Mirror of Justice

Michael P. has thoughtfully brought to our attention the article published yesterday in the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) penned by Kate (ne Braggs) Childs Graham entitled “Our Journey to Holy Union.” I know from past postings that Michael has stated that he does not necessarily agree with the works of others that he brings to our attention here at MOJ, so I am not suggesting here that he agrees or disagrees with the article he posted. I, too, have found it most interesting. It may well be that Michael also thought the brief essay by Ned O’Gorman appearing in the current issue of Commonweal would also be of interest. Although there are common themes between the two essays of Ms. Childs Graham and Mr. O’Gorman, I shall simply respond to the first one authored by Ms. Childs Graham. I find myself in substantial disagreement with many of the claims or implications asserted by Ms. Childs Graham regarding Catholicism and matters that pertain to law and society. I hope that my following thoughts offer MOJ readers some additional insights in the context of Catholic legal theory that qualify Ms. Childs Graham’s claims.

Ms. Childs Graham takes the opportunity to celebrate in publication fashion in the NCR her recent same-sex commitment ceremony with Ms. Ariana Childs Graham (?). In the title and text of her essay she confers the terms “holy” and “holiness” to the relationship with her partner. Toward the end of her essay, she finally refers to the relationship in the context of marriage and, in her estimation, states the “fact” that she is now “married.” These are fascinating by erroneous claims. She engages in some revisionism by asserting that her “marriage” was not legal “by terms of the state of California or the official (italics mine) Catholic church.” In spite of these impediments, she nevertheless considers that the “union is indeed holy” and, therefore, a “marriage.”

Here I would like to offer some thoughts. Her approach and attitude throughout her essay capture the profound flaw of the “mystery of life passage” of Planned Parenthood v. Casey that has animated the faulty understanding of liberty or freedom addressed in Lawrence v. Texas and the Goodridge decision of the Massachusetts court. Yet, in spite of her claims, Ms. Childs Graham confesses that there is a problem—both religiously and legally—with her “holy union.” The problem is two-fold. In the legal context, she and Ariana have become a law or legal system unto themselves by asserting that, in spite of what the law states, their declaration about the status of their relationship is what legally matters. In the religious context, she has established herself as a shadow or alternative Magisterium—something that she holds in common with some of her colleagues at the NCR.

But the positions upon which she bases her contentions about “marriage” that conflict with the law (of society and of the Church) do not stop here. She also claims that the passage of Proposition 8 (a topic previously receiving treatment here at MOJ by several of us) has disapprovingly removed “an array of human rights.” She does not define what she means by “human rights” and how they have been “tak[en] away.” I could provide what I think is an objective analysis of the applicable law to demonstrate respectfully why she is wrong in this contention. But I could also ask her: what precisely are the rights that she claims have been usurped and where are they codified? The ambiguity with which she presents her argument may satisfy those who are accustomed to hearing this kind of debate that she offers only in brief sound bites, but I think the American public as a whole is entitled to reasoned justification of her position if that is at all possible, which I argue it is not.

She then rebukes the American bishops who have “team[ed] up with the Knights of Columbus to make the ‘preservation of marriage’ one of its [sic] key focuses for the next five years.” First of all, I am not so sure that the American bishops, the Knights of Columbus, or anyone else who is participating in the debate on same-sex marriage has limited the debate to any specific period of time. Second, there is nothing wrong with like-minded citizens associating with other like-minded citizens to join in public discourse about important issues which the American people are or will be facing. This is democracy, not conspiracy. While she does not make the assertion outright, her juxtaposition of the “alliance” of the bishops and the Knights with the “taking away an array of human rights” should not go unnoticed.

There are a number of other points that she presents that merit discussion, but one that I find fascinating from a professional standpoint is her “version of a Pre-Cana marriage preparation program.” Having conducted or participated in many marriage preparations and, therefore marriages that I have witnessed as the Church’s minister, I am perplexed by her claims. First of all, I just wonder what kinds of questions her preparer, Diann L. Neu (a principal in the organization WATER  [Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual] who is a same-sex partner of one of the other principals, Mary E. Hunt according to WATER’s website) would have raised about the complementarity of sexual differences or the having and rearing of their biological children? Ms. Childs Graham is on target when she states that her “Pre-Cana was quite different from the Pre-Cana courses that many heterosexual couples” participate in; however, I am at a loss to know how she can claim that “many heterosexual couples go through [their Pre-Cana] kicking and screaming.” Having participated in a large number of marriage preparations of heterosexual couples, I never witnessed any “kicking and screaming.” Ms. Childs Graham has not offered any information about the number of heterosexual marriage preparations that she has conducted. Nevertheless, contrary to her contention, I witnessed a strong willingness and often joy by the engaged couple because they realized that the preparation was not only required, but it was also important to them. But kicking and screaming I have not seen.

Many elements of the “marriage” ceremony that she describes require comment, but let me address this one. Ms. Childs Graham indicates that she and Ariana “were the priests of [their] wedding.” To this I add, no priest in the Catholic Church could be a “priest” of their “wedding.” Nor, could any priest of the Catholic Church offer the “beautiful eucharistic [sic] prayer that was inclusive of [their] faiths” which the Mss. Childs Graham “managed to create.” I would be interested to examine the text of this “beautiful eucharistic [sic] prayer” but it was not provided by the author of the article and co-author of the “prayer.” I will, on good faith, accept her assertion that their “ceremony… was truly us.”

The final point I shall raise here is her claim that “The institutional [is there a non-institutional] Catholic church and the state cannot take away our commitment to each other.” Frankly, that is not the issue. There are many commitments that people can and do make to one another that are not the business of either the Church or the state. But that is not really her real point which she quickly turns to by claiming that it is her “legal right to marriage and family” that has been called into question. But that is not the issue either, for Ms. Kate Braggs has the same right as any other person to marry and to have a family as anyone else on the same terms as anyone else. But, neither marriage nor family can be defined simply on her terms alone. So, her “legal right” to these institutions of marriage and family has not been called into question as she asserts. She takes personal affront on the “attack” to her and the lives of her friends who agree with her. To call into question and to disagree with her on the positions she holds regarding her “marriage” is not an “attack.” It is, however, the substance of public life, the exercise of citizenship, and the operation of democratic institutions to debate and, if necessary, to express reasoned disagreement. And this is something, Kate Braggs does not appear to understand.

RJA sj