Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Kathy Gill's column >>

KATHY GILL

Home Page
Writer, Political Junkie, Educator
Articles Posted: 294  Links Seeded: 246
Member Since: 1/2006  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

A Case For Religious History Classes

Mon Aug 9, 2010 5:02 PM EDT
politics, marriage, gay-marriage, catholicism, prop-8, martin-luther, loving-v-virginia, protestant-reformation
By Kathy Gill
Advertise | AdChoices

Raise your hand if you knew that the linkage of "marriage" and religious norms is an artifact of the Catholic Church's fight for its life in the 16th century.

I'm guessing that many Americans would shudder if they realized that their current religious beliefs were so wedded to the Church's fight with Protestants. The supremacy of The Church in all things marriage was formalized with The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563), which was organized in response to the "heresies" of the Protestants, led by Martin Luther. From Wikipedia (emphasis added):

The council issued condemnations on what it defined as Protestant heresies ... When announcing Vatican II, Pope John XXIII stated that the precepts of the Council of Trent continue to the modern day, a position that was reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI.

[...]

In the decrees on marriage (twenty-fourth session) the excellence of the celibate state was reaffirmed (see also Clerical celibacy), concubinage condemned and the validity of marriage made dependent upon its being performed before a priest and two witnesses...

What, exactly, did the Church decree in the 16th century that 20th century Popes have affirmed? From the text of the 24th session, some highlights. (Note, the Canons are written as double negatives ... "If this, then anathema".)

  • CANON I asserts that marriage confers grace and is divine in nature (not "invented by men").
  • CANON II prohibits having more than one wife.
  • CANON III - VIII assert the Church's authority in conferring or breaking the marriage contract, including issues of divorce (not named as such), consummation, adultery, separation.
  • CANON IX prohibits clerics from marriage.
  • CANON X asserts that celibacy trumps marriage: "better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony."
  • CANON XI asserts the Church's authority to prohibit wedding ceremonies during certain times of the year and the Church's supremacy regarding benedictions and other ceremonies.
  • CANON XII asserts that "matrimonial causes ... belong to ecclesiastical judges."

In addition, the Canon lays out the rules surrounding marriage:

  • Public announcement required: "...before a marriage is contracted, the proper parish priest of the contracting parties shall three times announce publicly in the Church, during the solemnization of mass, on three continuous festival days, between whom marriage is to be celebrated; after which publication of banns, if there be no lawful impediment opposed, the marriage shall be proceeded with in the face of the church..."
  • Only marriages made by the Catholic Church are valid: "... Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest by permission of the said parish priest, or of the Ordinary, and in the presence of two or three witnesses; the holy Synod renders such wholly incapable of thus contracting and declares such contracts invalid and null, as by the present decree It invalidates and annuls them..."
  • Prohibits co-habitation before marriage: "...the same holy Synod exhorts the bridegroom and bride not to live together in the same house until they have received the sacerdotal benediction, which is to be given in the church..."
  • The Church maintains marriage records (in the absence of what we would, today, think of as "government"): "... The parish priest shall have a book, which he shall keep carefully by him, in which he shall register the names of the persons married, and of the witnesses, and the day on which, and the place where, the marriage was contracted..."

Contrary to modern rhetoric, "marriage" has not always been a function of the Church in western civilization. In Rome, for example, marriage was a "personal, civil agreement" and "did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval." Until the Catholic Church set out this edict in the 16th century, marriage and divorce had continued to be a civil matter.

Why this focus on the marriage sacrament? Because Luther had "declared that marriage was not a sacrament but "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government." Yes, this doctrine was developed in direct opposition to the Protestant Reformation! Thus, the "marriage and church" linkage that we see in the rhetoric around California's Prop 8 is inextricably linked to the Catholic Church. Does anyone else see the irony?*

The rhetoric surrounding California's Prop 8 has its roots in the evolution of marriage from a means of male lineage preservation (Jews and the God of Israel and the Old Testament) to a convenience of economics (where women were chattel) to a ceremony of religious sanctity. It is time for America to truly throw off the shackles of the Church and embrace marriage as "an expression of the right to happiness," a journey with a major milepost during my lifetime -- Loving v Virginia. We need a clean break between state and church, marriage that is a private contract between two consenting adults. Period.

