www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Gay Marriage Debate Musings

Friends,

I, like most of you, have watched in a mixture of fascination, sadness and regret that our society, as part of a larger Western cultural movement, has for the most part embraced the homosexual lifestyle and orientation as morally permissible (or, at least, it largely adopts the stance of treating any opposition to homosexual lifestyle or orientation as morally impermissible). I think we can all agree this is not a good thing.

However, I have for sometime harbored many reservations about the position of the Catholic hierarchy in this country regarding the propriety of legalizing gay marriage. To be honest, the Holy Father himself speaks aboutt the need to protect the traditional family through state laws on marriage that are amenable to Christian faith. Still, I have my reservations. I feel justified in at least expressing this as I am not in fact aware of any Church dogma of "the faithful must believe that state/secular laws always reflect the Church's teaching." If that were the case, the United States would really be toast!

To get to my point: practically speaking, I think it's fairly obvious the Church is fighting a losing battle. Perhaps I despair, and I do take heart in the knowledge that with Christ, all things are possible. But as a more general social trend and considering the history of the development of civil rights in this country, I think you've got to be pretty daft to close your eyes to the writing on the wall. Of course, I am not saying that one should give up a good fight merely because all appears lost. But I am wondering if this is a "good fight' at all, given that the seachange that is sweeping the country regarding gay marriage will inevitably, I feel, make a mockery of the Catholic bishops and their moral voice. I fear that the Church will be looked at in the future as an institution which relentlessly insisted on denying people their "civil rights" (because that's what it's framed as by gay marriage supporters) and that this will perhaps fatally compromise the voice of the Catholic hierarchy in this country, already seriously weakened by the sex abuse scandal.

In any case, that is a practical concern and not a strictly theological concern. But I have theological concerns as well. First, I don’t understand the hierarchy’s position that we should fight against legalization of gay marriage because it is morally wrong, but make no similar arguments to laws allowing divorce and contraception (for example). If we are morally obliged to oppose legalization of gay marriage, are we not also morally obliged to lobby for making divorce and contraception illegal? Yes, a gay “marriage” is a farce, but so is, according to Catholic teaching, the idea that two married people can become divorced.

On a broader theological note and as I mentioned earlier, I am unaware that we as Catholics are obliged to pursue goals vis-à-vis state law that match up to our religious beliefs, regardless of whether the basis for arguing for or against laws is constitutional. For example, it could be argued that contraception, divorce, and gay marriage are all constitutionally permissible in this nation. Just for the sake of argument let’s assume that to be true. Are we Catholics, then, obliged to attempt to amend the Constitution so that the Church’s stance on marriage is completely mirrored in our state’s laws? That’s an honest question.

All that aside, I suppose at this point it seems to me that the way to convert souls to Christ is – as it has always been – to boldly and proudly proclaim the Church’s clear and consistent teaching regarding the homosexual lifestyle (and divorce, and contraception). But do we have to ensure that the laws do this for us? Why shouldn’t the Church’s approach be simply trusting in the power of the truth of Christ and say, “Of course, legalizing gay marriage is a terrible idea, but we can’t argue for it to be outlawed because we believe it’s immoral; rather, we should focus on the true conversion of people so that they will want to live according to God’s law, no matter what our federal, state, or local laws allow.” I have a hard time understanding the insistence by the Church hierarchy that we oppose legalization of gay marriage, no matter what. What if we believe that, for better or for worse (well, clearly, for the worse), gay marriage is constitutional and states are free to allow for it as they please? Are we supposed to say, “Well, even though I think it’s arguably a constitutional right, I’m going to oppose it.” Just as a theoretical question, might our faith demand that we, as American Catholics, oppose the “civil rights” (please excuse the term) of other citizens because we find the exercise of those rights morally repugnant?

Thank you for permitting to me to air some of my thoughts on this matter. As a law student, the intersection of our nation’s laws and our obligations as Catholics is interesting to me.

Alexis

I think your comparison is flawed. The Catholic Church does not teach that divorce is immoral only remarriage after divorce. Divorce may be the only solution left to a spouse yoked with an unrepentant abuser for one example. Some contraceptives do have a therapeutic use and could be used under the double effect principle.

But yes, if we can't get abortion de-legalized, which I think a slim majority find repugnant, keeping consenting adults from forming civil unions (which mainstream churches are "blessing" and companies and states are providing benefits for) and most people don't care about is a lost cause.

