A Fuzzy Definition: Square Circles and Gay Marriage

By | April 2, 2013

Square-circleA square is a shape. That statement is undoubtedly true, and it might be necessary to say it when there are geometric revolutionaries marching in the streets proclaiming that a square is a color, but squares are more than just shapes. They’re a particular type of shape. They have four sides of equal length and include four right angles. If we define a square as simply a shape we open the door to rectangles, triangles, and circles all appropriating squareness to themselves. Ignore the details of defining a square long enough, and eventually some folks start wondering if maybe a square can be a color after all.

The other day I stopped at a restaurant. The waitress took my order, served my food, and cleared my place when I finished. For my part, I ordered, ate, and paid. It was a wonderful relationship between one man and one woman, but nobody got married. Clearly the definition of “traditional” marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman needs work. Just as a square is a shape, marriage is indeed a relationship between one man and one woman, but what kind of relationship? Three distinctive qualities of marriage are indissolubility, exclusivity, and fecundity.

Marriage is indissoluble. As chastity requires different things of those who are married and those who are not, it’s important to be able to tell who is in which camp. Here is a quick test to see if you’re married. Did you get married to somebody? Is that somebody still alive? Are you still alive? If you answered yes, yes, and yes, then you’re married to that original somebody. A valid, consummated, sacramental marriage ends when one of the spouses dies (natural causes are preferred but not required.) That’s it, and no divorce court, annulment tribunal, pope or president can make it otherwise, because they didn’t establish the terms of the marriage. Neither did the spouses. God did. (An annulment is a recognition that a marriage was invalid, or in other words that it never existed, not that it ended.)

Marriage is exclusive. When Archbishop Sheen said that it takes three to get married, he wasn’t writing a pilot for a new reality TV series. “The basic error of mankind has been to assume that only two are needed for love: you and me, or society and me, or humanity and me. Really it takes three: self, other selves, and God; you, and me, and God.” In marriage, those three roles are filled by God, husband, and wife.

Marriage is fecund. The first commandment from God to mankind recorded in the Scriptures was not, “Take some time to enjoy life, just the two of you, and then have one or two kids if you really feel the need, and then one of you get sterilized.” On the contrary, God told the first married couple, “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth…” Gen 1:28. To quote Archbishop Sheen once more, “Sex love is not meant for death: rather, Eros is for Bios; love is for life.”

These three qualities by no means give a complete picture of marriage, which is a Divine Mystery, but they are essential. Mess with one, and in very short order the others are likely to be trampled on as well. For example, contraception is a direct attack on the fecundity of marriage. It’s also an attack on its exclusivity. The love that by right belongs to the spouse and to God is stolen away and redirected into selfishness. Finally, the selfishness drives a wedge between the spouses, as shown by the dramatically higher divorce rate among contracepting couples.

When the indissolubility, exclusivity, and fecundity of marriage are properly understood, the fiction of calling homosexual relationships “marriage” is exposed for the impossible fraud that it is. So why aren’t these three qualities featured prominently in most arguments for “traditional” marriage? The question is answered by asking another one, whose tradition is “traditional” marriage based on anyway?

Culturally speaking, before the United States became a pagan country, it was a protestant country. What is the protestant tradition of marriage? The question presents some difficulty because in some sense there are as many protestantisms as there are protestants. However, there is one position that protestants all agree upon. They are not Catholics. An examination of protestant thought on marriage reveals that it isn’t Catholic either. While Catholic Tradition recognizes the indissolubility, exclusivity, and fecundity of marriage, the protestant tradition rejects all three of these features of God’s design. Christ said, “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery.” Luke 16:18. Henry VIII broke with Rome so that he could do exactly that. God said, “They shall be two in one flesh.” Gen 2:24. Luther and other leading “reformers” amended that to “two or more” and officially sanctioned polygamy when their ally Philip of Hesse wanted a 2nd wife. Finally, in the 20th century almost all protestant sects decided that what they had previously taught was evil was now good, and approved of contraception.

One aspect of the campaign for “homosexual rights” that hasn’t been thoroughly discussed is the question of where the apparent rise in homosexual behavior is coming from. To the extent this question is examined, indoctrination by the schools and media are blamed. There is certainly a good bit of truth in that answer, but I think there is something more. Fr. Paul Check, who ministers to men and women suffering from same-sex attraction (SSA), points out several recurring factors in the lives of those suffering from the disorder: broken homes, alienation from the same sex parent (e.g. boy from father), difficulty integrating with same sex peers, and sexual trauma. In other words, Fr. Check is describing the consequences of divorce. Just as contraception is the foundation of the empire of infanticide, the divorce culture gave birth to the sodomite culture. The sexual revolutions of the 1500s and early 20th century laid the groundwork for the sexual revolutions of the 1960s and today. The public debate on marriage does present an opportunity for Catholics and other Christians to work together, but as long as Catholics are content to follow the lead of protestants without clearly articulating the serious defects in the protestant tradition, we misrepresent the true Tradition of marriage as established by God.