All rights that the government currently confers upon those who are "married" should be conferred on those who enter into this civil contract. No more "my religion trumps your worldview."

And yes, this would nullify "federalism" to the extent that a contract entered into in California should be valid in every other state in the union. Need a legal argument? Use the Interstate Commerce clause, because failure to recognize these contracts would be akin to restricting the movement of labor.

Will this happen in my lifetime? It's possible, if enough of us can resist the pull of tribal emotion and engage the reasoning centers of our brains.

* In the U.S., 51% claim to be Protestant; 24%, Catholic; 16%, unaffiliated; 3%, "other Christian"; 2%, Jewish. Pew.
Related: Marriage Is a Fundamental Constitutional Right

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Kathy Gill's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (43)
Kathy Gill

This first appeared at The Moderate Voice and was inspired by this comment.

  • 7 votes
Reply#1 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 5:04 PM EDT
IronLung

Very informative, I likes.

  • 7 votes
Reply#2 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 5:28 PM EDT
Proud Pagan

Very well done, Ms. Gill. Kudos to you! :-)

Just one caveat.

We need a clean break between state and church, marriage that is a private contract between two consenting adults. Period.

The freedom of religion is as important and significant as the separation of church and state. I believe that if a couple *chooses* to have their union blessed in a religious ceremony, it should be their unalienable right to do so.

Of course, this should not make a marriage any more or less legitimate. From society's point-of-view, it should be viewed as no different than when Catholics attend a special ceremony to have their throats blessed.

The significance, as well as the relevance, of a wedding ceremony should belong to the couple, and no one else.

Kindest regards

  • 9 votes
Reply#3 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 5:54 PM EDT
Kathy Gill

I agree.

I had a bit in there about religious ceremonies if so desired, but I cut it for flow.

  • 2 votes
#3.1 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 6:58 PM EDT
Ripley8

thank you !

far too many people think they know , or understand their religion or faith yet have no clue.

  • 4 votes
#3.2 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 7:44 PM EDT
GoldenGateMami_Susi

I've always said people need to study beyond what they think they know and explore other religions.

They'll be amazed at what they find and what they learn.

  • 8 votes
#3.3 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 7:54 PM EDT
Proud Pagan

I had a bit in there about religious ceremonies if so desired, but I cut it for flow.

Ah. More than understandable. :-)

Kindest regards

  • 4 votes
#3.4 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 10:53 PM EDT
Reply
King Dave

Amen! It's a good thing Moses knew how to build an ark, or we would all be treading water right now.

  • 2 votes
Reply#4 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 6:10 PM EDT
Simba1chief

Ah, more fairy tales. Like we don't have enough of them

  • 8 votes
#4.1 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 6:13 PM EDT
Matt Rock

Wait... did Moses build the ark? Is that how he crossed the red sea?

  • 6 votes
#4.2 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 6:46 PM EDT
gordy327

Like we don't have enough of them

Yeah, but at least they're entertaining.

  • 1 vote
#4.3 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:31 AM EDT
Reply
SeattleBobb

I almost had a religious minor in college simply from taking so many classes based on religious studies because it interested me. I have not and will not practice any religion.

Religion is a very important part of this countries and worlds history. Not to mention if more people learned about religions, all types, they might also learn that they are the single largest cause of wars and deaths around the world. More people have been killed in a name of a religion than for anything else. I am not saying the religions themselves called for the deaths, but its followers used it as a justification. They are really nothing more than a method to control people.

In regards to marriage, I see it as the personal religious choice of individuals to go through a marriage ceremony. As far as our government is concerned, every union should be a legal civil union and marriage just a religious ceremony that has no legal ties. And this is coming from someone who was married is a catholic church.

  • 12 votes
Reply#5 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 6:13 PM EDT
Kathy Gill

Agreed, although I have not engaged in that thorough analysis (academic study of religion).

As I mentioned above, I had a line similar to your next-to-the-last sentence and cut it. I wish now I'd kept it!

  • 2 votes
#5.1 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 7:00 PM EDT
Ripley8

me too !

it's amazing what you learn factually about man's belief systems . I think that's why so many fear learning about it. or pick and choose .

or as a scholar friend of mine who passed away put it ...

