Msgr. Charles Pope: Catholic Church Should Drop Word 'Marriage' For 'Holy Matrimony' In Wake Of DOMA

[rug]

Posted: 06/28/2013 1:21 pm EDT | Updated: 06/28/2013 2:46 pm EDT

In an opinion piece published on the Archdiocese Of Washington website, a Roman Catholic religious leader offered a distinctive response to the Supreme Court's ruling that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Msgr. Charles Pope lamented that since 1969, when it became easier to divorce, contraception became widely available and now that the legal standing of gay marriages had been put on equal footing of those of heterosexual couples, that the word 'marriage' no longer has resonance within the Catholic faith.

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 pastor of Holy Comforter-St. Cyprian then went on to suggest that the Catholic church drop the word marriage altogether and use "Holy Matrimony" in its place.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/marriage-holy-matrimony_n_3517019.html

Sounds like a belated recognition of the difference between a sacrament and a civil law. Here's his article:

http://blog.adw.org/2013/06/do-we-need-to-set-aside-the-word-marriage-and-use-holy-matrimony-exclusively/

[eShirl]

1. agreed!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6933735#6934773

[rug]

2. Lol, you're prescient!

Just think of all the harm and grief that would have been avoided if this was said in the first place.

[IrishAyes]

5. But, Rug...

You know how much glee people take in making hash of one another. Saying that in the first place would've been too reasonable.

[No Vested Interest]

3. I've maintained ever since the subject arose

that it's really a matter of semantics, so I'm closer to the monsignor's and Shirl's position.

It's far easier to just use another term, and I'm fine with Msgr. Pope's term, if that's what the powers that be decide on, than to be forever squabbling about a definition.

It's abundantly clear that justice and human dignity demand equal treatment of all people, as the Supreme Court decision has laid out..

[IrishAyes]

4. Say, wasn't that Jesus fellow all about justice and human dignity in the first place?

In addition to salvation, of course, closely allied to the above.

I've never understood at all why one person having equal rights and responsibilities could ever diminish my own. Makes no sense, secular or religious. That's why people get greedy in all sorts of ways; they're afraid my dessert came out of their cake, and now they have less. Stoooopid.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

6. In other words, it's not a zero-sum game

In this case, at least, expanding your rights does not diminish mine. There are some cases where it does happen; for example, one of the standard noises from libertarians is a call for elimination of zoning laws, which they claim would be an expansion of property rights. However, this means that my next-door neighbor can start raising pigs on his property, something which would diminish my property rights. (I wonder if libertarians have grasped the concept of "thinking things through", but that's a different discussion.)

The hierarchy should see same-sex marriage in exactly the same way it sees civil divorce. Divorce is something which the Church does not recognize, but which civil society does. (If someone enquires about getting an annulment, one of the first questions is "Are you divorced?" and if the answer is "no", then they are told to get one before proceeding with the annulment.) If the hierarchy had made noises about "well, we are not going recognize a gay couple as married, no matter what the rest of society thinks," they would not have come off looking like homophobic arseholes. I wonder if the hierarchy have grasped the concept of "some fights are not worth fighting?"