Writing for the New York Review of Books, the indefatigable Garry Wills asks, “Why do some people who would recognize gay civil unions oppose gay marriage? Certain religious groups want to deny gays the sacredeness of what they take to be a sacrament. But marriage is no sacrament.”
Wills goes on to offer a host of distortions of the history of Christian marriage, to which Brandon Watson offers a conversation-ending response:
Wills confuses marriage as a religious ritual with marriage as a sacrament. A sacrament is, at its most basic, a sign of spiritual things. There is no getting around the fact that marriage is a sacrament or mystery in some sense, since Ephesians 5 explicitly treats of it in those terms, and, contrary to Wills, calling marriage a sacrament goes back as far in Christian history as we can find explicit statements on the subject, not just to the eleventh century. Augustine, for instance, writing well before the eleventh century, explicitly discusses the sacramental character of marriage.
There is much, much more. Please read all of Brandon’s piece.
May 17th, 2012 | 2:53 pm
Mr Wills seems to have a problem common to many of us humans. He thinks his beliefs are normative, not just for himself but for everyone else. Hence, having decided that he does not believe marriage is a sacrament (however he came to that conclusion), then it must not be a sacrament for anyone at anytime.
I suspect most of us suffer from this problem from time to time. Usually it takes an effort at openness to get beyond it. The reflection needed to write well, it seems to me, should normally lead to that openness. Something failed here for Mr Wills. I suspect it is his politics invading his religious belief, a common malady today, for both the left and the right.
May 17th, 2012 | 3:08 pm
Of course Wills is wrong; marriage is obviously a great sacramental gift. As such it should not be denied to any of God’s children unless there is a darn good reason.
May 17th, 2012 | 3:54 pm
Brandon Watson says, “[C]alling marriage a sacrament goes back as far in Christian history as we can find explicit statements on the subject, not just to the eleventh century. Augustine, for instance, writing well before the eleventh century, explicitly discusses the sacramental character of marriage.”
Augustine is often invoked on “the sacramental character of marriage,” and it means, basically, nothing. Augustine’s use of the word sacrament was so broad that practically everything was a sacrament.
From Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, edited by Allan Fitzgerald.
May 17th, 2012 | 4:48 pm
I think Brandon Watson is confused (and confusing) and Garry Wills is correct. Watson says:
May 17th, 2012 | 4:57 pm
I take it it took a while to distinguish sacrament from sacramental. Then again, I wouldn’t say it meant nothing, just that the range considered was broader than, e.g., the RCC today. Somehow, I think the difference between “donning of linen” and marriage was and is obvious. And Augustine labeled both with the word sacrament which is a bit different than what Wills said. (That is, there is something behind the curtain.)
May 17th, 2012 | 7:14 pm
David,
(1) It is false to say that Augustine’s use of the term sacrament was so broad as to include almost anything, but it is certainly the case that ‘sacrament’ is a broad term meaning ‘spiritual sign’, and that Augustine uses it in precisely this sense, with the full application of this sense. But as I explicitly pointed out, the sacramental character of marriage has never been in question: it’s always been recognized as sacramental in some sense, because you cannot read Scripture and not regard marriage as a sacred sign of holy mysteries, since it is repeatedly treated as such. The big dispute was whether it was a sacrament on the level of baptism or the Eucharist. ‘Sacrament’ can apply to both genus (sacraments in general) and a particular species in that genus that most fully and completely exhibits the characteristics of the genus (the Seven). Augustine wrote in a time when the later, specific or special usage, had not developed at all; however, the specific things he says about marriage as a sacrament in the general usage were a major influence on those who argued that marriage should be considered a sacrament in the special sense.