Fr. Dcn.,

I did anticipate that response re: divorce and perhaps I should have been clearer. I see a clean comparison between divorce recognized by the state and gay marriage recognized by the state in this way: Catholics believe actual divorce - i.e. severing the bonds of marriage, is impossible (simplifying; this is not meant to be an East vs. West divorce debate...), and we also believe that two people of the same sex entering into marriage is impossible. Yet the state has declared, under its law, that two people can marry and divorce and its eyes. And in the same way it can and has in many places been declared under various states' law that two people of the same sex can marry in its eyes. The point is, so what? Are we obliged to make sure the state follows the Church's teaching regarding what is and is not moral even when the Constitution of our nation might declare that in fact these are a citizen's rights?

Like I said, if Catholic bishops could simply argue, "Regardless of what the state says, this is what the Church says. And yes, in a perfect world we'd like the state's laws to better reflect the Church's teaching or even mirror it, but that is not how this nation [and most other Western democracies] were set up, so there's no point arguing that. We can simply declare the Church's teaching, and hope that the "rights" afforded by the state are not utilized by the people not because they cannot be, but because people have willingly chosen to follow the will of God." Or something like that.

Abortion I see as something of a different character in that killing is killing, and its effect is final. I'm not sure we Catholics have to care what the state's extension of the definition of marriage (or its decrees of divorce) say or do.

Alexis

I think a better example is promiscuity.

I think the Church's stance on gay marriage is hypocritical in that it seems to pick and choose which aspects of sin and morality it wants legislated into federal law.

We don't oppose abortion simply because it is sin - there are many, many sins in the world. We oppose it because it is murder - a very specific and grave type of sin.

Some say that gay marriage is an attack on the "institution of (Christian) marriage" as if the Church takes its cues on what marriage should be from the State, which is silly. The Church should be more concerned about divorce and sin within the marriages it has jurisdiction over, and less focused on "marriages" of the State, whatever those may or may not be.

And all of that aside, I don't remember reading about Christ outlawing prostitution. I remember him eating dinner with them. We might do something totally radical and follow Him in matters such as these.

I suspect there is some kind of excellent papal treatise on the relation between rights morals and states' laws and the relationship between them for the Catholic Christian. Probably by Pius X or XII. I'll have to look and see.

Alexis

My biggest issue is that I worry about the Church being forced to administer marriages it doesn't want to administer, which arises because the state approves the Church to do its business in terms of authorising its ministers as marriage celebrants.

It can't be long (if it hasn't already happened) before someone sues a priest for discrimination for not marrying people the state says he should as part of his role of state-licensed marriage celebrant.

My take on this has always been that to avoid these potential issues the Church should simply get out of the business of being an agent of the state and insist that anybody who wants a legally binding marriage should do it in a registry office. Anybody who wants a nuptial mass or scaramental service can approach the Church for a service on another occasion, and the Church's business and the state's business are kept nice and separate.

The state should only recognize civil unions and get out of the marriage business. The sooner the better. If two people of the same gender want to form a civil union and be afforded the same protections under the law as opposite sex couples enjoy, I don't see why they shouldn't.

I think that the Church needs to get out of the marriage business, as many others have stated. This way Traditional Christian marriage within the Church can be protected.

If Priests are technically working for the states in regards to secular marriage licenses, I can already see our Churches being taken to court for "discrimination" if/when so-called gay marriage is legalized.

For us as Apostolic Christians the blessing of the Church is all that matters. After the sacrement of Crowning the couple then can go down to the courthouse and enter in the "marriage" contract and get the tax break.

It's probably illegal to say this anymore where I am, but the problem goes well beyond doctrine or anything like that. The thing is, marriage, like family, is a natural institution. Redefining it has really far-reaching ramifications. A court here in Ontario decided not too long ago that a particular child has three parents. The ordinary assumption of the bonds of natural parenthood as being absolute is over. Once the state gets into redefining nature, things get messy. This isn't about protecting the rights of the Church or religious people. That's already over too. The point is, you can't think straight if you turn the truth on it's head, and our whole culture is jumping into it. Before long, they'll legally redefine 2 + 2 as 7 and send you off for re-education if you disagree.

Good questions and serious dialog. I recall my shock and of everyone I knew when abortion became a "constititutional right." The Church was caught flat-footed; it was such a shock and a relative surprise, as there were any clearly implied or explicit Constitutional grounds for the Supreme Court decision.
The homosexual marriage "right" is a replay but sort of like in slow motion, the Church is disappointed but not surprised by the campaign to legitimize sodomy and make it "respectable." It is progressing to the point of being protected and those who teach that it is wrong are ostracised. The Church knows this and it trying to educate its flock.

Keep looking at the progression...what will be next? Actually polygamy is more justified than sanctioned sodomy. Many of the instititional influences already quietly approve "consentual" incest and pedophilia (of course they don't call it that).

Down the road, imagine the child custody fights where children from a traditional marriage (or union) are now subject to the father or mother who is in a homosexual union; the courts won't be able to favor a straight parent. And it has been verified that homosexual males have relatively short term relationships so the courts will become clogged more than they are now.

