Marriage and the Common Good
Bishop James M. Wingle (St. Catherines)
Since our foundation as a country, marriage in Canada has consistently been understood to refer to the voluntary joining of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others in a covenant partnership that establishes a stable lifelong conjugal union. The matrimonial covenant exchanged between a man and a woman establishes a profound form of relationship in which rights and obligations are mutually given. Chief among these rights is the mutual giving and taking of one another's persons, profoundly expressed in sexual intimacy. First among the obligations that arise out of the mutual exchange of sexual intimacy is the parental duty to care for the children generated by this exchange, and to support and honour the birthright of children to be connected to their mothers and fathers and love and cherished by them. As such, marriage and the family to which it naturally gives rise are properly regarded as the fundamental base upon which society rests. Thus, we describe marriage and family as the basic building block of society. The personal and social relationships to which marriage gives rise are of profound significance not only to those immediately involved in this relationship, but to the society as a whole.
While there have been varied social and cultural expressions surrounding marriage, certain essential features emerge as common across cultures and time. One such common feature is that marriage has been recognized and supported by public authority in a range of differing societies in a broad range of cultures throughout recorded history. Several essential features that define marriage across various cultures are that the agreement by which a man and a woman are joined to one another in conjugal and lasting union is public in nature, recognized and protected by public authority as existing for the good, not only of the spouses and the possible children of their union, but also for the very continuance and good of society itself.
The origin of the covenant relationship we call marriage is prior to the existence of the state both logically and historically. It springs from the very nature of man and woman and precedes any civil recognition that it may subsequently be accorded. In a framework of religious belief, we understand that God is the author of marriage, which in the very plan of creation he has established as an intimate community of life and love endowed with its own proper laws. (See article 1603 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church).
In Catholic religious thought and teaching we understand the marital covenant relationship between a man and a woman to be a natural union, but not of purely human institution. It reflects the plan of a wise and good Creator. Furthermore, when this covenant of marriage is brought about between a baptized man and a baptized woman, we understand that Christ the Lord raises the goodness of the natural union and community to the dignity of a sacrament.
Certain goods flow from marriage that are of benefit not just to those who participate immediately in this covenant, but to the whole of society. From the days of the saintly Bishop of Hippo, Augustine, we have enumerated three basic goods of marriage. These are:
- the union or bond itself that is established between the man and woman who enter into marriage;
- the faithfulness which the spouses pledge to one another in the covenant they exchange;
- the fruitfulness of the conjugal union of a man and a woman in begeting children (procreation).
These three essential goods of marriage are intimately and inextricably related to one another. How does society benefit from these goods?
The good of the union that is marriage serves to bridge the sexual differentiation that stands between men and women, and orders sexual relatedness in a positive and productive manner. The faithfulness that spouses pledge to one another protects each from sexual exploitation by the other, and provides a stable basis for the fair exchange of various other rights such as property and ownership rights. Begeting new children and providing for their care and upbringing allows human society to perpetuate itself and to hand on from one generation to the next the achievements of culture.
These "goods" of the marriage on a man and a woman are of irreplaceable value to society and thus deserve public and civic recognition, honour and protection. In Canada today we have become dangerously preoccupied to the point of obsession with the promotion of individual rights, forgetting that individual rights make no sense whatever and in fact cannot survive without reference and relationship to the life and continuity of society itself. What we have traditionally called the "common good" concerns the life of all. It implies an interdependence in human relatedness based upon respect for the person, the need to provide for the social well-being and development of the group, and the requirements of the stability and security of a just social order that brings peace and security to the group and to its members.
Today, the Government of Canada proposes to radically change the meaning of marriage. Our Government has brought before the Parliament of Canada a legislative proposal called Bill C - 38, the title of which is "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes" or its short title - the "Civil Marriage Act." This proposed legislation substantively and fundamentally changes the meaning of the term "marriage" as it has heretofore been understood. No longer will the term marriage designate the union of a man and a woman in an exclusive conjugal relationship that is intimately related to the procreation and raising of children.
If passed into law, this proposed legislation will substantially alter the nature of marriage in the society in which your children and grandchildren will live. Do we know the consequences of this radical change? Have we examined where this profound exercise in social engineering by our Government is taking us a society? I say not. The possibility, indeed the probability is that alteration of the substance of an institution so basic and essential too social and personal good as is marriage, will provoke profound upheaval. We may not notice immediately, but in a relatively short time we will experience the extensive and unpredictable consequences of abandoning an institution that has encapsulated thousands of years of the wisdom of lived experience of countless cultures and generations. That being said, one consequence is quite predictable and that is that children will suffer. By breaking the intrinsic and natural relationship that exists between marriage and the procreation and rearing of children, we weaken the bonds that bind children to their mothers and fathers, and that binds women and men to their obligations to care and provide for the children of their union.
If indeed - as we are told - this legislation is intended to advance and protect equality rights, what then of the natural rights of children "to know and be cared for by his or her parents" - a right specifically mentioned in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? Do children no longer count in this "brave new world order" that our Government seems to wish to create?
And what of the much touted protection of religious freedom and rights of conscience that this proposed legislation claims to provide. Religious officials will not be compelled to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their beliefs, we are told. How many other solemn guarantees of the protection of religious rights and freedoms have we seen brought down in an instant when the trump card of "the Charter" is thrown down, or the winds of public opinion or political favour shift in the halls of the courts or government. Do we so quickly forget the ease with which the constitutionally guaranteed respect of religious schools in the Province of Newfoundland was swept away with the stroke of a pen at the will of a "reforming" government?
As I wrote some weeks ago, in my letter to the people of the Diocese of St. Catharines concerning the proposed change in the legal definition of marriage, "these are momentous and far-reaching decisions that are being made. Your members of Parliament need to know what you consider to be for the good of future generations."
As Canadian citizens, we have both rights and obligations. One set of these rights is our cherished freedom to hold and pursue our religious beliefs and convictions and act in accordance with them. To defend and protect these rights is not inconsistent with our obligation to support the state, so long as the state honours its duty to respect and defend the freedom of its citizens. The fundamental dignity and equality of every human being in this country require this. Rather than stripping marriage of its conjugal meaning, we should be enhancing that meaning and seeking to renew and rebuild a culture of marriage for the sake of society and the generations to come.
I conclude with an appeal. If anyone is tempted to regard the question of the legal re-definition of marriage as a simple and unequivocal improvement in our Canadian observance of human rights, I earnestly exhort you to obtain and carefully read the book "Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's Social Experiment". The Editors of this timely and well-reasoned work are Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow, with a foreward by Maggie Gallagher. The book is published by McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004.
Diocese of St. Catherines See Link