(2) Related to this, your second comment is based on a misunderstanding of the history of the term sacrament and its application to marriage. In fact there has never been any problem with recognizing that, for instance, Jewish marriages were sacramental in the general sense, just as there was never any problem with saying that circumcision or passover were sacraments without committing anyone to the claim that they were equal in importance to the Seven Sacraments. Augustine calls the marriage of the patriarchs sacramental, for instance, and the terminology is regularly found in all the major scholastic theologians in precisely the period Wills places his major division. But the major dividing line between Christian sacraments and Jewish sacraments is that the former directly represent the Passion of Christ in some way, and this, far from being something invented in the High Middle Ages, has always been part of the Christian conception of marriage, because it is how the Church has generally read Ephesians. And it’s not difficult to find Church Fathers like Augustine, or, farther back, Tertullian, making reference to this.
What your comments actually bring out is just how utterly confused Wills is, because he wants to use ‘sacrament’ to mean ‘having religious meaning’ — his argument depends on it in several places — and to mean ‘having all the features of the seven special New Testament sacraments’, and this is precisely to conflate the general and special sense of the term ‘sacrament’. In the former sense, marriage has always been a sacrament. The only dispute, as I explicitly noted, was whether it met the conditions for being considered a sacrament in the fullest sense of the term, like baptism or the Eucharist. And its general acceptance as such was indeed long in developing (as I also said). But while it has become a common habit today to talk about sacraments mostly in terms of the special sense of the term, this has not been the ordinary state of things through most of the history of Christian theology, and thus we must both avoid conflating the two senses, and recognize that what made the Seven Sacraments sacraments was that they were sacraments in the general sense and, all were recognized as such by the Church even before the list of the Seven was developed — what set them apart so as to be sacraments in the special sense, on the other hand, was that they were specifically sacraments of Christ Himself in some way.
As I mentioned, “Yahwist marriage” is a useless category in this context; there was no such thing at the time. Anyone who treats it as either a real historical category or a theological category is confused; it was neither, and is at best a modern category designating a particular period, whose existence as a category needs to be justified rather than simply assumed. What are really the questions are (A) whether Christian marriage throughout this period was regarded as a religious sacrament — and it provably was — and (B) whether it was one of the Seven Sacraments — and this is undeniably a more complicated story. When theologians have argued about whether marriage requires the officiation of a priest, they have been arguing about whether this is required for marriage to have all the conditions required for being the latter (sacrament in the special sense), and that is all.
May 17th, 2012 | 7:53 pm
I should add, incidentally, that both you and Wills misunderstand Raymond Brown. Brown is dealing with a particular set of arguments: that it is definitely the Evangelist’s intent to be using the Wedding at Cana story to make a point about marriage as a sacrament in the way he obviously uses many of his other stories to make points about baptism and the Eucharist. Brown recognizes that there are a fair number of (Catholic) scholars who hold this position or something like it, and inclines against it in favor of saying that the Evangelist probably also has the Eucharist specifically in view here as well; but although he doesn’t think that the evidence is strong, he also doesn’t try to pretend (like Wills) that the evidence is nonexistent, and eventually concludes that it is “remotely possible” that for the Evangelist or his community this was seen specifically as a comment on the special character of marriage. (Brown’s categories are “Acceptable”, “Remotely Possible”, and “Rejected”.) He also is quite explicit that his conclusions are derived from very specific criteria, some of which are controversial, and that he is trying to find a middle position between strongly sacramental readings of John and highly de-mythologizing Bultmann-style readings of John. His comments must be taken in this context.
Whether the Evangelist himself should be seen as definitely seeing Christ as giving a special spiritual significance to marriage as a sign of his Passion, however, it is not at all difficult to see how someone could read it in that way. In what does “raising something to the dignity of a sacrament” i.e., one of the Seven Sacraments, consist? It consists in making it a sign of Christ Himself with regard to some facet of His Passion. And reading the story in conjunction with Pauline claims about the body of Christ and Johannine claims about the marriage feast of the Lamb, makes that a very reasonable argument to make. Some won’t consider it definitive, to be sure, but pretending that it doesn’t make any sense is simply silly.
May 17th, 2012 | 8:49 pm
Fortunately, it is not. It is true that some people do not wish in fact to marry, but they are not denied matrimony.
