FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Should We Forget the Word "Marriage" & Use "Holy Matrimony" Instead?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

Hmmm.. I think there's merit to this idea -- the idea of letting go of the word "marriage" and using "holy matrimony" instead. What do you think? From: http://blog.adw.org/2013/06/do-we-need-t...clusively/:



Do we need to set aside the Word “Marriage” and use “Holy Matrimony” exclusively?
By: Msgr. Charles Pope



In the wake of the supreme court decisions of this week, I would like to return to a question I have Asked before: Are we coming to a point where we should consider dropping our use of the word “marriage?”

It is a simple fact that word “marriage” as we have traditionally known it is being redefined in our times. To many in the secular world the word no longer means what it once did and when the Church uses the word marriage we clearly do not mean what the increasing number of states mean.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines “Marriage” (i.e. Holy Matrimony)  in the following way:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament (CCC # 1601)

The latest actions by numerous states and the hat-tip that the Supremes gave Same sex unions mean that increasingly, the secular world’s definition of marriage no longer even remotely resembles what the Catechism describes.

To be fair, as we have previously noted, this is not the first redefinition of marriage that has occurred in America. The redefinition has actually come in three stages:

 
  • In 1969 the first no-fault divorce law was signed in California. Within 15 years every state in this land had similar laws that made divorce easy. No longer did state laws uphold the principle which the Catechism describes as a partnership of the whole of life. Now marriage was redefined as a contract easily broken by the will of the spouses. 
[BR]
 
  • The dramatic rise in contraceptive use and the steep drop in birthrates, though not a legal redefinition, amount to a kind of cultural redefinition of marriage as described in the Catechism which sees the procreation and education of offspring as integral to its very nature. Now the American culture saw this aspect as optional at the will of the spouses. Having sown in the wind (where we redefined not only marriage, but sex itself) we are now reaping the whirlwind of deep sexual confusion and a defining of marriage right out of existence. 
[BR]
 
  • This final blow of legally recognizing so called gay “marriage” completes the redefinition of marriage which the Catechism describes as being a covenant, …which a man and a woman establish between themselves. Now secular American culture is removing even this, calling same-sex relationships “marriage”. 


Proposal: So the bottom line is that what the secular world means by the word “marriage” is not even close to what the Church means. The secular world excluded every aspect of what the Church means by marriage. Is it time for us to accept this and start using a different word? Perhaps it is, and I would like to propose what I did back in March of 2010, that we return to an older term and hear what you think.

I propose that we should exclusively refer to marriage in the Church as “Holy Matrimony.”

According to this proposal the word marriage would be set aside and replaced by Holy Matrimony. It should be noticed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to this Sacrament formally as “The Sacrament of Matrimony.”

The word “matrimony” also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complementarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = “mother” and mony, a suffix indicating “action, state, or condition.” Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from secular muddle that has “marriage” for its nomen.

Problems to resolve – To return to this phrase “Holy Matrimony” is to return to an older tradition and may sound archaic to some (but at least it isn’t as awkward sounding as “wedlock”). But clearly a new usage will be difficult to undertake. It is one thing to start officially referring to it as Holy Matrimony. (Which, by the way I have done in my parish – we no longer prepare people for marriage, but for “Holy Matrimony”) But it is harder when, for example, a newly engaged couple approaches the priest and says, “We want to be married next summer.” It seems unlikely we easily train couples to say, “We want to enter Holy Matrimony next summer.” or even just to say, “We want to have a wedding next summer.” Such dramatic changes seem unlikely to come easily. Perhaps you, who read this blog can offer some resolutions to this problem.

Perhaps, even if we cannot wholly drop the terms “marry, ” “marriage” and “married” a more modest form of the proposal is that we at least officially discontinue the use of the word marriage and refer to it as the “Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.”

What do you think? Do we need to start using a new word for marriage? Has the word been so stripped of meaning that we have to use different terminology to convey what we really mean?

When I proposed this two years ago this very time, many of you we rather unconvinced and some were even perturbed that we were handing on over our vocabulary to the libertines. That may be, but we already know that “gay” will never mean what it used to, and it would seem that  “marriage” will never again mean what it did.

A secondary but related proposal is that we begin to consider getting out of the business of having our clergy act as civil magistrates in weddings. Right now we clergy in most of America sign the civil license and act, as such, as partners with the State. But with increasing States interpreting marriage so differently, can we really say we are partners? Should we even give the impression of credibility to the State’s increasingly meaningless piece of paper? It may remain the case that the Catholic faithful, for legal and tax reasons may need to get a civil license, but why should clergy have anything to do with it?