These are more civil issues than church issues, but there will be similar ramifications which will affect the Church. Just last month the Administration made a public policy which practically is forcing Church institutions to offer abortions and birth control with its health insurance. Conscience clauses are disappearing for Church and medical workers; the same will be true for all social workers.

If things continue down this slippery slope the within a couple decades you will have to pay a tax to have a child; further down the road even natural conception could be banned and replaced with "healthy and non-defective" test tube babies.

Does this sound crazy? It sure does, but then the event that we are experiencing now are crazy. As scripture says, a prophet is never appreciated in his home town...or country.

A final point...having homosexual tendencies is not sinful as long as one is celibate.

Nope.

I don't think same-sex marriage is metaphysically possible.

I read the most extraordinary assertion that the martyrs Sts. Sergius and Bacchus were same-sex lovers.

Aren't they the same saints a UGC church in Rome is dedicated to?

Sielos,

That's hogwash. The same people who propagate that are the ones going on about our Lord and St. Mary Magdalene being lovers and the Gospel of Judas.

Paul B said: "Just last month the Administration made a public policy which practically is forcing Church institutions to offer abortions and birth control with its health insurance. Conscience clauses are disappearing for Church and medical workers; the same will be true for all social workers."

I see that as a separate issue, really, but it is nevertheless very, very disturbing. I'm definitely with the bishops on this one.

Alexis

Well, I was hoping someone would show me the error of my ways...

Fr. Dcn. Lance is the only one who's taken issue with my approach (and I thank you for that, Fr. Dcn.).

Alexis

Throughout human history, there has never been a society anywhere that defined marriage as the union of two persons of the same sex. Even societies in which homosexuality was either accepted or tolerated, did not do this. In Western society, the roots of our approach to marriage come from the Greeks, the Romans and the Jews, all three of which combine with the Christian kergyma to form the Christian sacramental view of marriage.

All three--Greek, Romans and Jews--looked upon marriage as a contractual relationship entered into for the purpose of begetting children and passing on property. As such, a large corpus of civil and religious law alike developed to cover matters such as dowries, bride price, legal jurisdiction over wives and children, inheritance, disinheritance, illegitimacy and adultery.

Since the state has an abiding interest in the stability of the family and the raising of children who will provide the next generation of citizens and taxpayers, it also has an abiding interest in marriage, which is why no society has ever recognized same sex marriage: it's about the children, numb nuts. A traditional nuclear family--mother, father and biological offspring--has proven empirically to be the best model for raising well adjusted children and passing on wealth from one generation to the next. It has proven so superior that even the Jews, who were originally polygamous, had transitioned to monogamy even before coming under the influence of the Greeks and Romans.

The only reason we accept same-sex marriages today is the state abrogating its responsibility for ensuring the replenishment of the population. In our fetish about personal autonomy, we have forgotten that we are not isolated individuals, but part of a society. That's why marriage has ceased to be about commitment, progeny and property, and has morphed into something to do with love and personal fulfillment. And we wonder why divorce rates are so high.

Marriage under the best of circumstances is difficult--as difficult as monasticism, in its own way--and the state has a vested interest in sustaining and subsidizing marriage, which is why married couples get a variety of financial, legal and social benefits. Creating alternatives to marriage merely reduces the desirability of marriage by providing less onerous ways to form conjugal relationships without any of the formal legal obligations and responsibilities. So the formation of civil unions, let alone recognition of same sex marriages, is merely a form of social suicide. But don't take my word for it, just wait half a century or so, and we'll talk.

Now, we must distinguish here between the Christian concept of sacramental marriage, and the civil-legal conception of marriage. The two are entirely separate and always have been, despite the Church having been coopted into acting as designated magistrates of the state in the execution of marriage licenses ("By the power vested in my by the State of ___, I now pronounce you man and wife"). As John Meyendorff wrote in Marriage--an Orthodox Perspective, and reiterated by Archbishop Joseph (Raya) in Crowning: The Christian Marriage, the sacrament of marriage has no earthly purpose--it is not, as marriage was, in the Old Testament, a means of achieving vicarious immortality through progeny (because the doors of immortality are already open to us), nor is it a means of transferring property, but rather, it is simply a Typos of the relationship between Christ and the Church. It has no other purpose (though the Western Church puts a different spin on this, as its theology of marriage is significantly different than ours), which is why the Church admits of but one sacramental marriage in a lifetime.

Part of the sacramental symbolism of marriage is the complementarity of the parties: just as Christ is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride, so there must be a man to be the bridegroom, and a woman to be the bride. Through their complementarity, the masculine and feminine attributes of the divine nature which were divided in the sexes are reunited under the grace of sacramental marriage: the two flesh become one. In the Eastern view, procreation is not a "purpose" of marriage, but rather it is a seal of the fulfillment of the Mystery, as the husband and wife act together as co-creators with God to bring new life into the world.