May 17th, 2012 | 11:03 pm
But as I explicitly pointed out, the sacramental character of marriage has never been in question: it’s always been recognized as sacramental in some sense . . . .
Brandon,
Thanks for responding.
Garry Wills said, “Some try to make the wedding at Cana (John 1.1-11) somehow sacramental because Jesus worked his first miracle there.” If Wills were using sacramental in the broad sense that you and Augustine do, then I would have to agree with you. But it seems clear to me that Wills is using sacramental in the sense of “one of the seven sacraments.”
May 17th, 2012 | 11:46 pm
I should add, incidentally, that both you and Wills misunderstand Raymond Brown.
Brandon,
Raymond Brown is more explicit in his commentary in the Anchor Bible volume The Gospel According to John I-XII. He says:
I would say this is a flat rejection by Brown of the claim that somehow John’s account of the wedding feast at Cana can be interpreted to mean Jesus, by his attendance, “raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.” The Catechism says:
I don’t see how such a claim can be made based on the text of John.
May 18th, 2012 | 12:15 am
I think all Wills means by “Yahwist marriage” is marriage as viewed by J (the Yahwist source) in Genesis 2, beginning beginning and ending as follows:
As Wills says, this is marriage as Jesus (and his disciples) knew it, and about which Jesus says, “[F]rom the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
I can see how an argument could be made that marriage, as God (Yaweh) conceived and created it, did not need to be “raised” in “dignity.” (I am not even quite sure what that means, actually.)
May 18th, 2012 | 4:33 am
David Nickol
In its Tamestsi decree, the Council of Trent defined “”Although it is not to be doubted, that clandestine marriages, made with the free consent of the contracting parties, are valid and true [rata et vera] marriages, so long as the Church has not rendered them invalid; and consequently, that those persons are justly to be condemned, as the holy Synod doth condemn them with anathema, who deny that such marriages are true and valid [vera ac rata];”
The important word here is “ratum.” Certainly, it can mean valid, but, in the context of marriage, it is frequently used by the canonists to mean, precisely, “sacramental” as anyone who reads the 11th century debates between the schools of Bologna and Paris, as to whether a non-consummated marriage was sacramental. The Bolognese school, led by Gratian thought not, the Paris school, following Peter Damian, who insisted that it was. The Legists, led by Magister Vacarius took a third position, requiring some form of “tradition” or delivery, but not consummation to complete the sacrament. The controversy was settled by a number of decretal letters of Pope Alexander III (the eminent canonist Magister Ronaldus before his elevation), who endorsed the view of the Paris school (and that of Trent) that consent makes marriage. He nevertheless held that “matrimonium ratum non consummatum” was dissolved by solemn profession, a position confirmed by Trent.
Now, if Trent is using “ratum” in the same sense, as most commentators think they are, then all valid marriages between two baptized people are fully sacramental. This accords with practice, for, whilst treating valid marriages [iustae nuptiae] contracted in infidelity as dissoluble, the Holy See has never purported to dissolve a consummate marriage between two baptized persons and indissolubility is precisely what St Augustine calls the “bonum sacramenti.”
May 18th, 2012 | 9:37 am
Wills claim is a personal opinion, as are David Nickol’s interpretations. Nothing wrong with personal opinion. The problem is the idea that Wills’ opinion (or David’s) must apply to everybody else.
Still, one is dubious given the context, particularly given that so many others have long disagreed with this particular personal opinion, for example Augustine. So the new claim is Augustine didn’t mean what he said. There is no logic there, just an attempt to pretend evidence is not evidence when it contradicts one’s beliefs.
May 18th, 2012 | 10:20 am
Michael PS,
The 1983 Code of Canon Law seems to settle the matter:
If the husband and/or the wife is baptized, and they are validly married, they are sacramentally married.
