www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Same-Sex Marriage...Again

I have been trying for some time to get some perspective on the issue of gay marriage, and have some thoughts I'd like to share on this Forum and hopefully learn something from the many erudite and thoughtful posters here.

Now - I will say out front that I think the national conversation on this subject is warped and shallow. Most people in favor of gay marriage seem to argue that it should be legalized (or, alternatively, recognized as a right) because of the "love" between the parties; usually it is expressed by the person just saying "you can't treat gays differently as a class; two people who love each other should have a right to get married." I usually then ask whether they would be in favor of legalizing polygamy, for example. After all, I do not doubt for a moment that there exist a number of American citizens who "love" more than one other person, and if the basic reason for providing the right to marriage to two people regardless of their sex is because of their "love," that same right to logically extend to parties of more than two if the criterion is met. Most people I've talked to this about then respond that, well, marriage is just between two people.

Oh? I ask. What makes you say that? Are you aware that sizeable portion of humanity does not agree with and certainly does not put into practice the idea that marriage is just between two people; many Middle Eastern and North African countries allow, according to Islamic law, for the taking of numerous wives. Plenty of African cultures express themselves similarly. The idea of polygamy in marriage is as old or older than monogamy.

You see, I tell them, it seems to me that the idea that marriage should be limited to two people is a result of your Western cultural milieu, which has traditionally understood the concept of marriage by reference to Christian teaching. And this, this is the very same standard which they argue should not apply to marriages recognized by the State! That same cultural milieu which has a "restrictive" view on the number of parties to a marriage is likewise the source for that "restrictive" view of marriage requiring parties of opposite sex held by those who argue against gay marriage. I then ask them if they consider themselves as unspeakably intolerant as their political opponents who oppose gay marriage, since they seem quite content to be complicit in the denial of rights to people who truly love people they are not allowed to marry on the grounds that their relationship, although not gay, does not meet the requirements for state recognition of the union as a marriage. (Then, as an aside, frankly I sit back and watch, frustrated but not surprised, while they take a few seconds to suppress the cognitive dissonance going on in their heads by rationalizing their position in some illogical way but which allows them to keep their position but not hate themselves for it...but that's just as an aside...)

The same argument could be made for the right for a niece and uncle, or brother and sister, or even mother and child to marry, since I don't doubt that in this sick, twisted world there are people with those degrees of consanguinity who nevertheless feel they romantically "love" each other (excepting the arguments that would be made about the increase in likelihood of health and developmental risks for a child conceived, which I consider to be mostly B.S. given that offspring of two first cousins has the same likelihood of genetic abnormality as the offspring of a 37-year old mother, and much less so than the offspring of a woman in her forties.

So, that's my issue with the "left"s argument: there is no limiting principle. To base rights on "love" is a ridiculous proposition, in my opinion. At least be able to inform me of a logical limiting principle, as it were, limiting principle not identical to the one you reject, if you insist that polygamy is somehow different.

What gives me pause is when someone agrees that polygamy, too, should be legal. Not, perhaps, based upon some nebulous definition of “love,” but rather because, say, the State should entirely deregulate marriage, or reduce the State’s definition (or in the case of our nation, the various small-s states absent some Due Process violation found by SCOTUS – something I find unlikely.) The state has an interest in furthering marriage, the rebuttal would go, and research goes to show the model of the stable, a heterosexual family is the best way to raise kids – and I agree with that statement.

