Different Understandings of Marriage

The Church of England's understanding of marriage is defined in Canon B30.

The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

In addition, B31 specifies impediments which invalidate an alleged marriage. If one of the partners is below the age of 16 the purported marriage is void. The same applies if the two partners to the purported marriage are closely related to each other as defined by the table of kindred and affinity published with this canon. B32 specifies "certain impediments to the solemnization of matrimony", presumably distinguishing these from "impediments to marriage" itself (B31) which suggests to me that the minister who contravenes B31 may face consequences but the marriage would not be void.

This understanding obviously differs vastly from the understanding of marriage held by any who are prepared to contemplate human-animal marriage-like arrangements. But it also differs to a greater or lesser extent from the understanding of those who

• allow not only for the betrothal of minors but for actual marriages involving children, e.g. in Ethiopia, Niger, Mali, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and other places, including some provinces in Canada, if the bride is with child and written parental permission is given
• allow for the marriage, e.g., between an aunt and her nephew which is apparently the case in Austria, France, Argentina, Brazil and Australia (see avunculate marriage)
• allow for a man or woman to enter into more than one concurrent marriage, e.g. in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other places
• allow marriage-like arrangements between more than two people (although practised, such group marriages do not seem to be legally recognised anywhere)

 The Church of England's understanding of marriage differs also from the understanding of those who

• deny that marriage is designed to be permanent and lifelong*
• deny that marriage requires a complementarity of sexes
• deny that marriage demands sexual exclusivity
• deny the desirability of linking procreation with marriage

*All Christian churches agree that marriages are for life but there is disagreement as to whether this means that marriages should not be broken (the Eastern Orthodox position) or cannot be broken (the Roman Catholic position). The position of the Church of England agrees with the Eastern Orthodox rather than Roman Catholic view but there is disagreement as to whether this was its historic view.

 The Church of England's understanding of marriage differs also from the understanding of those who

• enter marriage with the hope and plan that they will not have children
• enter marriage with the intention of refusing sexual intercourse
• enter marriage without the aim of caring for one another
• enter marriage with prenuptial agreements

Given the increasing divergence between the Church's understanding of marriage and the understanding of marriage held in British society at large, paragraph 3 of Canon B30 has increased in importance:

It shall be the duty of the minister, when application is made to him for matrimony to be solemnized in the church of which he is the minister, to explain to the two persons who desire to be married the Church’s doctrine of marriage as herein set forth, and the need of God’s grace in order that they may discharge aright their obligations as married persons.

Error in the Bishops Guidance on Same Sex Marriages

There is a lot of excitement about an (alleged or apparent or possible or real) error in the House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage (on which I have reflected here). A number of academics have now written to the House of Bishop. Among them the Bishop of Buckingham who reproduces the letter on his blog. 

The offending statement is this

There will, for the first time, be a divergence between the general understanding and definition of marriage in England as enshrined in law and the doctrine of marriage held by the Church of England and reflected in the Canons and the Book of Common Prayer.

Not so, the academics point out:

This is inaccurate. Civil law and church teaching have diverged before, on at least two occasions. The first was in relation to the marriage to a deceased wife's sister, the second in relation to the remarriage of divorcees.

The letter does not actually tell us why the divergence of church teaching and civil law in these two cases is thought to affect "the general understanding and definition of marriage" but points instead to a summary by one of the signatories, Scot Peterson, of the "robust discussion of this topic" in recent days and stresses that

We are all in agreement that the statement in the Bishops Guidance is mistaken and misleading.

Not only that. It seems to these academics that the error "forms an important part of the case which is being made" which is why they tried to resolve this with "Mr Arora and Mr Fittall" [Revd Arun Arora, Director of Communication, and Mr William Fittall, Secretary to the House of Bishops] but these attempts "have failed."

There is growing concern amongst the academic community about the situation.

Some of these academics "are anxious to improve channels of communication with the Church" in the hope that their "research and scholarship can be used constructively."

This is maybe by way of contrast to the response they received from William Fittall who had the audacity to disagree with their reading of the situation.