If non-Catholic Christians get married in any valid way (in their church, before a judge of justice of the peace, etc.), they are sacramentally married. However in order to be validly married, Catholics must be married in a Catholic ceremony witnessed by a priest (except in extraordinary circumstances). However, the sacrament is not performed by the priest, otherwise non-Catholic Christians would not be sacramentally married in non-Catholic ceremonies.
May 18th, 2012 | 11:21 am
So the new claim is Augustine didn’t mean what he said.
Mike Melendez,
That is a total distortion. It is simply anachronistic to cite Augustine to “prove” marriage was recognized as a sacrament in the 4th or 5th century in the same sense we recognize baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, reconciliation, anointing of the sick, and holy orders. Sacramental theology at the time of Augustine was a good 700 years away from anything like our modern understanding of the sacraments.
It is not a matter of “opinion” that Augustine did not affirm marriage as one of the seven sacraments as we understand them today. It is a self-evident fact. You can’t look at the way Augustine used sacramentum and claim that when he said marriage was a sacrament he was right, but when he said the Lord’s Prayer or the Sign of the Cross was a sacrament, he was mistaken. He meant something different by sacrament than we do today. We have a “technical” definition of a sacrament that Augustine didn’t have, because it took centuries following Augustine for the modern concept of a sacrament to develop.
May 18th, 2012 | 12:29 pm
David Nickol
The Code of Canon Law, whilst of high authority is not infallible. The canons (but not the other documents) of an ecumenical council are.
Now the use of an anathema in Tametsi does make that proposition a canon.
If Trent used “ratum” in the sense of sacramental, then it is an article of faith that a marriage contracted without a priest is a true and real sacrament. My own opinion is that it did, but I can see how others could take the opposite view, as evidenced by your citation from the Catholic Encyclopaedia.
It was certainly a technical term by about 1170, as can be seen from the authorites cited on the topic by F W Maitland – Gratian and his pupil Paucapalea, as representing the Bolognese school and Roland, Rufinus and Stephen of Tournay as representing the Paris school, along with Johannes Faventinus and the Collectio Lipsiensis.
May 18th, 2012 | 2:43 pm
To All:
Your biblical exegesis and parsing of the early Church fathers are indeed both educational and reflective. But unfortunately not decidedly illuminating. After reading one of you, I think “OK–here’s the answer,” but after reading the other, I am uncertain all over again.
Perhaps that is why discernment is probably best initiated and concluded individually. If done with purity and conviction, it might even be called “sacramental.”
Since we are reminded that Christ judges us more by the motivations of our heart and not by sheer adherence to law, would not it follow that sacramental grace is dispensed only to the sincere of heart, no matter what their “external form?”
May 18th, 2012 | 3:16 pm
Larry Sedlemeyer
What then becomes of grace “ex opere operato”?
May 18th, 2012 | 3:48 pm
Michael:
Good point– thank you–if God has appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on men, then in order to obtain those graces it would seem necessary for men to make use of those Divinely appointed means.
But, I think you would also agree that God is not bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, nor is He bound by them to confer grace.
May 18th, 2012 | 5:09 pm
Of course Wills is wrong; marriage is obviously a great sacramental gift. As such it should not be denied to any of God’s children unless there is a darn good reason.
Nobody is saying it should be denied to anyone.
When a priest refuses to officiate at a ceremony between a man and a cow, it does not mean the priest is motivated by a desire to discriminate against the man.
The same moral right that bestows upon everyone the right to participate in the sacred, also bestows upon all who would participate in the sacred a certain obligation to not destroy or profane it.
May 19th, 2012 | 6:24 am
Larry Sedlemeyer
It is the teaching of the Schools that the sacraments, as efficacious means of grace,require a purely negative disposition on the part of the recipient, namely, that he should place no obstacle.
No one that I know of denies the uncovenanted mercies of God; a different topic entirely.
Charlie H
Christian marriage has always been characterised by three elements: monogamy, exogamy and duality of the sexes. On this, all canonists and theologians, whatever their wranglings, agree.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact