Does this post title shock you? It is a hard teaching. Who could accept it? I too was taken back when I first heard it from someone else, but it didn’t take long to see the logic. Heterosexuals have been watering down the true meaning of marriage for decades. A slippery slope need not be as fast as the metaphor implies. A lava flow can be slower than 1km/hour, but will destroy everything in its path.
The foundation for the marriage slope was laid by ending the idea of “permanent”. No fault divorce laws coincided with a message that marriage is a mere convenience, an institution that exists only for the personal happiness and pleasure of two individuals. For no fault divorce, it's basically enough to declare that a couple is no longer happy (irreconcilable differences). There is no need to “work things out”. We can hardly blame the gay community for this. In the eyes of God however, divorce doesn’t really exist. A couple may need to be legally parted in the case of abuse or other intolerable circumstance (CCC 2383), but once God joins a valid one-flesh-union, it exists. There is no way to make it stop existing. Consider your life. Once you are conceived, you exist. Nothing that happens down the road will change this.
If no fault divorce is the foundation, artificial contraception/sterilization raised-up the angle for the sliding slope of marriage. Homosexuals have no use for contraception or sterilization, so don’t blame them. If marriage is for the personal happiness and pleasure of two individuals, then children are obviously an unnecessary by-product. Contraception blows apart the triune nature of marriage, sex & procreation, furthering the idea that marriage is about mutual gratification and sex is for anyone’s pleasure, married or not. Once the rationale is fragmented, the gay community can easily pick-up the scattered pieces of marriage and reform them into something “else”, something that does not reflect the image & likeness of God.
My wife and I help with the marriage ministry at our parish. One thing we do for the engaged couples is give a talk on sex & intimacy in marriage, which relates to the theology of the body, which relates to the image & likeness of God, which relates to the way God loves. From the eternal love between the Father and the Son proceeds a third person called the Holy Spirit. In a similar way, the love between a husband and wife helps to create a third person called a baby. Consider the Catholic wedding vows as well:
Ø Have you come here freely?
God loves freely, so we should love freely. Love is an act of the will that cannot be forced.
“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down (my life) of my own accord..." (John 10:18)
Ø Will you honor each other as man & wife for the rest of your lives?
God holds nothing back in loving us totally and permanently.
“…he loved them to the end.” (John 13:1)
“…And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Mat 28:20)
Ø Will you accept children lovingly from God?
God’s love is always fruitful and brings life. Marriage does the same.
“I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (John 10:10)
"Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.” (Gen 9:1)
Procreation is an indispensable part of marriage and the one flesh union should always be something totally self-giving that holds nothing back; it should be God-like. Catholics call this being “open to life”. Whenever procreation is mentioned as part of marriage however, infertile couples are called on the carpet. If infertile couples can marry, why can’t gay couples? We must remember that an infertile male/female union is still of the same procreative “type” just like any male/female union.
Consider a baseball analogy. A baseball team is orientated to winning baseball games. Even if they NEVER win a game, no matter how much they try, they are still a baseball team and are always allowed on the baseball diamond. A football team also NEVER wins a baseball game, but a football team is not relevant to winning baseball games, neither is a soccer team, or any other kind of team other than a baseball team.
It is really heterosexuals that built the slow sliding slope that leads directly to gay “marriage”. True marriage reflects the image & likeness of God. It is meant to be unitive, procreative, mutually exclusive and permanent and none of these aspects can be intentionally separated. This is not true because the Catholic Church teaches it. The Catholic Church teaches it because it is true!
You unfarily stack your metaphor in order to try to make your case. A baseball team is oriented toward *playing* baseball. If they never *play* a baseball game, they aren't a baseball team. Winning, like fair play, teamwork, and learning to lose gracefully, is just part of the game
ReplyDeleteI could have said “playing baseball” not just “playing”. It only makes sense for a baseball team to be allowed on the field. In any case, I understand that no analogy is perfect.
DeleteWell done guys and great points. Our culture has been greasing that slope for a long time. I really think it started when our Protestant brothers changed their minds in 1930 after really 4,000 years of solid unchanged teaching on contraception and the nature and meaning of marriage. Once the Christian world was divided on this, it was just a matter of time. Lay Catholics got sucked in 40 years ago and our whole country has been transformed because of it. How does a permanently fixed Married couple really honestly argue the point about the core difference? I guess there are still valid points but so much is lost because because that original design has been altered.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: in your marriage prep ministry, what percentage of couples would you say really hear and take a hard look at the churches teaching on contraception. I'm sure seeds are planted deep either way but just wandering if you see any change.
I’d say it’s a very small parentage, but we don't get much follow-up with the couples to know what they do about what we say. It is more about planting seeds and raising awareness. On the bright side, with all the emphasis on being “green” in our society they some seem interested in doing something the natural way (like NFP) as opposed to an artificial way (like the pill/chemicals).