Every other field of study has to verify its validity. For philosophy it's "Cogito ergo sum." For chemistry it's the atomic theory; for statistics it's the central limit theorem; .... Only religion is conceited enough to think it is studying a real subject without having any evidence for it.

When it finally dawns on you that everything you've been told about god, heaven, etc., is based only on speculation, it comes as a major shock. Anger is the intial reaction, hence, the Christian charge that atheists are angry people (Only recent converst are.). Once you're past the anger, it becomes possible to see the people who lied to you as unwitting dupes who genuinely believed they were telling the truth.

an interesting couple of comments .............

John Shelby Spong, retired bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA has written:

"Religion is primarily a search for security and not a search for truth. Religion is what we so often use to bank the fires of our anxiety. That is why religion tends toward becoming excessive, neurotic, controlling and even evil. That is why a religious government is always a cruel government. People need to understand that questioning and doubting are healthy, human activities to be encouraged not to be feared. Certainty is a vice not a virtue. Insecurity is something to be grasped and treasured. A true and healthy religious system will encourage each of these activities. A sick and fearful religious system will seek to remove them."

David C. James, rector of St. John's Episcopal Church & Diocesan Mission Center in Olympia, WA, wrote:

Many times when we think we are worshipping God, we are actually comforting our very fragile egos. I'm not so naïve as to assume that we build temple and erect altars to ourselves…directly. But our core need to been safe, secure and sound mandates that we construct reality systems that will support us.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_theory1.htm

  • 4 votes
#5.2 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 7:51 PM EDT
Reply
Simba1chief

Very interesting article Kathy & I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusions. Keep up the "good works" ;-)

  • 7 votes
Reply#6 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 6:14 PM EDT
nica1829

Kathy, very informative. Thank you for this.

  • 5 votes
Reply#7 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 6:22 PM EDT
GoldenGateMami_Susi

Raises hand.

  • 4 votes
Reply#8 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 6:38 PM EDT
Kathy Gill

Good for you! :-)

  • 4 votes
#8.1 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 6:59 PM EDT
GoldenGateMami_Susi

Going to Catholic schools that took a more progressive look at world religions and their histories was eye opening.

  • 6 votes
#8.2 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 7:11 PM EDT
Reply
Kathy Gill

IronLung, nica1829 and Simba1chief -- thanks!

  • 3 votes
Reply#9 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 7:01 PM EDT
MYOB-1251250

Well, there's another chapter of history that will have to be rewritten. (sarcasm)

  • 1 vote
Reply#10 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 7:25 PM EDT
Askari

Bravo, Kathy!! This whole Prop 8 thing was one of the most ridiculously discriminatory pieces of legislation passed. The religious sect skated on by with the lie that marriage has its roots in their industry. The Prop 8 opposition could have used your sensibility in striking this thing down before it got off the ground.

  • 5 votes
Reply#11 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 8:02 PM EDT
Idonia

Very enlightning. As a former catholic, I struggle to overcome my indoctrination in religion. My views are slowly changing and I look at it as my personal evolution. I still believe in god, just not religion.

  • 2 votes
Reply#12 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 8:45 PM EDT
D Luniz-1282741

And I always thought it started as something like a business contract

Ill sell you my daughter in exchange for 3 cows

or, Ill sell you my daughter and 200 (insert currency here) and since we're now family, Ill have access to the business oppertunities knowing you will gain me

    Reply#13 - Mon Aug 9, 2010 9:00 PM EDT
    jfrank

    I'm fine with classes based on Religion in schools. I just don't like it when they try to put it in science classes.

    We need a clean break between state and church, marriage that is a private contract between two consenting adults. Period.

    - agreed

    • 4 votes
    Reply#14 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:02 AM EDT
    GoldenGateMami_Susi

    In private schools you get religion/religious instruction as well as science and in science we learned about evolution, Big Bang all the normal stuff. In religion we learned about creation.

    Never were the two mixed unless it was a joint departmental project like we did at mine in Junior and Senior year.

    • 5 votes
    #14.1 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:09 AM EDT
    Reply
    etva

    Susi:

    I went to a Catholic elementary school, and religion came before science, which was at the end of the day. On most days (not all, but most), our religious instruction went over the allotted time, and we’d be left with 10 or 15 minutes for science, which basically could be summarized as “God made everything.”

