In a comment on a previous post, I opined that Catholic bishops have been talking about homosexual marriage recently because homosexuals brought it up in the first place. Blaming them for taking an interest in the subject is sort of like blaming Poland for starting World War II.
I wanted to expand on my point that “militant homosexuals [are] trying to destroy marriage.” On the surface, that would appear to be hyperbole — they are merely trying to expand the definition of marriage, much as the definition of “citizen” has expanded to embrace blacks. It does not diminish American citizenship to let blacks have their full compliment of civil rights, goes the argument, so why is marriage injured by homosexual civil marriages?
Up until the campaign for gay marriage moved into its active phase in the 1990s, the homosexual movement agreed with the feminists: marriage is an essentially patriarchical, oppressive institution that codified the dominant heterosexual, masculine paridigm of American society. (Sorry for the jargon — I’m trying to use the same terms they used when I was in college in the ’90s.)
Now, however, the campaign for gay marriage has shifted its position, saying that homosexuals will be “civilized” (their word, not mine) by it, and therefore society will benefit because the instability of homosexual relationships will be greatly mitigated.
But you cannot radically redefine a concept without changing its essence. If marriage consists of one man and one woman, to change that formula is to make it something different. Even if you make the change for a greater good — reducing the astonishing promiscuity of gay men, for example — you will have mutated marriage into something else. Call it what you will, an agreement or a contract or even “marriage,” but it will have ceased to be itself.
Supernaturally, marriage helps us because spouses assist each other in their journey toward heaven. Also, the relationship between husband and wife is a model of Christ and his bride, the Church. On the natural level, marriage is for begetting and rearing good children and thus the perpetuation of a good society.
The further we drift away from those fundamental ideas, the more the Church will insist upon the proper understanding of marriage. It’s not rude of the bishops to indicate that homosexuals are trying to further degrade marriage in the popular mind, as well as civil law. It’s their job, and may they do it well.
I have nothing but sympathy for those who have a homosexual orientation through no fault of their own. As a fellow sinner who lives with the residual yet powerful effects of original sin, I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to go through life with that burden, especially for people attempting to live a Christian life. Indeed, I am awed by their courage.
I hope that society can find some way to accomodate homosexuals without veering off to the extremes of violent rejection of their existence, or unqualified acceptance of homosexual conduct. However, defining marriage out of existence will not solve that problem.
3 comments
Comments are closed.
Supernaturally, marriage helps us because spouses assist each other in their journey toward heaven. Also, the relationship between husband and wife is a model Christ and his bride, the Church. On the natural level, marriage is for begetting and rearing good children and thus the perpetuation of a good society.
Well said: You’ve summarized, I think, all of the main ideas involved in the ‘intrinsically heterosexual’ (that sounds weird) nature of matrimony. The last point, about sexuality/marriage being oriented towards the generation and education of children for the common good of society, is going to be the hardest to ‘sell’ to the secular community (or even to the broader Catholic community, for that matter), since sexuality has become utterly isolated from its inherently social/public context. But this was the strongest emphasis of our Catholic Tradition (cf.,Augustine, among others), even if it has been ‘softened’ a bit in this century.
“Supernaturally, marriage helps us because spouses assist each other in their journey toward heaven. Also, the relationship between husband and wife is a model Christ and his bride, the Church.”
True enough, but right now we are talking about the role of the state in these matters. One problem is that the society was not founded upon Catholicism, but an assorted mixture of various forms of Protestantism. The other is that this idea of state control of marriage was opposed by the Pope when Napoleon enacted the Organic Acts. The idea of the state saying who can or cannot marry and when or how such unions are ended had always been opposed by the Church.
Maybe we would not be the situation we are now if churches had been deciding such matters all along. Remember, Salazar in Portugal did not revoke the divorce laws in Portugal. The law was changed so that, if one wanted a Catholic wedding, one gave up one’s right to divorce. The number of church-sanctioned marriages went up, and divorce went down. If the various Christian denominations were the ones who determined when the unions they blessed ended, as well as their nature, would we have the situation we now have. The state has been undermining marriage for decades. Someday we are going to have to end this disasterous game.
“On the natural level, marriage is for begetting and rearing good children and thus the perpetuation of a good society.” Unfortunately, that idea had been lost quite some time age. The idea of it being for begetting and rearing good children, that is. Given that problem, the state’s constant undermining of marriage, and the Church’s former opposition to state control in these matters, maybe we should look back to Salazar, that evil right winger ;-), find how such would apply in the multi-denominational society we now have, and do so. A Baptist or Orthodox or Catholic marriage would mean exactly what such denominations state their respective unions to mean, preserving it from the various fads and fashions of the political elites. Maybe such should be tried out. The other methods has shown itself to be a real winner, has it not?
Thank you for clarifying your position so that it no longer sounds like we’re the scum of the earth. I really appreciate it, and I really do — I’m not being sarcastic. I’m often sarcastic, so I thought I’d better make it clear that I’m not being this time.