DeleteNot only have heterosexuals, through the changes in civil marriage, such as no-fault divorce, helped to undermine marriage, but, today, many young people, having grown up in broken homes and, having little respect for marriage themselves, think it is "no big deal" if two men or two women want to "get married."
ReplyDeleteYoung people today seem to be saying: What is the big deal about same-sex marriage when, marriage itself, is no longer a big deal. This dawned on me the other day . . . my generation has respect for marriage; many young people do not. THAT is a major reason why they so readily support same-sex marriage. Sad, truly sad what we have allowed to happen to marriage. With marriage . . . we reap what we sow.
The younger generation has respect for marriage. In fact they want to allow that respect to be shared by their gay family members,friends and colleagues. They want them to have the experience of publicly stating their love for their partner and pledging to support that partner through richer and poorer, sickness and health, good and bad. Just like they do. It's not not that marriage is no big deal, rather it's the contrary.
DeleteIt does not necessarily follow that broadening the definition of a thing shows more respect for that thing. If a football team is allowed to play on baseball diamond, it shows either indifference or confusion about the true nature of both sports.
DeleteAgreed. To continue the analogy allow those who like baseball to play baseball and those who like football to play it as well. Don't ban football because it isn't your sport.
DeleteR1,
DeleteI’m curious to know if you are consistent in your position. Would you “ban” marriage for platonic couples? If marriage is any two people, why discriminate against those who are not sexually involved? Why should they be denied the same rights from the government as anyone else? For example, adult siblings should be able to marry as well as parents with their adult children. It may seem bizarre to us (not our sport), but it’s only fair to include them in with the definition of marriage if they wish it. Agreed?
Marriage between platonic couples if perfectly legal and should remain as such. It's not the state's business to see who is having sex or not. I don't think even the NSA wiretaps go that far.
DeleteThe limits on marriage for consanguinity have a very important biological basis and I see no reason to change that. And I don't see that as an issue.
More pertinent is polygamous marriage. There is much more likelihood of that being an issue than sibling marriage. And that needs to be approached from the point of view of both members in the marriage being treated as equals. Polygamous marriage does not ensure that. In every culture that has polygamous marriage the women are subservient to the man and as a society that is not acceptable.
“The limits on marriage for consanguinity have a very important biological basis” What basis?
DeleteI heard a story of two sisters who were widowed with children. They moved in together with their children and shared a common household. They were essentially a family unit. If procreative sex is not a defining limit to marriage, what reason is there to ban this couple from marriage? I don’t think relatives sharing a household is something uncommon. I have relatives who do this. Let them have marriage rights. It’s only fair.
Do you know of any couple like the one you suggest that is asking for marriage rights?
DeleteAs to defining marriage as procreative sex do you agree with the Catholic Church's policy of not marry people who cannot have sex? If a man is incapable of sex, for what ever reason, he cannot be married.
I don’t know of anyone, but the question remains the question. If we were to ask all relatives that live together if they would like some “goodies” from the government via marriage rights, I bet many would take the offer if it were legal.
DeleteAnd yes, I agree with Catholic teaching on Marriage. Here is a good article that includes impotence vs. infertility.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0155.html
Actually a study done my the CBO on the cost for extending marriage to same sex couples surprised the Republicans as it showed that despite some additional costs for the spouse, the net result, because of the marriage tax penalty, would be a small increase in revenue for the federal government.
DeleteAs to the second point as a good Catholic you are obligated to support your Church's position that you can not marry a person who is permanently unable to have sex. But as a good citizen you are obligated to not impose this restriction on the general public.
I support your right to have such restrictions on non marriage for impotency, previously married Catholics and same sex couples. But you have an obligation to support those rights for people of other religions or of no religion at aall.
There are some benefits that do not relate to taxes, like instant property rights, hospital visitation and probably others I can't think of right now.
DeleteIf you look at this blog on marriage, it is mostly secular arguments on how marriage should be defined in a society, not theological arguments. We ALL have “limits” on how marriage should be defined and I’m free to debate those limits based on logic along with everyone else.
I’m done with this post. You can have the last word if you like. Peace.
Then does this mean if Catholics reverse same sex marriage they are going to enforce Catholic morality on common law, remarriage and contraception on the general population as well. Do you blame the rest of us that we get a bit nervous about this?
ReplyDeleteThe US Supreme Court would never let that happen. The "enforcing" of morality only extends in one direction now, yours.
ReplyDeleteTom - I've been in a nearly 20 year heterosexual, faithful marriage with a wonderful woman. In no way am I going to impose that type of relationship upon you. Only you can enforce that upon yourself.
Delete