But, let’s be honest. Divorce has been legal for a long time in this country, and very easy to come by for decades. It takes practically no showing at all (much like the modern annulment process in the U.S.). There are no laws against single parents adopting, and really nothing much disincentivizes it. So it seems to me that the Catholic Bishops of the United States, whom I believe provide a wonderful witness to our society overall, are, first of all, being inconsistent by arguing against gay marriage because of its harm to the family but not arguing against state restrictions on divorce, or single-parent adoption (including gay single-parent adoption). (There arises the tangential question of how much restriction is “just right” to ensure the optimal family life). Second, I frankly don’t know that I see how much it advances the likelihood of an optimal family life, even if the fight against legalizing gay marriage were to succeed, when divorce, single-parent adoption and adoption by two gay people who just aren’t “married” in the eyes of the State. The problem is in our culture, and gay marriage did not cause that. We, as a culture, do not understand marriage. But conflating the State’s position with the Church’s position I feel, in this culture which is so far gone, only serves to enhance the cacophony. I do think there is an argument to be made that the Faith may benefit from the Church basically saying, “To hell with the State’s definition of marriage. The Church’s position is X, and the reasons for that are Y, and Christians are expected to live by that.”

My larger point, though, is that I see this is a prudential decision, and I, even though I absolutely hate to align myself with the leftist camps continually opposing our bishops despite our unconnected reasons for being so aligned, find the implication that one’s political position on this issue, no matter what you’re reasoning, is inextricable with being an orthodox Catholic, is flawed. While it is certainly true that the majority of Catholics who support gay marriage do so because they do not actually believe the Church’s Teaching, it is not true that everyone is not adamantly opposed to legalizing gay marriage (for example, for prudential concerns such as mine) are denying in any way in Truth of the Faith. On the contrary, it could be argued that it is out of desire to see the plan of salvation best accomplished by the Church making a lout and public rebuke of the State’s conception of marriage as a whole.

Some may respond that the Church has always had the duty to imbue the State’s with her values and timeless truths, that it is our goal as Christians to see the State transformed to reflect Christian values. And so it is. No disagreement there. But I do not see this being accomplished from the top down, from imposition of a morality legally that no one believes in on the ground. What good does that really do? In fact I think it obscures in the minds of many folks the beauty of the Church’s teachings because it forces them to view it through an authoritarian lens. I think there is an argument to be made that the sanctification of society through imbuing our State and Government with Christian values again is to transform people on the ground, one by one. You know, actually converting and catechizing people. When our society feels convicted about something, and believe in it with the faith of a little child, it will naturally find a way those values governmentally (to the extent allowed by our Constitution, anyway – a whole other matter).

Now, I do not presume to reject the idea that there aren’t very good arguments out there to be made that, no, it is vitally important for the Faith that the State’s definition of marriage should be as close to the Church’s as possible, even in a society which in actuality increasingly spurns those values. But that’s premised on a set of ideas, one of which consists of the argument that allowing gays (or polygamists) to get married would dissuade heterosexual couples from getting married. I don’t think that’s true, in any case, but even if it were, would it really dissuade Christians with an orthodox understanding of marriage (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) from getting married in the Church, because the State’s definition allows for gay marriage? I could never accept such a hypothesis with a straight face. Christians who understand the important of marriage will obviously wish to enter into it, regardless of whether they live in 1842 Rome, where the Papal States ruled, or whether they live under a government with a definition of marriage that is not in keeping with the Church.

Perhaps I have a woeful understanding of the Church’s role in all this. I think my point in the end, however, is that despite my orthodox Catholic beliefs, I can’t really work myself up about this whole gay marriage issue, neither for nor against. I see the reasons of those pushing behind its adoption as wrong and logically flawed. I see the implication by Catholic bishops arguing that we must be really fired up against it, and I don’t think, from a purely prudential standpoint, I necessarily agree. I simply see this as a natural consequence of the state of our society, and that continually bickering over a definition of marriage which is already so marred that it barely reflects a Christian understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony at all, is pointless, and petty, and perhaps even obscures the Message; it’s spinning our wheels. Our society has no clue what Christianity is and it must be reconverted from the ground up. We cannot rely on the Government to foster a Christian ethos with a straight face when it is made up of nonbelievers. We should work to ensure our own freedoms, which are under attack by some and reviled by most, so that the Church can be free to spread the Gospel for those who can hear it.

