Skip to main content

On Marriage



Marriage comes to us from nature.  In Catholic teaching Jesus sanctifies marriage as a sacrament for the baptized, giving it significance beyond its natural reality. Traditionally the state has safeguarded marriage because it is indispensable to family and thus to the common good of society.  But neither Church nor State instituted marriage, and neither can change its nature.
God created two mutually complementary sexes, able to transmit life through marital union.  Consummated sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is ideally based on mutual love and must always be based on mutual consent, if they are genuinely human actions.  No matter how strong a friendship or deep a love between persons of the same sex might be, it is physically impossible for two men, or two women, to consummate a marital union.  (In civil law, non-consummation of a marriage constitutes grounds for annulment).
It is easy to see that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is naturally and necessarily different from sexual relations between same-sex partners.  This was true before the existence of either Church or state, and will be true should, heaven forbid, the United States of America cease to exist.  Any scheme to change this truth about marriage in civil law is nothing less than an insult to reason andthe common good of society.  It would mean that we are all to pretend to accept something we know is physically impossible, much like saying that a legislature could pass a law saying that God should not be God.
What is also at risk in the recent hullabaloo over whether or not two humans of the same gender should be permitted to “marry” is the natural relationship between parents and children.  Children, even if they are loved and raised by people who have not procreated them, desire to know who their parents are.  All data to date has demonstrated what we all know” stable marriage between a husband and wife safeguards their children, enveloping them with familial love and fashioning the secure foundation for healthy humans.  To cut to the gist of the discussion, if the nature of marriage is destroyed in civil law, then the natural family goes with it. Should religious teaching based on natural truths be considered evidence of bigotry and punishable by law, when majority opinion embraces disordered causes? The media have conducted a tremendous propaganda effort to propagate this view.  Isn’t it true that since all of the firmly legal consequences of natural marriage are already given to same-sex partners in civil unions, what is really at issue in the debate is whether or not civil society will grant self-respect and full societal acceptance of their intrinsically disordered sexual activities?  It is often heard that since Christians must not be bigots, “same-sex marriage” is the only appropriate Christian response to help those with homosexual orientations pursue happiness. Those who feel this way offer approval of “homosexual marriage” as an illustration of compassion, justice and inclusion.  History has shown that such sentiments have been used to excuse everything from eugenics to euthanasia.  Revealed religion is more than mere sentiment! It rests on the firmament of the truths of what human reason understands and God has revealed. Can anyone deny that so-called “same-sex marriage” is incompatible with the teaching that has kept the Catholic Church united to Our Lord for two thousand years? Because of what we celebrate this week, the Passion death, and Resurrection of Our Lord, the Church throughout time offers the grace to live chastely in all circumstances, as the love of God both obliges and makes possible. Let’s remember that traditional marriage is a public commitment with a obligations entailing more than mere “happiness,” and that creating “civil rights” (more accurately, “civil wants”) that reverse natural rights will not lead to societal happiness. As a student of the thought of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, I take to heart his recent statements on all of this: “The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned.  From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be.  Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed.  But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and women in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation.  Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him.  Rabbi Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of right, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain.  When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being.  The defense of the family is about man himself.  And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears.  Whoever defends God is defending man.” As I wrote in The Smokeof Satan in the Temple of God, quoting John Paul II, “Without the Creator, the creature vanishes.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dancing With Mr. D: Grooming the Little Children

A former pro-transgender activist said she regretted her previous work in pro-transgender activism, adding she felt she was "indoctrinated" on gender ideology in an interview with  Fox News Digital.  "I started to realize that what I had been doing at my job at the LGBT Center, it was grooming," Kay Yang, a former employee of a location in New York, said. Grooming in this context means "to get into readiness for a specific objective." Kay works as a 'deprogrammer' to help parents and children who have been 'indoctrinated' by the 'cult-like' transgender agenda. Yang herself previously went by they/them and worked as a 'trans educator' in schools for years.  Listen to her testimony.    

Homosexual Marriage

The urgency of the issue of gay marriage at this time and the compelling arguments raised against it here, make this paper an important resource: Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage KATHERINE YOUNG AND PAUL NATHANSON Claim 1 : Marriage is an institution designed to foster the love between two people. Gay people can love each other just as straight people can. Ergo, marriage should be open to gay people. Claim 2 : Not all straight couples have children, but no one argues that their marriages are unacceptable Claim 3 : Some gay couples do have children and therefore need marriage to provide the appropriate context. Claim 4 : Marriage and the family are always changing anyway, so why not allow this change? Claim 5 : Marriage and the family have already changed, so why not acknowledge the reality? Claim 6 : Children would be no worse off with happily married gay parents than they are with unhappily married straight ones. Claim 7 : Given global overpopulation, why w...