    Our religious instruction never included historical discussion (such as the above info) – only Biblical instruction.

    I’m sure not all Catholic schools function as mine did, but I’m curious to know -- did your religion class ever use sources other than the Bible? Did you actually study and compare religions, or did it focus entirely on Biblical scripture?

    • 2 votes
    Reply#15 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:17 AM EDT
    GoldenGateMami_Susi

    We had religion at different points of the day depending on the teacher and how she set up her lesson plans and sometimes classes were switched depending on what was happening. As I got closer to the 8th grade we would change classrooms for different subjects. Each class was 35 minutes long.

    Nope each class was taught independent of religion. Historical discussions about religion didn't happen until high school.

    We didn't use the Bible. I can remember using it for a project about "The Signs of the Times" in the 6th grade when we were taught how to find & read scriptures but it was never in depth bible study. In high school we got to choose our religion courses--morality & ethics, Christian Values, World religions, etc.

    By the time I got to high school I had more lay teachers than religious. I think it also depends on the order of religious as well. San Francisco tends to be obviously a bit more liberal and progressive.

    My daughter who's also been to Catholic schools her entire life has had to study and produce projects on the major religions of the world including quite the extensive one on Islam.

    How can one understand their own faith if they don't compare and contrast it to others?

    • 3 votes
    #15.1 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:48 AM EDT
    etva

    I'm impressed with such openmindedness, of course, I'm in VA -- very conservative.

    I too am often appalled at the number of people who make no effort to understand their religion -- especially within the historical perspective. Aren't they even curious?

    I can't tell you how much trouble I got into, for questioning "the Word of God." Even as a small child, I argued with the nuns, that there had to be a beginning, because even God said "In the beginning..." LOL

    • 3 votes
    #15.2 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:16 AM EDT
    GoldenGateMami_Susi

    Etva. Well, that explains much.

    In my grade school class we had a few students that weren't Catholic and practiced other faiths. They still had to take part in the religion classes and go to Mass but they did not have to participate in our Sacraments, etc.

    But we did learn about their faiths as well.

    People who don't learn outside what they know either aren't naturally curious or are taught not to be so they restrict themselves even into adulthood.

    Oh yeah we got into trouble, too especially with the more Conservative nuns and priests.

    Yep there is a beginning......but we also have middles and ends......

    :)

    • 3 votes
    #15.3 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:24 PM EDT
    Kathy Gill

    @ GoldenGateMami_Susi

    People who don't learn outside what they know either aren't naturally curious or are taught not to be so they restrict themselves even into adulthood.

    Very true. But this skepticism is an anathema to many families - they don't want their children to question authority. I think most children are naturally curious but our education system (and religious system, in my experience) hammer it out of them. :-/

    • 3 votes
    #15.4 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:00 PM EDT
    GoldenGateMami_Susi

    Thanks Kathy

    And I agree it's a push-me-pull-you existence for many children. Some, thankfully, grow up and out of that and figure things out on their own and others are just bound to be chained to only what they know so as to not incur the wrath of mommy and daddy and the church.

    • 3 votes
    #15.5 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:33 PM EDT
    etva

    In my grade school class we had a few students that weren't Catholic and practiced other faiths. They still had to take part in the religion classes and go to Mass but they did not have to participate in our Sacraments, etc.

    Susi -- actually that was me too. LOL I'm not now, nor have I ever been Catholic, but interestingly enough, I can still recite the catechism from memory, even on those days that I forget why I went upstairs...

    • 3 votes
    #15.6 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:06 PM EDT
    GoldenGateMami_Susi

    It's one of those misconceptions about religious schools that they only allow and enroll students of the same faith.

    Obviously as you stated not true.

    There is so much that is still ingrained me in that when I do got Mass it all comes back to me LOL

    • 4 votes
    #15.7 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:52 PM EDT
    Kathy Gill

    I almost went to the Catholic school - which was only a few blocks from my elementary school. If my mother ever told me why she changed her mind, I don't recall. Note: my family is not Catholic and this was in the rural south (GA) in the 60s.