Alexis

Dear Alexis,

I read your whole post carefully and you make good points and counterpoints. You are learning the art of law well!

I think what bothers a lot of us here is not specifically the points that you brought up, but that future children will grow up in a society that tells them that two men getting married is as normal as a man and a woman getting married. Society is setting norms which will be very hard to dissuade children from accepting--even in the most Christian homes. It is turning everything upside down--just as it has in the social mores of sexuality between unmarried heterosexuals--something which has been with us now for decades and has planted itself firmly in the mentality and behavior of individuals from all walks of life and faiths...(except perhaps for Muslims and Orthodox Jews)

I guess many of us who were coming of age when right and wrong were somewhat simpler to figure out, and it didn't matter what your religion was, because all your friends thought the same way (thanks to the Great Parent of television and media)lament the loss of such a homogenious thinking and behaving society.

I don't know if Catholic social activism is working and/or having a significant influence on the population, or if it is having the opposite effect on your generation. From what I hear, it is the latter.

I don't know what the answer is, other than perhaps this all needs to come to pass in view of prophecy of the last 'days' (whether they are years, decades, or centuries)....

One thing for sure, we are not only in the post Christian era, but in the new Pagan era. Some laugh at that and say 'we aren't worshipping idols', not realizing that they are indeed, albeit in a different form-- today's idols are the satisfaction of every base desire and passion. Anything that is worshipped over God and His law, is an idol.

Thanks for your post and your viewpoint!

Best regards,
Alice

Your thoughtful post is to be commended. Well articulated, honest conversation is called for so that we can justify our position to a prudent person without anyone raising his voice.

Just thinking, though.....if the bishops don't exhort and lead, they are severely criticized. If they do speak up, they are severely criticized. So this is a draw, which will probably serve no purpose discussing.

We need exhortation....our faith MANDATES exhortation of basic principles of Christianity. The seven Mysteries are principles which cannot be compromised. If we back off them, of what value is the Church? What will be the next principle? The Resurrection? The Trinity? Will we give the Body and Blood of Christ to anyone who walks up, even if they scoff at our "foolishness" and "superstition."

To me, this is the real issue..much more important than religious liberty, for a nation is only temporary and the USA shall someday pass away.

There was a thread recently about the Blessed Virgin Mary and another about "junk science." I consider homosexual unions to be "junk philosophy." But what I wish to remind everyone is this. In the East and in the West the Mother of God has left the delight of Heaven to exhort us with love in various visitations. She has seen what is happening in the world and within the Churches of her Son. She has literally cried with sadness that we have become so lukewarm and we don't even TRY to know God. She has called me to my diaconate vocation and I am trying to understand what God's plan is for me.

I can't speak for anyone else, for only you can understand what her spouse, the Holy Spirit, wants you to do, what His plan is for you.

Please, on this day that we celebrate our Lord's Ascension where is it confirmed that there is a Heaven and a Life after this one, LISTEN for the whispering of the Holy Spirit and His groaning in your soul.

With Christian love,
Fr Deacon Paul

Perhaps it would be wise to address homosexcuality in general. Note the Fathers of the church:

Tertullian, the great apologist of the Church in the second century, writes:
"All other frenzies of lusts which exceed the laws of nature and are impious toward both bodies and the sexes we banish. from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities." (Tertullian, De pudicitia, IV)

Saint Basil of Caesarea, the fourth century Church Father who wrote the principal rule of the monks of the East, establishes this: "The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown [tonsure] and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle; and [let him be] bound in iron chains, condemned to six months in prison,
reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After these six months living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience, let him be subjected to prayers, vigils and manual work, always under the guard of two spiritual brothers,
without being allowed to have any relationship. with young people." (St. Basil of Caesarea, in St. Peter Damien, Liber Gomorrhianus, cols. 174f.)

