Originally written for Human Sexuality class, November 13, 2006.
A Critique of Holy Matrimony:
Man, Wife…and Augustine?
As far into the past as human history has recorded, the custom of marriage has been established. The idea of a couple being joined in love has often been tied to religious beliefs, and has played a part of most religious customs. The traditional Western view of marriage is a joining of a man and a woman for life. This view is supported by most Christians. The Roman Catholic Church took marriage a step further than many other Christian denominations, and made marriage the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Making marriage a sacrament has several wide sweeping implications on who can marry, why marriage and childbearing should happen, and how the couples should interact with one another. These ideas have more recently been modified to be more inductive of a healthy marriage. However the long standing traditions and beliefs stemmed from Holy Matrimony still negatively influence many Catholics’ view of marriage. Though Holy Matrimony in some ways fosters a loving marriage, many of the ideas inspired by Holy Matrimony are detrimental to the family, society, and religion.
First, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony must be understood. Several pieces of scripture can be used to support and explain the idea of Holy Matrimony. Catholics often point to Adam and Eve as a story that illustrates and reinforces Holy Matrimony. In the story, God creates Adam. After Adam finds no suitable partner, God creates Eve out of Adam, and God “brought her to the man [Adam].” After God brings them together Adam names Eve as a woman. Catholics often see the naming of Eve as the first example of Holy Matrimony, with God as the witnessing priest. Though it doesn’t seem clear why naming a person would be the same as giving a sacrament, the idea makes some sense. Particularly if compared to the renaming of certain Biblical characters after receiving other sacraments such as baptism. Noteworthy is that in the story, Adam gives the sacrament to Eve. This holds two problems. First, Eve doesn’t say anything, certainly not giving Adam the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. This doesn’t line up with the normal requirements of Matrimony since Matrimony must be mutual. Second, until 1994, the Catholic church had the priest give the sacraments to the couple. It was only very recently that couples began giving the sacrament to each other with the priest being only a witness. The strong focus Matrimony has on procreation can be founded on God’s blessing that Adam and Eve should “be fruitful and increase in number.”
That Eve was created, and how she was created is sometimes given importance when explaining Holy Matrimony. Matrimony is a union of one man and one woman. The idea is that if God wanted Adam to have multiple wives, God would have taken several ribs out of Adam, and made him several wives. Also, God created a woman out of Adam, not another man, so this helps explains why Holy Matrimony can only be the union of a man and a woman.
Sometimes the family Christ was born into is used to help explain Holy Matrimony. Jesus was an ideal Christian. Logic suggests that his family would then be the ideal, or close to the ideal, Christian family. The problem with this is to explain certain references to Jesus’ ‘brothers’ Catholics suggest Joseph might have been previously married, and had children from that marriage. This previous marriage of Joseph is necessary to preserve the idea that Mary was a life long virgin. It would seem that if Jesus had step-brothers, then his family wasn’t an ideal family and doesn’t support the idea of Holy Matrimony. For his family to be ideal, then Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin, or Jesus didn’t have any brothers, step or otherwise. Though scripture can be used to support and explain Holy Matrimony, the Catholic tradition goes into much greater detail than the Bible does.
The Catholic tradition has many doctrines and statements that help explain Matrimony. Matrimony is a sacrament of vocation and commitment. That is to say Matrimony, like the other sacraments, is a way to become more deeply connected with God. Holy Matrimony, along with several of the other sacraments were clearly defined during the Council of Trent in 1563. Even after the Council of Trent, the defining of Holy Matrimony was vague, partly because of the religious chaos of that time period, but also because Sacraments in general are mysterious and need to be accepted, at least partly, on faith. The Catholic doctrine describes this sacrament as, “an institution [set up] by God” that is “lifelong” in which “a man and a woman…commit themselves…to each other” with the intention to bring each other closer to God. A final and much stranger way to look at Matrimony is as forming “a gateway for energy to be sent from Earth to an alien from another dimension.” All of those explanations are a bit vague, but they allow for some understanding. Furthermore, many Catholics feel that marriage is in many ways like baptism or communion. Such a comparison makes sense as they are all connected to the church and the church community, deserve a lot of thought and respect, and are all received publicly. However, though communion and baptism are often ways of joining the church, Holy Matrimony is quite exclusive.
If the spouses of a marriage do not meet certain requirements, their marriage is known as a ‘disparity of cult.’ Marriages can fall into this category for many reasons. The most obvious, reason is if the two spouses are not baptized. This reason isn’t a big problem because the two unbaptized people probably aren’t Catholic, and therefore shouldn’t mind their marriage not being recognized as sacrament by the Catholic Church. Second, if a Catholic marries a “pagan, Mohammedan [Muslim], Jew, or catechumen [un-baptized Catholic].” Though these requirements are exclusive, they all make sense. The strangest and least rational part about disparity of cult is that the marriage is still considered sacrament if it brings together a baptized Catholic and a “Catholic turned infidel.” The disparity of cult is a reaction to the fear that marrying a unbaptized person will be a danger to the Catholic’s religious identity. This worry is somehow supported by the scripture 1 Corinthians 2:16, “How do you know, husband, whether you will save you wife? ” Even though this scripture doesn’t seem relevant to the issue at hand, it is interesting because just a few verses before, the Bible says, “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband.” It would seem that scripture is not nearly as strict or explicit about the rules of Matrimony as the Catholic tradition is. In fact, even if a Catholic wants to marry a Christian, there are many rules that determine if and how the marriage will proceed.