This is, of course, not possible in same-sex marriages, and this, apart from the condemnation of sodomy, fornication and adultery found in both Testaments of the Bible, is the reason why Christians believe that sex is only truly sanctified within the bounds of sacramental marriage.

However, there is no need for sacramental marriage to have anything at all to do with civil marriage, and for almost a thousand years it did not. In the Roman Empire, only citizens could marry under Roman law. Non-citizens, including slaves, could not marry. Moreover, Roman civil ceremonies (and those in most of Rome's client states) required a libation sacrifice to the gods, which, of course, was quite verboten to Christians and Jews alike. Being a religio licita under the Empire, the Jews were free to follow their own customs (however bizarre they seemed), but Christianity was an illicit cult, so by default, the early Christians could not be legally married in the Empire.

But the Church still administered the sacrament of marriage for members of the Church, creating its own rules and regulations regarding who could marry whom, and the conditions creating impediments to marriage. Tertullian in the third century pointed this out, castigating the Romans that Christians treat their women better than those women the Romans call wives. Because the Church was only concerned with sacramental aspects of marriage, one could be sacramentally married in the eyes of the Church, but not legally married in the eyes of the state. And because it was focused solely on the sacramental elements of marriage, the Church did not concern itself with divorce, widowhood, remarriage, child custody and other legal and social matters; these were left to the state, even after the Empire became Christian.

Seeing marriage as a sacrament that transcended death, the Church (especially in the East) actively discouraged remarriage, not only in the case of divorcees, but also for widows and widowers. Nonetheless, and following the advice of St. Paul that it is better to marry than to burn, St. Basil the Great allowed that those who had been widowed, as well as those who had divorced for no fault of their own, might be allowed to remarry as a concession to human weakness, though third marriages were frowned upon and fourth marriages prohibited ("This is a swinish life").

But the Church did not, at first, perform "second marriages"--people who wished to remarry had to do so in a civil ceremony (much easier after Constantine); the Church concerned itself with the reintegration of those who had remarried into the Body of Christ, through a regimen of fasting and prayer--and abstention from communion (three years for a second marriage, five years for a third). Thus, the Church through oikonomia maintained the integrity of sacramental marriage while allowing "second chances" to those who needed them.

It was not until the end of the 9th century that Emperor Leo VI (The Wise) abolished civil marriage in the Roman Empire (which still nominally included the West) and made the Church responsible for all aspects of marriage, sacramental, legal and social. It was at this time that the Church devised the "rite of remarriage", a non-sacramental, highly penitential ceremony for those who wished to remarry; as was true earlier, those who remarried had to abstain from communion for a designated time. The Church also defined the just causes for divorce, and devised rules for the care of widows, divorcees and children of broken marriages. And, of course, the Church was now acting as a legal agent of the state, since only Church marriages were legal.

As long as all states were nominally Christian, this system worked well. The state upheld the Christian conception of marriage, and the Church in turn administered marriage for the state. Problems began arising with the French Revolution and the development of the secular nation-state, in which the government's conception of marriage might not be congruent with that of the Church. In some countries, the state took back total control of marriage, so that couples wishing to marry must do so first in a civil ceremony before having their union consecrated by a Church wedding. In other countries, mainly Protestant, the established national church was in fact an arm of the government, so there was no conflict.

Now, of course, that has changed, and the Church not only finds the state holding different opinions from the Church, it finds the state actively hostile to the beliefs of the Church.

The only solution, as I have proposed elsewhere (and where others have followed), is for the Church to simply get out of the business of executing marriage licenses. It must stop acting as a magistrate of the state, and concern itself, once again, with the purely sacramental aspects of marriage. Of course, Church marriages would lack the automatic legal standing that now goes with them, but that is a small price to pay for the autonomy the Church would regain--for the state can hardly tell the Church what to do about what is a purely religious matter with no legal implications.

So, on the one hand, the Church can bear full witness to its theology of marriage without worrying about incurring the wrath of the state; and those who wish to marry according to the canons of the Church may do so. In fact, they now have some interesting options, for they may marry sacramentally and not marry legally, which can have some substantial economic advantages in many situations. Of course, if they want all the legal protections and obligations offered by the state, then they may also contract a civil marriage as well--but there is nothing that forces them to do so.

In any case, once disencumbered from the burden of acting as civil magistrate, the Church can dismiss the entire matter of same sex marriage as something not of direct concern to itself, but is entirely free to preach Christian sexual morality--including the sanctity of sacramental marriage--without the infringement of state regulation.