Saint Augustine is categorical in the combat against sodomy and similar vices. The great Bishop of Hippo writes: "Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed." (Rom. 1:26). (St. Augustine, Confessions, Book III, chap. 8)

Saint John Chrysostom writes: "All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men. There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity." (St. John Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Romanos IV)

Saint Peter Damian's Liber Gomorrhianus [Book of Gomorrah], addressed to Pope Leo IX, is considered the principal work against homosexuality. It reads: "Just as Saint Basil establishes that those who incur sins [against nature] . should be subjected not only to a hard penance but a public one,
and Pope Siricius prohibits penitents from entering clerical orders, one can clearly deduce that he who corrupts himself with a man through the ignominious squalor of a filthy union does not deserve to exercise ecclesiastical functions, since those who were formerly given to vices. become unfit to administer the Sacraments." (St. Peter Damian, Liber Gomorrhianus, cols. 174f)

Saint Thomas Aquinas, writing about sins against nature, explains: "However, they are called passions of ignominy because they are not worthy of being named, according to that passage in Ephesians (5:12): 'For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.' For if the sins
of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistulas Sancti Pauli Ad Romanum I, 26, pp. 27f)

Saint Bernardine of Siena, a preacher of the fifteenth century, writes: "No sin has greater power over the soul than the one of cursed sodomy, which was always detested by all those who lived according to God... Such passion for undue forms borders on madness. This vice disturbs the intellect, breaks an elevated and generous state of soul, drags great thoughts to petty ones,
makes [men] pusillanimous and irascible, obstinate and hardened, servilely soft and incapable of anything. Furthermore, the will, being agitated by the insatiable drive for pleasure, no longer follows reason, but furor." (St. Bernardine of Siena, Predica XXXIX, in Le prediche volgari (Milan: Rizzoli, 1936), pp. 869ff.)

Also, take a look at this:
It might be useful to read what St. Peter Damian had to say to a friend, the abbot of the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino, Desiderius, in the year 1061 -- about 950 years ago. It is his Letter 86. It sheds light on our own time. Damian begins by telling Desiderius that he and his monks should be grateful that they are out of touch with the "craziness" of the "modern world" (for their world, almost 1,000 years ago, was "modern" to them).
"You who are not unaware of the crimes that occur in this mad age would be wise to consider that, having left the world, you should be deeply grateful to God for having rescued you," Damian begins. "Decency and right living have all but disappeared and, as vigorous Church discipline gradually collapses, a estilential flood of vice and depravity of every kind grows deeper day by day..."For just as the shepherd rescues an only sheep from the ravenous jaws of the attacking beast if it has sunk its teeth into one of the weaklings in the flock, so too has Christ rescued you from the mouth of the cruelplunderer who sought to have you serve him as the world was falling apart.
You can also read St. Peter Damian's St. Book of Gomorrah: A Moral Blueprint for Our Times - Part I and Part II on the web at http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/index. It may well be an eye opener to many.

Ah, yes: advocacy of violence, invective and vengeful ideations have always proven to be effective tools of proclaiming the Good News of Christ - to say nothing of proposing His mercy and tender loving-kindness.

This sorta stuff unfailingly persuades non-believers to embrace the Gospel and find joy, fulfillment and peace in it.

I had to laugh while Anna Mary's informative post. Can you imagine the Church imposing those punishments against those priests who molested (sodomized). In a flash the Church would change from co-conspirator to evil persecutor. The media would get dizzy from the complete turnaround in its reporting. The disgraced priests would become the martyrs of the LGBT coalition.

Homosexuality is nothing to laugh about. It is a very, very grave sin. And the Fathers of the Church knew it and spoke out against it. And from reading St. Peter Damian, the sin is nothing new. Interestingly, in looking at the word TOLERANCE:
Servant of God Archbishop Fulton Sheen says it best …
“There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance …
Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons.”

Also, "While Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them.