With certain permissions granted and steps taken, a Catholic can marry a non-Catholic Christian. First, the Christian must have been baptized in public under the name of the Trinity. The bishop of the area must also give permission for the marriage. Even with these criteria met, the marriage ceremony must have certain changes. For example the non-Catholic still may not receive communion. Also, during a normal Catholic to Catholic marriage the priest will say a ‘Prayer of the Faithful’ and then bless the couple. However, in a mixed marriage, the prayer is not to be said. Also, instead of the couple being blessed, they are prayed for. The normal blessing in a Matrimony ceremony is, “May God, Eternal Father, keep you one in mutual love, so that the peace of Christ may reside with you and remain always. Amen;” however in a mixed marriage the priest is to say, “May Almighty God bless all you who are united here, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Before a mixed marriage, the Catholic in the couple is to be warned of, “the influence your spouse might have in the anticipated religious education of the children.” This warning was addressed to a Catholic man marrying a Methodist woman.
The descriptions of Holy Matrimony are all very focused on procreation. The ideas inspired and reinforced by Matrimony such that couples shouldn’t use contraceptives or even abstain from sex can lead to overly large families, putting financial stress on less wealthy families. A much larger problem however is how the view of sex changes when one of the legitimate purposes is to have children. St. Augustine, in the 3rd century wrote a great deal about sex and lust. He spoke strongly about the evils of lusting over a woman, but even warned married couples that though sex leads to children, sex still was a sin because the mind temporarily loses control of the body. More recently, the Holy See warned married couples the risks of “unbridled lust” that could occur within the marriage relationship. Despite the traditionally fearful view of sex held by the members of the Catholic church, common lay-Catholics seem less sexually hindered than others. Not only do Catholic spouses have sex more often than others, they have sex into later years than the average. Catholics also seem to be more sexually playful, and sexually satisfied. However, most Catholics do not seem familiar with St. Augustine and the Holy See’s views on sex.
The idea of Holy Matrimony includes many harmful views of children and childbearing. The Church maintains that a large part of marriage is “always [being] open to the procreation of children.” At times, clergy have taken the idea of child bearing as part of Matrimony further stating, “if a couple marries intending to…avoid having children…such a marriage is invalid, or a sin. Though childbearing is a wonderful thing, Catholic beliefs have wide spread implications on sterility, adoption, and couples who cannot support large families.
The Catholic belief of Matrimony has broad sweeping implications on sterility. Many Catholics see sterility as shameful, recalling the shame and suffering felt by Sarah and Rachel of the Old Testament. The Church maintains that though, “physical sterility is not an absolute evil,” it causes “couples to suffer greatly.” Such ideas become even more damaging to sterile Catholic couples if they put such teachings in the context of clerical statements such as, “shame is felt when you are the sin.” The Catholic church also pressures couples into “exhausting [all] legitimate medical procedures.” Despite the church’s beliefs based in Holy Matrimony, couples must do all they can do produce children; the same doctrine only mildly encourages adoption. As said before, all legitimate medical procedures should be tried, however if those don’t work couples are to “unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross…[and] to give expression of their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.” That is all the Catechism says on adoption of children. Nowhere in Church doctrine nor in clerical statements was found mention of adoption except for as a reaction of sterility. In the past several years, Roman Catholic agencies have stopped supporting adoption services, and instead have been told to turn other charities. The reasoning for some agencies stopping adoption support has been to discourage homosexuals from adopting, which is ironic because Holy Matrimony has great appeal to many homosexuals.
The way in which the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is set up, it could be more inviting to homosexuals than other churchs’ marriage traditions. In 1994, the Catholic Church revised their doctrine, making spouses, not a priest, give each other the sacrament. Though a priest is still present and necessary, he no longer gives the sacrament, but instead serves as a witness. Due to this technicality, many Catholic homosexuals claim to be bound in Holy Matrimony as they bestowed upon each other the sacrament before witnesses, though no clergy would recognize such a ceremony. Many Catholics think same sex couples should be allowed all the sacraments. However, the fact that those who speak up must remain in hiding shows their viewpoints are not popular ones. The Catholic church remains firm in its belief that, “it would be wrong to redefine marriage for the sake of those who cannot rightfully enter into marriage.” However their beliefs seems focused on reasons other than theological, as the church claims “the stability of society is dependent” on the continuing stable and static nature of what is and isn’t marriage. The Catholic church is in a unique position in which, in some ways, they are more prepared to open the sacrament of Matrimony to same sex couples than other church organizations.
