According to official statements of the Catholic Church in Australia:

“Marriage is between a man and a woman…

who marry for each other’s good and who are open to the gift of children”. 

But of course… 

“This openness cannot be fulfilled naturally in a union between two people of the same sex”.

Now, I don’t want to pick on the Catholics unfairly…

because they’re the only mainstream denomination who are brave enough—

or foolish enough—

to publicise their views on these matters openly.

Even the Australian Christian Lobby—

having failed to prevent marriage equality from being enshrined in law—

have removed virtually all trace of it from their website.

But reading the Catholic pronouncements, I’m struck by the illogical knots into which they repeatedly tie themselves.

“Openness to fertility”—

what does that really mean?

And how would that apply, say, to an elderly couple…

who are no more able to produce children naturally than a same-sex couple for whom this is disqualifying?

And was this language simply concocted by the PR department as a sort of smoke screen…

trying to give the impression of some modification and moderation…

when, in fact, nothing has really changed?

After all, only a decade or so ago, a Catholic bishop could complain that…

“Every culture in history has recognised that marriage is the nursery of family; yet, many now render their sexual activity sterile, having sex…and marriages without babies”.

And…

“Now the social engineers have their sights set on removing the ‘man and woman’ part of marriage as well. All that will be left is marriage as an emotional union”.

He goes on to complain that, 

“Many today think—like Humpty-Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, who said, ‘When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less’—marriage is whatever we make of it”.

And yet, marriage is first, and foremost, an emotional union—

an emotional union in which two equals respect each other’s equality.

It involves a relationship of safety—

where both partners are free to grow and mature… 

with mutual support and encouragement…

exploring shared goals and dreams. 

Above all, marriage is a relationship where each is free to discover what it means to love… 

and to be loved… 

without exception, or qualification, or condition. 

And it’s about having that sort of love and that sort of commitment…

recognised and celebrated by family, friends, and society.

It’s not primarily or even fundamentally about producing babies.

So, yes, marriage is what we, as a society, make of it.

Our understanding of “marriage”— 

like any other social structure or institution…

which embodies a range of values, expectations, and roles— 

is constantly changing and evolving.

And it always has been.

If we go to the books of the Old Testament—

especially the stories of the Patriarchs—

we find polygamy practiced…

alongside the use of concubines…

and a whole range of practices that we would consider distasteful, immoral, or illegal today.

Clearly, at some stage, the people of Israel moved on from those things—

at least in practice—

and yet they didn’t sense the need to refute it or ban it.

Their understanding of marriage changed and evolved.

And yet… 

even in the New Testament, marriage was not understood or practiced as it is today.

Marriage in the New Testament world was not about two people meeting…

falling in love…

and deciding to spend their lives together.

Rather, in that world marriages were arranged—

an agreement between two fathers…

made in consultation with other family members.

So that marriage was a social contract between two families.

It united two families, not two individuals…

and it was arranged for the benefit of the families.

A system of arranged marriages bespeaks a radically different understanding of marriage—

of its place and role in society— 

and it bespeaks a radically different understanding of the family and the individual. 

For ordinary peasants, a marriage was arranged for economic reasons.

Most peasants produced sufficient merely to survive.

Joining with another family increased their chances of survival…

because they were able to combine their resources.

It was also about producing children to look after them in their latter years…

because there was no social security system at all.

For the aristocracy, however, it was very different.

For them, marriage was arranged for political reasons.

It was a means of extending their networks…

gaining greater influence and power.

Marriage was, in effect, the forming of a political alliance.

 

In other words, when the New Testament speaks about marriage…

it’s not speaking about marriage as we know it today.

Marriage, today, is not about political or economic alliances… 

property rights… 

or even establishing an old-age insurance plan. 

It’s an individual choice made for the sake of the individuals concerned—

one that reflects a deep and abiding emotional union. 

There is, literally, no connection between what the Bible understands by the term “marriage”…

and what we do.

As such, nothing that the Bible says about marriage addresses what we understand by marriage today. 

The same can be said of divorce.

In the world of the New Testament, divorce was not about the separation of two individuals.

Nor was it a decision that the couple made themselves.

If marriages were arranged, then so were divorces.

And, if marriage involved the joining of two families…

divorce ripped them apart.

For ordinary peasants, divorce would have been economic suicide.

It would have meant losing pooled resources and co-operation…

and polarising the local village community…

greatly reducing their chances of survival.

There was absolutely nothing to be gained by it.

As a result, divorce was virtually unheard of among ordinary people.

It was only an issue for the aristocracy.

Only they could afford to divorce, and divorce was only common for them.

If they married for political reasons… 

then they also divorced for political reasons. 

For them, marriage, divorce, and remarriage were about forming stronger alliances…

and gaining more influence and power.

It was a means to political advancement.

A spouse would be discarded, and a new one taken as the need arose…

so that a better alliance could be formed.

 

All of which brings us to this morning’s reading from Mark’s Gospel.

In it, the Markan Jesus claims that…

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”.

He’s not addressing the average person here.

He’s taking deliberate aim at the aristocracy…

and he’s criticising their practices.

He’s criticising them for using people as tools for social advancement…

or as political footballs.

He’s criticising them for using people for personal gain.

He’s criticising them for using people… 

then spitting them out when they’re no longer of any use.

In other words, this saying doesn’t really apply to marriage and divorce today.

 

And yet… 

it still stands as a rebuke for us…

whenever we show those sorts of attitudes:

whenever we turn people into commodities…

whenever we use people for personal gain…

whenever we use people as political footballs.

And it speaks to our treatment of those on social welfare…

the homeless…

those seeking asylum…

and the LGBTQI+ community.

Regardless of how it’s been used down the ages…

when it’s recontextualised… 

this saying calls us to a social agenda that is radical, not reactionary.