"While He called to Himself in order to convert them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. While He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. While His heart overflowed with gentleness to the souls of good
will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them.

"He was strong as He was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body.

Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lesson and by His example, He traced the path of happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross."
Pope St. Pius X
Encyclical Our Apostolic Mandate, (Hawthorne, Vic., Australia: Tenet Books, 1974), pp.21-22

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Anna Mary, I wasn't belittling the contents of your post; the punishments for sodomy are honestly reflective of the seriousness of this sinful and unnatural behaviour.

My laugh was upon imagining the reaction of the anti-church groups IF the Church were to impose these penalties here in 2012. Very quickly those molesters would have very loud and powerful defenders, and their hypocrisy would be exposed to the world.

I can't tell if you're tarring all gay/lesbians with the "molester" brush. That'd be an error.

There are a lot more things infinitely worse than homosexual behaviour. Like clericalism; or abortion; or child porn and other forms of child abuse; or mass murder/pogroms/ethnic cleansings and euthanasia.

Did I mention clericalism? I bet if all the gay priests turned green during Sunday Mass/Liturgy it'd look like St. Paddy's Day.

If any hierarchs attempted to impose today the draconian penalties mentioned in an earlier post, they'd be arrested and imprisoned and perhaps receive the death penalty.

Rank-and-file Catholics are already responding to the inanities and arrogant hypocrisy of some of our hierarchs by voting with their feet. Right out the door they march, never to return.

Many of 'em in Dallas now go to http://www.cathedralofhope.com/ Which to me is a walk on the wild side...kinda like what a worship service in "Alice in Wonderland" would have been like.

"I bet if all the gay priests turned green during Sunday Mass/Liturgy it'd look like St. Paddy's Day."

Could you clarify? Are you talking about active sodomizers or simply those who are tempted but resist?

How do you define "clericalism"?

There is a bit getting off the topic above and I note that several are more interested in the punishments of sodomy, rather than looking into what was written regarding what it does and how it was truly frowned upon as a real and very grave sin. It is as bad as abortion by the way as it kills souls.

On a broader note, look into your hearts and let all of us be rather the lights of the world. Listen too, to our Holy Father who recently spoke these words:

It is God Himself Who remains excluded from many people's horizon and, when not met with indifference, closure or rejection, discourse about God is relegated to the subjective sphere, reduced to an intimate and private affair which is marginalised from the public conscience. The heart of the crisis affecting Europe (and I will add the US as well) also arises from this abandonment, this lack of openness to the Transcendent".

In this context, Pope Benedict XVI highlighted the fact that "new methods of announcing the Gospel or of pastoral activity are not enough to ensure that the Christian message finds greater acceptance". As the Council Fathers said, "we must begin again from God, celebrated, professed and witnessed. ... Our primary task, our true and only task, remains that of dedicating our lives to the one thing that ... is truly dependable, necessary and ultimate. Men live from God, from He Whom, often tentatively and unawares, they seek in order to give full meaning to lives. We have the task of announcing Him, revealing Him and leading others to meet Him". (and this applies to all of us)

The Holy Father continued: "The fundamental condition in order to be able to speak about God is to speak with God, increasingly to become men of God, nourished by an intense life of prayer and moulded by His Grace. ... We must allow ourselves to be found and seized by God so as to help the people we meet be touched by the Truth. ... The old and new mission facing us is that of introducing the men and women of our time to a relationship with God, to help them to open their minds and hearts to the God Who seeks them and wants to come close to them, leading them to understand that doing His will does not curb freedom; rather, it means being truly free, it means achieving true goodness in life.

"God is the guarantor not the competitor of our freedom", the Pope added in conclusion. "Where space is given to the Gospel, and therefore to friendship with Christ, man realises he is the object of a love which purifies, warms, renews, and makes us capable of serving mankind with divine love".

This truly applies to all of us, men and women - to be true witnesses of our faith. This begins with each one of us. Blessings to all.