This video of a young boy twerking at Pride has homophobes outraged | Gay Star News

DANCING WITH MR. D:   This video of a young boy twerking at Pride has homophobes outraged | Gay Star News : 'via Blog this'

On the Contemporary U.S. Scene

M ichael Flynn made a lot of enemies inside the government during his career. When he exposed himself as vulnerable these pounced. How?? Anonymous and possibly illegal leaks of private conversations with a foreign national. Now, we aren't supposed to spy on Americans without probable cause, nor disclose the results of our spying in the pages of the  Washington Post   because it suits a partisan or personal agenda (overturning the results of an election). Current and former national security officials used their position, their sources, and their methods to destroy a political enemy. Why aren’t all Americans upset by this? Mr. Flynn is not the only recent occurrence of such. The  New York Times reports that civil servants at the EPA lobbied Congress to reject Donald Trump's nominee to run the agency because Pruitt was critical of the way the EPA was run during the Obama years.  Traditionally, civil servants follow the direction of the political ap...

Oremus

Catholic World News  - October 23, 2015  The Synod of Bishops spent Friday, October 23, discussing a proposed final statement, which will come up for a vote, paragraph by paragraph, on Saturday. The statement was presented to the bishops on Thursday evening, with Cardinal Peter Erdo, the relator general of the Synod, introducing the text. Because the statement was available only in Italian, some Synod participant were unable to read it, and there was an angry outcry when they were told-- by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the secretary-general of the Synod-- that no copies of the sensitive document could be taken out of the Synod Hall. Eventually Cardinal Baldiserri relented, and allowed bishops to take the text home, but insisted that they could not show the document to outside translators. For a summary:

The Body of Christ and the City of Men

      The “Statement of Principles” issued by select Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives on June 18, disapproving of Bishops in the United States for allegedly “politicizing the Eucharist” is an example of deceitful equivocation. Essentially, the Statement maintains that the Bishops should not “politicize” the Eucharist. On this the insight of Flannery O’Connor proves enlightening: Those whose lives are not ordered by, around, and toward the Eucharist, therefore, are those whose lives are defined by some love other than love of the Christ who is present there. Rather, their lives are ordered by the earthly city, manifest in this case, by, variously, partisan political identity or individual, radially sovereign conscience. This applies across the American political spectrum, to those who deny human dignity of the unborn, the immigrant, and the person on death row. In Catholic teaching the Eucharist creates St. Augustine’s City of God, the definit...

Enlightenment thinking and "the Spirit of Vatican II"

Present in an analysis of the Enlightenment are the three themes which played an integral part in the disintegration of the liturgy: the denial of the transcendent, the resulting apostasy, and the exaltation of the community. That the movement was hostile to revealed Christianity is beyond debate. At bottom, the Enlightenment was hostile to Christian revelation for its teaching that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone. In its stead, the Philosophes substituted a rational religion which emphasized the universal moral law shared by all men by virtue of their reason, not what they regarded as the untrustworthy historicity of the life message of Jesus. They saw this rational religion as a refining of, not a repudiation of Christian moral teaching. For example, the Mass, which celebrates the revelation that Christ’s sacrificial death reconciles us to the Father and each other, making present to the believer the same sacrifice of the Cross, was reduced to the mere celebration ...

Bishop Barron on Martin Luther

Bishop Robert Barron, in his June 13   article   titled "Looking at Luther With Fresh Eyes," describes Martin Luther as "a mystic of grace, someone who had fallen completely in love." Fr. describes Luther as the "undisputed father of the Reformation" and as "cantankerous, pious, very funny, shockingly anti-Semitic, deeply insightful and utterly exasperating." While admiring of Luther, Fr. adds: "I disagree with lots and lots of his ideas," without clarifications. Barron summarizes: "For at the core of Luther's life and theology was an overwhelming experience of grace. After years of trying in vain to please God through heroic moral and spiritual effort, Luther realized that, despite his unworthiness, he was loved by a God who had died to save him," adding, "Luther was an ecstatic, and the religious movement he launched [Protestantism] was 'a love affair.'" Was Dr. Luther in love with God...

Libido Redux: The Pill Circa 2014

If I were a female, and I am not, but if I were, and were Catholic, I would take seriously this read  concerning what happens when the rights of God are violated. I have written of these violations before, here . Let us pray that this snare of the prince of this world may not celebrate the 60th birthday of "the pill."

Libido Redux: California's Proposition 60

T he Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, remains the great exception to the sexual revolution.  Facilitated technologically by the oral contraceptive and culturally by rapid secularization, this revolution successfully separated sex from babies, and, in short order, sex from marriage, sex from love, and even love from marriage, if love is understood to have a sacrificial, enduring character (think “no –fault” divorce). The sexual revolution has crushed everything in its path, including most, (not ALL) Christian churches in the West, which it rendered both impotent and sterile.  The Catholic Church has been the lone institutional holdout, earning for itself puzzlement from her friends and ferocious hostility from enemies.  Catholic teaching has insisted that both natural reason and biblical revelation teach that sex, love, marriage and children all belong together in the complementarity of men and women made in the image and likeness of God.  For both h...