Frankly, I am uncomfortable signing DC Marriage licenses, and do so only because my Ordinary has indicated we should continue doing this. I am happy to obey him in this and defer to his judgment in the matter. There is a reason his is the Ordinary and I am not. That said, I have told him what I think. But for now, it seems clear we must stay the course and still sign them until the Bishop says, no more.

If we did stop signing civil licenses, we would surely need a strong catechesis directed to our faithful that reiterates that civil “marriage” (what ever that means anymore) is not Holy Matrimony and that they should, in no way consider themselves as wed, due to a (meaningless) piece of paper from a secular state that reflects only confusion and darkness rather than clarity and Christian light.

Here too, what do you think? Should the Catholic Bishops disassociate Catholic clergy from civil “marriage” licenses?
It has merit until one simply looks up the etymology of marriage, which is holy matrimony. We don't get to desynonymize something because we lack the enduring fortitude necessary to fight falsity. It is right to call marriage as it is, holy matrimony. "Marriage" not-holy-matrimony is not-marriage. What needs to be done is the stopping of calling civil unions as marriage, as if any moron that can Google map the courthouse, or find their drunken way through Vegas, and sign their name to a piece of fiat currency in the shambled economy of love can claim such a title as "married".

Half-wits and homeless are not semi-geniuses and in between domiciles; jailhouse lawyers do not hold juris doctorates; and frankly, there're a bunch of people who simply are not married, despite their claim to such a state in life. Continuing to agree they are is not to be helped by abandoning them to their delusions. And certainly to redraw, in retreat, the front lines of this fight will not do anything but bring the assault to the front-as-redefined.

What is then done when that becomes the battlefield, surrender?

Retreating is the first act of surrender.

We must instead harken back to the words of the French Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch, brother of a Jesuit, who at the battle of the Marne is attributed the saying, "My center is yielding. My right is retreating. Situation excellent. I am attacking."

Quote:marriage (n.)
c.1300, "act of marrying, entry into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, past participle of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry (v.)). The Vulgar Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje. Meaning "a union by marriage, a particular matrimonial union" is early 14c.; that of "wedding; the marriage ceremony; condition of being married" is from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) from early 15c.
[W]hen two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part. [G.B. Shaw, preface to "Getting Married," 1908]
Marriage counseling recorded by 1939. Marriage bed, figurative of marital intercourse generally, is attested from 1580s.
Data from www.etymonline.com
© 2001-2010 Douglas Harper
I say yes, anything to piss of the ACLU  and the rainbow coalition.
Yes, indeed. There is no other way to truly defend what the Church proposes to be marriage. Since modern culture has by and large hijacked that word and applied it to somewhat similar yet completely different unions, the term Holy Matrimony should be used much more commonly to describe what is taught by the magisterium. I wonder, however if it should also be used to distinguish properly between canonically valid marriages and those unions whose only deficit is valid form, i.e. according to proper church ritual. This would help more clearly show that not only are same-sex unions incapable of providing the necessary matter for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony (a baptized male and baptized female of the minimum age requirement), so also protestant and civil marriages lack the necessary form and thus are not valid marriages. How does one share in all charity the truth that a friend who did not get married in the Church is not indeed married?
(06-30-2013, 12:30 AM)Peasantking Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, indeed. There is no other way to truly defend what the Church proposes to be marriage. Since modern culture has by and large hijacked that word and applied it to somewhat similar yet completely different unions, the term Holy Matrimony should be used much more commonly to describe what is taught by the magisterium. I wonder, however if it should also be used to distinguish properly between canonically valid marriages and those unions whose only deficit is valid form, i.e. according to proper church ritual. This would help more clearly show that not only are same-sex unions incapable of providing the necessary matter for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony (a baptized male and baptized female of the minimum age requirement), so also protestant and civil marriages lack the necessary form and thus are not valid marriages. How does one share in all charity the truth that a friend who did not get married in the Church is not indeed married?



