In Great Britain the suppression of Clandestine Marriage occurred in 1753 with the passing of The Marriage Act. Henceforth, marriage could not be rushed into by anyone but followed the reading of banns and required witnesses.
Before the passing of this Act, it had long been the case that if a man and a woman, being unmarried, made promises one to another and then engaged in sexual intercourse they were regarded as married in the sight of God by the Church. The Council of Trent accepted this situation but required the presence of a priest to witness their promises or vows.
The reason why Clandestine Marriage was accepted by the Catholic Church and her courts for long centuries was that the Church doctrine was that an exchange of binding promises [preferably with 2 witnesses] and physical union were the essential elements of the making of a marriage. The involvement of parental consent was not seen as essential if the parties were of age. This old medieval Catholic approach was accepted in terms of canon law in Protestant England, until 1753.
Of course, what the Christian State and the Church wished to see in Britain was the state of affairs required in The Book of Common Prayer - banns followed by a public service of holy matrimony. And this state of affairs was achieved (yet not wholly for Christian reasons) by Parliament in 1753.
Of course, the Act did not stop fornication and adultery in practice or in suggestion in the theatre plays of the period. But from henceforth a couple who lived together could not claim to be married unless they had gone through the hoops erected by the State.
In the post 1960s western world of Europe and America, there are a few couples who run off to Reno or Las Vegas or Gretna Green (Scotland) for a quick marriage and in so doing surprise family & friends. But the dynamic [certainly not the strict] equivalent today of Clandestine Marriage is perhaps Co-Habitation. It seems that a larger proportion of young male/female couples live together, sharing bed and board, than actually marry each other - although some who co-habit then later marry.
In fact, Co-Habitation has become so common that society accepts it without negative comment and the Church merely tells the parties that they ought to get married, or live separately.
The situation is that these heterosexual couples are living in what they term temporary, faithful partnerships, and in some cases, these faithful partnerships may become more permanent through a marriage.
So one of the various questions that arise when we reflect upon this situation is this: Does the use of the adjective "faithful" make co-habitation to be moral?
Before offering a brief answer, we have to recognize that there are now many "gay" or same-sex couples who also tell us that they are living in "faithful" partnerships. They say that if the heterosexuals can do it, why can't they do so!
Morality in the West is more and more being based upon and found within the emerging doctrine of human rights? So, it is commonly argued, that if I have a right to personal fulfilment and happiness (which I do), and if I find this with a partner (of either sex), and if the partner feels the same way, and if we are doing no observable harm to anyone else, then our "relationship" is moral and remains so as long as each of us maintains loyalty and faithfulness.
However, on a strict interpretation of the commandments within the Law of God in the Bible and within the Canon Law of the Church from the early centuries to the present, co-habiting without the vows of holy matrimony is fornication, is sin, is wickedness and is immoral. It is a sin to be repented of, which means in practice that the parties are to separate with due penitence or to be joined (where this is permissible and desired) in holy matrimony.
One thing is clear in a time when human rights are so prominent in culture and church - the church should not treat heterosexual cohabitation favourably (or turning a blind eye) and homosexual cohabitation negatively! Either both are allowed by human rights or both are condemned by divine law! And if the latter then great pastoral sensitivity is needed when uttering the divine condemnation.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon
No comments:
Post a Comment