    • 2 votes
    #15.8 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:17 PM EDT
    GoldenGateMami_Susi

    Kathy, do you think the religious part played a part? I ask that because even today with some people it plays a big part. They want to send their kids to a private school and sometimes the only one's available happen to be Catholic and either they aren't religious or are of a different faith.

    I can tell you this that I swore up and down I would never send any of my kids to Catholic school and many of my friends said the same thing.

    And now we thank our lucky stars we were able to go and wouldn't dream of sending our kids anywhere else. Mine just graduated HS and as much as a PITA as it could be at times, thanks me for making the sacrifices I did to send her there for 12 years.

    The religious aspect aside, because to be honest to me was not the reason I sent her there, there is one thing I can say that from my experience and now having been a parent through it one thing remains the same from my time through my daughters----consistency.

    Consistency in standards, expectations, accountability, required parental involvement, the true family environment, structure, the expectations of success.

    • 2 votes
    #15.9 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:00 PM EDT
    Kathy Gill

    I don't think it was the religious part -- my mom wasn't terribly religious (especially when you consider that we were from the deep south).

    • 1 vote
    #15.10 - Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:55 PM EDT
    GoldenGateMami_Susi

    Ah, okay, Kathy. That is rather counter to the usual especially for the time.

    • 1 vote
    #15.11 - Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:23 PM EDT
    Reply
    MalamuteMan

    Hi Kathy,

    While many opponents of same-sex marriage may use various religious precepts as the basis of their arguments against it, their true motive is most likely a wish to have everything around them conform to their own world view. Many people are not satisfied with limiting their beliefs to their own actions and choices. Many people are actually threatened simply knowing there are others who do not share their beliefs. I may say, "If you don't approve of same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of your own gender." These people will say, "Same-sex marriage and homosexuality is an abomination, so in order for me to be fulfilled and at peace in my own life, those who seek to marry and consort with people of the same sex must forgo that which brings them fulfillment."

    • 3 votes
    Reply#16 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:54 PM EDT
    Kathy Gill

    @ MalamuteMan

    I agree that there are folks who remain tribal in their worldview. Being a "liberal" in the academic sense of the word ("college or university curriculum aimed at imparting broad general knowledge and developing general intellectual capacities" - wikipedia)

    I think that a broadminded approach is the path to intellectual and emotional growth. It doesn't mean "I agree with you" but it does mean "I understand where you are coming from." This acceptance of differing worldviews is 180-degrees from a tribal (homogeneous) worldview.

    • 3 votes
    #16.1 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:06 PM EDT
    Reply
    A Wadsworth

    As a supplement to my public education, I also received education in Lutheran Catechism class. Fortunately, it was not only Luther's catechism that we were taught, but also about Luther and his disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church at the time. Unfortunately, he died in 1546 - two years into the Council of Trent. What many people do not realize he never had any intention of forming his own church, he just wanted his church fixed.

    I thought his "Estate of Marriage" pretty much covered it. If you got the money you can do it.
    Then there is this quote,

    Intercourse is never without Sin; but God excuses it by his grace because the estate of marriage is his work, and he preserves in and through the sin all that good which he has implanted and blessed in marriage.

    And you wonder why we have problems today - you are given a gift and told it is somehow dirty.
    Gotta have control over the masses.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#17 - Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:07 PM EDT
    RachaelMM

    I'm a little late to the party, but this was a really great article.

    Need a legal argument? Use the Interstate Commerce clause, because failure to recognize these contracts would be akin to restricting the movement of labor.

    Also, the Full Faith and Credit clause:

    Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

    In my opinion, the FF&C clause makes DOMA of questionable (at best) constitutional validity.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#18 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:23 AM EDT
    Kathy Gill

    Thanks, Rachel!

    I didn't know about the Full Faith and Credit clause -- thanks for that tip.

      #18.1 - Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:37 PM EDT
      Reply
      Leave a Comment:
      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
      Newsvine Privacy Statement
      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
      FUN STUFF:
      • Leaderboard |
      • E-Mail Alerts |
      • Top of the Vine |
      • Newsvine Live |
      • Newsvine Archives |
      • The Greenhouse |
      COMPANY STUFF:
      • Code of Honor |
      • Company Info |
      • Contact Us |
      • Jobs |
      • User Agreement |
      • Privacy Policy |
      • About our ads
      LEGAL STUFF:
      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com