In the past several decades, the Catholic church has made great strides away from the traditional St. Augustine based view of marriage and sexuality. In the eighties, Pope John Paul II gave a series of 129 lectures known as the Theology of the Body. These lectures described sex, within the context of marriage, not as a sin, but as a type of communion set up by God as a gift to spouses. The Theology of the Body lectures call for a complete paradigm shift in the Catholic Church’s view of marriage and sexuality. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is another recent document that shows great hope in the future of Matrimony. The Catechism was authorized in 1992, and shows Catholic doctrine less as fact and dogma, but more a way to truth. Catechism encourages sexuality, not as a shameful reminder of Original Sin, but as a gift given by God that should only be used in a certain way. These and many other Post-Vatican II documents encourage a turning away from the traditional ideas and beliefs that have been inspired by Holy Matrimony. Hopefully, many of these Augustinian ideas will continue to lose influence as the Church changes to reflect the ideas introduced by the Catholic Church in the past several decades.
The traditional ideas that have been inspired by Holy Matrimony can have quite negative effects on one’s marriage, religion, and culture. Holy Matrimony can be made much more exclusive and limiting, than other sacraments. Matrimony marginalizes and plays down the importance of other Christian marriages, and of secular marriages. This is seen most easily by the differences in which Catholics treat Holy Matrimony verses a mixed marriage or a disparity of cult. There are some differences between married couples, and those bound in Holy Matrimony. Catholics are shown to have sex more regularly and with greater satisfaction; despite past clerical views and teachings. What is truly troubling about Holy Matrimony is the large number of doctrines and creeds based off of its implications. Church traditions based on Holy Matrimony are far more harmful than Holy Matrimony alone. A negative view of sex and sterility, and an under encouragement of adoption are just a few of the negative beliefs developed due to ideas based on Holy Matrimony.
Marriage is a wonderful thing. The joining of a couple, in mutual and caring love is encouraged by God, and is shown to be a base for a healthy relationship, and a good environment in which to raise children. However, plain marriage, the public joining of a couple, doesn’t seem good enough according to Holy Matrimony. Holy Matrimony as a sacrament implies that unsacramental marriages are less important. Not only are married couples less intimate because they haven’t been made one body with which to produce and raise many children, the ‘absence’ of God implies other than Catholic weddings are less sacred and important in the eyes of God. Holy Matrimony, like marriage, can be a wonderful and loving thing, however it can also be very harmful to people’s marriages and beliefs. More recent trends have shown a turning away from the largely negative tradition, and show a healthier view of marriage and sexuality. However, the Church is so large an organization, it still hasn’t fully reacted to the recent radical call for an acceptance of sexuality and for a less dogmatic approach to beliefs and a more accepting stance on other ideas. Hopefully in time the Catholic Church will change, and the many negative, but influential ideas will fade away.
Image via WikipediaThis weekend my roommate got a Rubik's Cube. Though this could easily become a post about possible destroyers of productivity, it's not (I was actually very productive this weekend). No, today I want to talk about how I learned to solve a Rubik's Cube and how that reflects upon methods and types of learning.
First of all, I just messed around with the cube, I figured out how to drop cubes out and how to get at least the first layer put together.
Then, I had my roommmate show me how he gets the second layer consistently and how he even holds the cube. See, he holds the cube at an angle and turns the cube as if the mostly right side is the front. Though I'm sure it works for him, I kept my holding method that I developed during my initial “play” phase.
Finally, I decided to look online for more complex and complete thoughts on solving the Rubik's Cube. Online I found lists of algorithmic move sets that would allow me to solve any cubes. These lists would move only part of the cube without the rest. After a little bit of time I learned many of these algorithms and was soon almost solving a cube in minutes.
However the catch was I memorized the lists of moves but I stopped paying attention. I was no longer thinking “I need to move white around and down” but was instead thinking “ok after two right turns I have to....”. Now this was not all that bad ounce I realized what was going on. Once I started self checking, once I started learning why the algorithms worked at the same time I learned the algorithms. As with most things, a balance was necessary. A balance between play and knowledge.
So what does this have to do with education? Well hopefully that's self evident, but just in case not: a balance between play and knowledge is key to education. Not just teaching or classroom education, but also self-education. When I'm preparing a lesson plan for someone else, or researching a topic myself. And the balance found during my time with the Rubik's Cube was not the only part relevant. I needed to play, I needed to memorize things that experts had figured out, but I also needed to connect what I memorized to what I had learned during play.
Also, a friend was very key to the experience. Without my roommate I won't have gotten my hands on the cube in the first place, and I also won't have obtained a social aspect to my learning, which was also very key. I learned from him, but I also connected the cube to my relationship. After the relationship was there I wanted to solve the cube not just for myself, but so I could show him and show him what I had learned.
To summarize:
Play
Socialize
Experts
Memorize
Connect
Learn
