” As if those who are against gay marriage are not in favor of “love.” This is where it’s heading for us.

1. I think what we need to do is stop referring to it as “traditional marriage.” We’re not for “marriage” merely because it’s “traditional.” On those grounds, our critics make a good point when they say that polygamy and the slavery of wives to husbands was also “traditional,” so why not be in favor of those “traditional” things as well? Instead, we’re for Christian marriage (one man, one woman…etc.) because it’s NATURAL. It is the union of man and woman, two distinct and equal flesh, becoming one flesh. We’re not opposed to gay marriage because we’re these “rigid traditionalists who want to deny and obstruct anything new that we can’t understand”… we’re opposed to it because we view marriage as being about something natural (true everywhere and at every time), rather than something purely cultural or “traditional.”
2. I think it’s time for a more clear separation between “civil” and “sacramental.” I think priests should no longer “officiate” marriages on behalf of the state. It’s clear that the “state” no longer marries people with the same intent that the Church does when the Church marries people. We don’t view baptisms as valid when they aren’t done for the same intention that the Church does them, and I think in this social climate we should stop the practice of Church-state overlap when it comes to marriages as well. This distinction will strengthen the Church’s internal meaning of marriage without making it seem like it only becomes legitimate if the “state” officiates it.

Hmmm, two weddings to plan for??? Though I like your line of thinking, execution of the plan would most likely backfire.

1. I think we should call it “Holy Matrimony” more exclusively. The term “marriage” in the wider culture that we live in has lost the meaning that Church gives it, and using the word confuses people these days as to what you mean. If we say “Holy Matrimony”… they know we’re for carrying out our faith as people married in the eyes of God and not necessarily needing the government to sanction such a union in order to make it legitimate. By using “marriage,” we make people think we mean the “social contract of two people to share their resources and receive benefits from the government”… which is not what we mean. We may have to concede the word “marriage” in order to further distinguish what it is we practice.

Love this idea. Time to Highlight what the joining of two people is really all about.

Great Post, Mark

God Bless You.

P.S. In September, DH and I will be celebrating 46 years of Holy Matrimony.

 

[Arandur]

We are living in very interesting times. …

I really like how you framed this. I’m not sure about point 2 yet, though. Other people have posted good reasons for why not.

One thing that some here have said that I don’t think is a good idea, though, is the idea that we have to wait to make the case for marriage again in the public square until Catholics “get our own house in order.”

I don’t think there’s any reason to wait at all. Most Catholics in our country right now are better reached by public arguments out in the culture than by trying to go through the parishes, anyway. Mass attendance typically varies from 20-40%, IIRC, and of those, I’d say fewer than half actually pay enough attention or care enough to really be influenced at a significant level right now. Matthew Kelly’s Dynamic Catholic ministry pegs the number of active, involved Catholics at 7%, I think (the ones volunteering and such; more than that “care” about their faith I think, but those are the most serious – and many of them will be “social justice” Catholics who are really more driven by politics and culture than by the Church).

In fact, demographically-speaking, some lessons I learned from past censuses are that we actually get a significant number of people claiming to be “Catholic” who really haven’t had any real affiliation with the Church – many having never even been baptized. These include people who, when asked about faith, may say, “Well, I’m Christian, I guess.” People who went to a Catholic school for some of their youth (Catholic schools being the predominant alternative to the public school system), but were never Catholic or from Catholic families. I would peg that number at about 10-30% of reported, “self-identified Catholics” – in fact, that category is greater in number on record than what the Catholic Church records.

Then there are “barely” Catholics – those baptized and on record with the Church, but who never really had anything other than this. That’s another significant number, probably around 20%. I don’t think you can even call this category “lapsed” or “non-practicing,” because they never got that far, unfortunately.

Then there are “non-practicing” and “lapsed” Catholics, which would make up the rest of that 60-80% who don’t go to Mass regularly (and by regularly, I mean not even monthly).

So really, whenever you see polls and statistics about the opinion of Catholics, you have to remove 10-30% as being self-identified but not on record with the Church; ~20% who are almost totally “unchurched;” and then get down to the remaining lapsed vs. practicing Catholics.

So if you’re really looking for the opinion of the number of Catholics who take their faith seriously, who are open to being influenced by the Church directly rather than being almost totally influenced by the culture and typical secular media and social outlets, it’s at best 1/3rd of reported Catholics. I think more like 10%.

Of course, you can’t trust the media to do what any responsible statistician would do and “correct” for these factors to really get at the opinion of practicing Catholics who take their faith seriously.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Hi Blue Eyed Lady, Could you please give me your source for the “majority of Catholics” in both the legal gay marriage and the divorce rates?

Thank you so much,
God Bless You
Hazel Eyed Grandma

Depends who does the survey but it seems to be about half for SSM.
barna.org/barna-update/culture/723-christians-react-to-the-legalization-of-same-sex-marriage-9-key-findings#.VZdfhMnn_qB
https://barna-barnagroup.netdna-ssl.com/images/bu-070115-ig-1d.png

I’m not ready to get into divorce rates as I remember Catholics having a lower rate.

 

[Mummsie]

Her Crazier Half:

Thank you for the surveys. Interesting to look at, especially in light of Arandur’s previous post breaking down the “self-identified Catholics”.

Thanks again and God Bless You.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Mummsie,

No prob. It just seems that sometimes people conflate the Church’s position with the views of its members.