Will the Church Change Her Teaching on Marriage?
Meanwhile, in the weeks leading up to the election, the Connecticut State Supreme Court ruled that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry. Like the opponents of the California's Proposition 8, the Connecticut Supreme Court presented the issue as one of civil rights. In this argument, denying homosexuals the right to marry is the same as denying a black man and a white woman the right to marry.
Indeed, opponents of Proposition 8 even claimed that the ballot measure would "redefine" marriage--as if the California State Supreme Court had not already done so in extending the right to marry to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 simply restored the status quo ante, which had existed ever since the state took over the licensing of marriage starting in the 16th century.
What does all of this mean for the Catholic Church? The Church, of course, defines marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman, for the purposes of mutual support and procreation. Moreover, when the marriage takes place between two Christians, it is a sacrament.
The requirement that the spouses be of opposite sexes is as essential to Christian marriage as is the requirement that priests be male, and it's no surprise that many of those who support women's ordination also support homosexual "marriage," and vice versa. The Church, taking Her cues both from Scripture and from natural law, insists that sex is not simply a role but an integral part of who we are as human beings.
Man and woman complement each other: "Male and female created He them." Those who fail to understand that point to the role of mutual support in the Catholic understanding of marriage and ask why two men or two women could not fulfill that role. Of course, they can--the inner life of monasteries and convents relies on such mutual support between members of the same sex.
But marriage is more than mutual support: It is the fulfillment of the natural order that God Himself created in the Garden of Eden. To reduce it to a mere function that can be performed by any two people does not, as the Connecticut State Supreme Court argued, elevate marriage. Instead, it undercuts the meaning of marriage and reduces its role in redeeming the natural order.
Comments
I don’t appreciate your comment that marriage has always been the same since the state took over the licensing of marriage in the 16th century. This comment ignores most of recorded history. Not only has marriage evolved in form (over the last two thousand years, many cultures, including Christian churches, have recognized and later ceased to recognize same-sex marriage), but marriage has also evolved in purpose. I will assume, from your imprecise claim that the “state” took over marriage licensing in the 16th century, that you are referring to certain governments in western Europe. If we are restricting our discussion to European marriage, then honesty requires we recognize that for most of that time, marriage was a way of transferring property by allowing those people who owned the property to decide who would have children with whom. It had nothing to do with love, and even less to do with procreation, as it was largely expected for men, in lieu of marrying the women they loved, to quietly have affairs outside of marriage. This then produced illegitimate children, who were not considered at the time to have any rights at all, and who almost universally grew up in abject poverty.
The modern definition of marriage as a lifelong union between two people who love each other is an effective way of avoiding problems that earlier forms of marriage created, and thus is our best hope for solving society’s problems.
As you are no doubt aware, the Catholic church openly blesses marriages between opposite-sex couples who cannot have children. There is an implicit assumption that these marriages will involve sexual intercourse. Thus, it is possible for sexual intercourse to be approved in a martial context without the possibility of procreation.
Your arguments about the “complementarity” of male and female are in direct conflict with Church practice. The Church would, of course, not hesitate to accommodate a war veteran whose masculine organs had been blown off by a grenade and who wished to marry his high school sweetheart. Furthermore, many Biblical scholars, of Catholic and other traditions, strongly condemn all attemps to interpret the Bible literally. Yet, you have done precisely this by quoting the verse “male and female he created them”.
Frankly, in your arguments a very real prejudice is apparent. It takes real strength of faith in God to break away from this prejudice, and it is not a breach of faith to consider both sides of the issue without deciding ahead of time which side will persuade you.
It’s not a question of “appreciating” my statement, Patrick; it’s a question of historical fact. I made the statement in response to claims that Proposition 8 (and similar measures in other states) are “redefining” marriage when they declare that it is between one man and one woman. They are not; they are simply restating the definition of civil marriage as it has been known since the modern state took over the licensing of marriage.
That occurred in the 16th century, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, and it was championed by the reformers. (In Catholic countries such as Italy and Spain, state licensing of marriage did not occur until as late as the 19th century.)
At no point from the 16th century on was civil marriage considered to be anything other than a contract between a man and a woman. There has been an attempt at a redefinition in the last few years, but that redefinition has come from courts and advocates of same-sex “marriage.” The ballot proposals are perfectly in line with the understanding of civil marriage in Europe and America since the modern state began licensing; homosexual “marriage” is not.
As for sacramental marriage–a different though related concept, as my article makes clear–you’re correct to note that the Church will allow a marriage between, say, a man and a post-menopausal woman, or between a sterile man and a woman. What you’re missing, in your desire to redefine marriage, is that such marriages are not (as you claim) “without the possibility of procreation.” Sexual relations between a man and a man are; sexual relations between a woman and a woman are; but sexual relations between a man and a woman, no matter what their presumed physical states, always hold out the possibility of procreation–even if the likelihood is essentially none.
This isn’t new ground; it was discussed at length by Church Fathers in the first few centuries of Christianity. The examples of Abraham and Sarah (who was past her childbearing years) and of Zechariah and Elizabeth (thought to be barren) were taken as proof that the possibility was always open. “Nothing is impossible with God,” as the angel Gabriel told Mary, informing her of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. But God, even when working such wonders, works within the limits of the natural order He has established. And the human part of that order is divided into two sexes.
As for your remark about biblical scholars “strongly condemn[ing] all attempts to interpret the Bible literally,” I can only suggest that you take a little time to study scriptural exegesis. The Bible can be read at many levels, and certain passages are, of course, read literally. To claim otherwise is simply ridiculous. When the Bible says that “Jesus wept,” are we to avoid the literal interpretation of that passage? You may wish to deny the reality of the sexes, but you cannot dismiss the biblical account of the creation of those sexes by simply condemning a literal reading of a passage that Christians (and Jews) have always read literally.
One final point of interest: I once sang in a Byzantine Catholic choir at the wedding of an elderly couple. The wedding ceremony in the Byzantine Catholic Church (the same one used in the Eastern Orthodox Churches) has, at points, different passages that are used depending on the circumstances of the spouses. These passages are as ancient as the liturgy itself–going back at least to the fifth or sixth century.
At this wedding, because of the advanced age of the couple, the liturgy included a direct reference to Abraham and Sarah. Thus procreation–which everyone present at the wedding would have claimed to be so unlikely as to be essentially impossible–was still held up as one of the aims of this marriage of senior citizens.
And rightly so, because the natural order does allow for the possibility–a possibility that simply does not exist in a same-sex “marriage.”
I am glad that you are writing all this. I see research in your work and appreciate the information after I have read your articles. You love our beloved Catholic faith very much and it shows. Thank you for your talents.
In Christ
Patrick (or anyone with the knowledge)please expand on this: “over the last two thousand years, many … Christian churches, have recognized and later ceased to recognize same-sex marriage”. What ‘church’ has done that?