a little clarification, If I may. Av catholic married in a protestant ceremony is indeed not married in the church, but 2 prots married according to their laws are validly married, so I have been told by a priest. I know 2 friends of mine from the high school days, both non practicing catholics, who were married in Las Vegas. I told them it would be a simple matter to get the church to validate the marriage  but they are not interested. Sad.
(06-30-2013, 10:54 AM)In nomine Patris Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2013, 12:30 AM)Peasantking Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, indeed. There is no other way to truly defend what the Church proposes to be marriage. Since modern culture has by and large hijacked that word and applied it to somewhat similar yet completely different unions, the term Holy Matrimony should be used much more commonly to describe what is taught by the magisterium. I wonder, however if it should also be used to distinguish properly between canonically valid marriages and those unions whose only deficit is valid form, i.e. according to proper church ritual. This would help more clearly show that not only are same-sex unions incapable of providing the necessary matter for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony (a baptized male and baptized female of the minimum age requirement), so also protestant and civil marriages lack the necessary form and thus are not valid marriages. How does one share in all charity the truth that a friend who did not get married in the Church is not indeed married?


a little clarification, If I may. Av catholic married in a protestant ceremony is indeed not married in the church, but 2 prots married according to their laws are validly married, so I have been told by a priest. I know 2 friends of mine from the high school days, both non practicing catholics, who were married in Las Vegas. I told them it would be a simple matter to get the church to validate the marriage  but they are not interested. Sad.

It's more complicated than Prots = married.

Your friends were not married in Vegas. They are not married in any valid sense of the word.
Thank you for the clarification. I had always wondered what the law was regarding Prot marriages and their validity.
(06-30-2013, 11:03 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2013, 10:54 AM)In nomine Patris Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2013, 12:30 AM)Peasantking Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, indeed. There is no other way to truly defend what the Church proposes to be marriage. Since modern culture has by and large hijacked that word and applied it to somewhat similar yet completely different unions, the term Holy Matrimony should be used much more commonly to describe what is taught by the magisterium. I wonder, however if it should also be used to distinguish properly between canonically valid marriages and those unions whose only deficit is valid form, i.e. according to proper church ritual. This would help more clearly show that not only are same-sex unions incapable of providing the necessary matter for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony (a baptized male and baptized female of the minimum age requirement), so also protestant and civil marriages lack the necessary form and thus are not valid marriages. How does one share in all charity the truth that a friend who did not get married in the Church is not indeed married?


a little clarification, If I may. Av catholic married in a protestant ceremony is indeed not married in the church, but 2 prots married according to their laws are validly married, so I have been told by a priest. I know 2 friends of mine from the high school days, both non practicing catholics, who were married in Las Vegas. I told them it would be a simple matter to get the church to validate the marriage  but they are not interested. Sad.

It's more complicated than Prots = married.

Your friends were not married in Vegas. They are not married in any valid sense of the word.




They are civilly married, legally, and it is recognized as such by the laws of the land.  But they are not married according to the church.
(06-30-2013, 01:09 PM)Peasantking Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for the clarification. I had always wondered what the law was regarding Prot marriages and their validity.




Yes, the priest said, for example, suppose a catholic, free to marry, wanted to marry a prot who was married in a prot ceremony, then divorced. He would not be allowed to marry the prot in the church. Now, I don't know about the prot getting an annulment or whatever like a catholic possibly could. I just don't know about that part.
EXCELLENT article, Vox. The unbreakable holy bond that was once marriage, has been destroyed by both the "no fault" divorce laws & IMO. by the devaluation of children. Their welfare, sense of security, their need of BOTH a Mother & Father has been deemed unimportant compared to the "happiness" of their parents. I realize that when true abuse is present, that a couple shouldn't continue to live together, but there is always the choice of a legal separation. (another subject).

The Catholic Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is DIFFERENT. I've been married (to the same man) for 52 yrs. & we have 4 children & 10 grandchildren. During those 52 years there were plenty of times I felt like packing up the kids & walking out, I was so angry. Same for him, I'm a perfectionist & when I think I'm right...........stand back. I KNOW that in his mind, he was thinking, "I don't need this aggravation, I'm out of here!
The thing is we both remember that we stood before GOD & vowed to love, honor & cherish one another till death does us part.,

Those vows were made to each other as part of a SACRAMENT. We had an old-fashioned Nuptial Mass. We knelt on a predieux (inside the Sanctuary  & that was a BIG DEAL in 1960 )& promised each other & God that we would support each other in sickness & in health, In good times & in bad times.

He's Irish through & through & I have a temper, too. I have no idea if we'd be enjoying these wonderful golden years If we hadn't been joined together in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony & been blessed with the graces that come with the Sacrament.
Pages: 1 2