Bernard Randall suggests in a comment thread at TA that while the prohibition of incest can be considered part of the general definition of marriage, the question what constitutes incest is not:

the Deceased Wife’s Sister Marriage Act changed the definition of incest, to remove DWS from the forbidden list. Incest changed, not marriage.

He also suggests that what allowing for a second marriage changed is not so much the definition of marriage but the definition of adultery but accepts that this may come down to a judgement call. What is noteworthy about the academics' letter is that they do not allow for the possibility of disagreement on this. They refuse point blank to allow the Bishops to distinguish between diverging understandings of marriage at the margins and at the heart of what constitutes marriage.They may have a good case for their reading but is it strong enough to silence the other side with claims of historical blunders?

In effect, the letter-writing academics argue that each divergence in law, however slight, reflects an essentially different understanding of marriage, while the House of Bishops' statement worked from the assumption that  any divergence which did not require a re-writing of the definition of marriage as found in Canon B30 is not one which affects "the general understanding and definition of marriage". The use of the word "general" rather than "legal" in the guidance suggests to me at the very least that the legalistic approach of the academics is not the only defensible.

The  Deceased Wife's Sister Marriage Act never came close to touching Canon B30 although it affects Canon B31. Allowing for second marriage while the partner to the first marriage is still alive left Canon Law itself unchanged. There may be an argument as to whether or not it required a re-interpretation of Canon B30. Maybe surprisingly the academics appeal to Princess Margaret for the view that the Church of England had always considered marriage indissoluble rather than to the Archbishop at the time who has written on Marriage and Divorce (see excerpts here) and seems to be closer to the view that the life-long design of marriage means that a marriage should not be broken rather than cannot be broken.

See also Frank Cranmer on the Law & Religion UK site, An error in the House of Bishops' Guidance on Same Sex Marriage? - perhaps not.

The Swearing In of Godparents

The baptism liturgy in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer addresses only godparents, not parents. More recent liturgies have taken into account that, in our culture, parents exercise greater responsibility for bringing up children in the Christian faith than godparents. Hence parents and godparents are addressed in the same way. This is problematic because Canon Law does not treat parents and godparents the same.

In Common Worship the Presentation of Candidates functions similarly to the section in the ASB titled "The Duties of Parents and Godparents." But while in the 1980s it may have been still possible to pretend that the parents in question are able and willing to fulfil these duties, the fact that nowadays a good many parents are not baptised themselves (and maybe only a minority confirmed) presents a serious obstacle.

In addition, if the 17th century saw greater "parent mortality" (alongside infant mortality) than the latter part of the 20th century, we have again entered a time when one of the parents may well be absent, more often as a result of the death of a relationship rather than bodily death.

Should we go back to the earlier practice? We might require three godparents but allow both parents to act as godparents, provided that they are baptised and confirmed. Parish priests should probably still be allowed to dispense with the requirement for confirmation but the reasons and conditions should be clearly articulated in each case. The widespread abuse of this permission, taking it as a license for never requiring confirmation, threatens the plausibility of confirmation as a rite within the Church of England.

At Ordinations the oath of allegiance, the oath of canonical obedience, and the declaration of assent are often made prior to the service. It may be worth exploring this option for baptism services. The practice would need careful preparation - we would want to minimise the risk of godparents turning up too late to make their declarations prior to the service - but there would be clear advantages.

If, within the liturgy,  the parish priest confirms that the godparents have made their declarations rather than asks the questions, parents and godparents can present the candidate(s) without the awkwardness which often arises from not wanting to differentiate between Christian and non-Christian parents at this point. I suspect we usually leave it to the Hindu father or agnostic mother to decide whether they stand alongside godparents and, in response to the questions put by the priest in the Presentation of Candidate, mumble promises which they have no intention of keeping or keep shtumm, dissociating themselves from what is going on. Either way this does not help teaching the congregation the meaning of the event.

Another advantage is that the "swearing in" could use the most appropriate language without need to worry about whether it is readily understood by all present - godparents could be given a leaflet which explains their commitment prior to making the declarations.

The Signing with the Cross

Why is the sign of the cross made at baptism? This was of course hotly debated during the Reformation. Here is the canonical answer, referring to canon law first published in 1604:

First, It is to be observed, That although the Jews and Ethnicks derided both the Apostles, and the rest of the Christians, for Preaching and Believing in him who was Crucified upon the Cross; yet all, both Apostles and Christians, were so far from being discouraged from their Profession by the Ignominy of the Cross, as they rather rejoiced and triumphed in it. Yea, the Holy Ghost by the Mouths of the Apostles, did honour the Name of the Cross, (being hateful among the Jews) so far, that under it he comprehended not only Christ Crucified, but the Force, Effects, and Merits of His Death and Passion, with all the Comforts, Fruits and Promises, which we receive or expect thereby.

In other words, because "we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).

Secondly, The Honour and Dignity of the Name of the Cross, begat a reverend Estimation even in the Apostles Times (for ought that is known to the contrary) of the sign of the Cross; which the Christians shortly after used in all their Actions, thereby making an outward Show and Profession even to the Astonishment of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to acknowledge him for their Lord and Saviour, who died for them upon the Cross. And this Sign they did not only use themselves with a kind of Glory, when they met with any Jews, but signed therewith their Children when they were Christned, to dedicate them by that Badge to his Service, whose Benefits bestowed upon them in Baptism, the Name of the Cross did represent. And this Use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church, as well by the Greeks as the Latins, with one Consent and great Applause. At what time, if any had opposed themselves against it, they would certainly have been censured as Enemies of the Name of the Cross, and consequently of Christ’s Merits, the Sign whereof they could no better endure. This continual and general Use of the Sign of the Cross, is evident by many Testimonies of the ancient Fathers.

In other words, because the church has always thereby professed "Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).

Thirdly, It must be confessed, that in process of Time, the Sign of the Cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome, especially after that Corruption of Popery had once possessed it. But the Abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful Use of it... Nay, so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things which they held and practised, that as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it doth with Reverence retain those Ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the Minds of sober Men; and only departed from them in those particular Points, wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient Integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches which were their first Founders. In which respect, amongst some other very ancient Ceremonies, the Sign of the Cross in Baptism hath been retained in this Church, both by the Judgment and Practice of those Reverend Fathers, and great Divines in the Days of King Edward the Sixth, of whom some constantly suffered for the Profession of the Truth: and others being exil’d in the Time of Queen Mary, did after their return, in the beginning of the Reign of our late dead Sovereign, continually defend and use the same. This Resolution and Practice of our Church, hath been allowed and approved by the Censure upon the Communion Book in King Edward the Sixth’s Days, and by the Harmony of Confessions of later Years; because indeed the Use of this Sign in Baptism was ever accompanied here with such sufficient Cautions and Exceptions against all Popish Superstition and Error, as in the like Cases are either fit or convenient.

In other words, because abuse is not an argument for disuse and this is demonstrated by the fact that those who testified with their lives to Christ crucified even against "all Popish Superstition and Error" steadfastly held on to the sign of the cross.

The Canon continues by demonstrating that the sign of the cross is not essential to baptism, as witnessed in the liturgy where it is altogether purged from all superstition, but nevertheless obligatory:

Lastly, The use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, being thus purged from all Popish Superstition and Error, and reduced in the Church of England to the primary Institution of it, upon those true Rules of Doctrine concerning things indifferent, which are consonant to the Word of God, and the Judgments of all the ancient Fathers: We hold it the part of every private Man, both Minister and other, reverently to retain the true use of it prescribed by publick Authority, considering that things of themselves indifferent, do in some sort alter their Natures, when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful Magistrate; and may not be omitted at every Man’s pleasure contrary to the Law, when they be commanded, nor used when they are prohibited.

It still is obligatory in the Church of England, even though liturgical revisions have gradually moved us away from the practice commended here and in the Book of Common Prayer (1662). First, the ASB allowed and indeed privileged the position before the baptism, thus rendering invalid the Canon's claim that Baptism is completed before the sign of the cross is made (in a section not cited here, see the full 1604 Canon Law here). Then CW in effect prohibits the use of the traditional form of words in their traditional place: "The possibility of signing with the cross at the prayer after the baptism is provided for; but if this is done it should be accompanied by the text provided at that point in the rite, not the text provided for the Signing with the Cross after the Decision." I wonder why.