 

Print Friendly
  • Gian

    Good article though the point might have been made about the essential part of the martial vows. Is not wifely obedience essential to Christian marriage?

  • Andrew Prizzi

    Good points Gian. Yes, the position of a husband as head of the family and the corresponding role of a wife as the heart, is vitally important and sadly denied by a great many in our society, both in and out of the Church. It’s a topic I’m working on writing about now. Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii does a great job of spelling out this and many other aspects of marriage.

    The vows are important because entering into a marriage is a voluntary act. If the marriage is not freely made, then it’s not made. Although the marriage is entered into voluntarily, the spouses don’t make the terms, but rather God does. That’s one reason why I think writing your own vows is a horrible idea, it creates the illusion that the spouses-to-be are determining the terms of the marriage contract.

    For clarification, I’d like to add that the portion of the title of this post after the colon, was not part of my original submission. I refrain from using the terms “gay” or “gay marriage” unless they’re accompanied by the adjective “so-called” or quotation marks. The terms are confusing and make dicussion more difficult, not less. What does it mean to be “gay”? Is it a temptation, an act, a permanent status? Same-sex attraction, sodomy, homosexual acts, those are terms that we can more clearly define, and so I think they are better to use.

    Pax Christi

  • Metalogic42

    @Andrew Prizzi:

    I don’t think you understand what either side in the same-sex marriage debate is talking about. Statements like this:
    “A valid, consummated, sacramental marriage ends when one of the spouses dies (natural causes are preferred but not required.) That’s it, and no divorce court, annulment tribunal, pope or president can make it otherwise, because they didn’t establish the terms of the marriage. Neither did the spouses. God did.”

    fail to address any of the pertinent issues. What’s being debated is *civil* marriage. It’s an entirely legal construction. If you want to say that’s not really marriage, fine, but then you’re not talking about the same thing as the rest of us.

    Also, what about atheists? Where’s the deity involved in their marriages, or are they not really married either?

    “Fr. Paul Check, who ministers to men and women suffering from same-sex attraction (SSA), points out several recurring factors in the lives of those suffering from the disorder: broken homes, alienation from the same sex parent (e.g. boy from father), difficulty integrating with same sex peers, and sexual trauma.”

    What about straight people who suffered these things, and what about gay people who didn’t?

  • Andrew Prizzi

    Metalogic42,

    Thank you for the comment. The state does have a role to play in marriage, but it is not free to define marriage in whatever way it wants. Rather, it’s role is to safeguard the institution, which as I said is a creation of God, not man. An atheist, or any other non-Christian, can be married, but their marriage would be a natural marriage as distinguished from a sacramental marriage. A Christian who marries a non-Christian would also be a party to a natural marriage.

    I think one of the basic elements of what appears to be a disagreement between us is your idea that “an entirely legal construction” has nothing to do with God. All authority comes from God, including the state’s. God’s laws are higher laws than the civil law. Therefore, when a civil law contradicts God’s laws, the civil law is no law at all.

    There is not one God for atheists and another for protestants, and a third for Catholics. There’s only one God. If we stop believing in Him that doesn’t make Him cease to exist.

    I stand by my connection of the consequences of divorce to being a prime driver behind an increase in SSA. Are there children of divorce who don’t suffer from SSA? Yes. Are there people who suffer from SSA who are not from broken homes? Yes. But a link doesn’t have to be 100% linkage for there to be a link. Some people smoke 2 packs a day, live till they’re a 100, and never get lung cancer. That doesn’t mean smoking is not linked to getting cancer.

    Pax Christi

  • Metalogic42

    Andrew Prizzi,

    Re your first two paragraphs: Ok, so same-sex couples want to do this thing which (to you) looks similar to marriage, but actually is something else. Let’s call it “schmarriage”. In short: they want to go to their local courthouse, obtain a “marriage certificate”, have a ceremony, live together, file taxes together, have sex with each other, sleep together, be able to make medical decisions for each other, etc.

    I’m going to assume you believe that people have free will (correct me if I’m wrong, it’s just that most people do). Given that, same-sex couples have the *ability* to do all these things, even if they’re sins or if God doesn’t like them. So, if this is the case, I see three options for you here:

    1) argue that people should be allowed to sin if they so desire, in which case “schmarriage” should be allowed.
    2) argue that people should *not* be allowed to sin if they so desire, in which case not keeping the sabbath should *not* be allowed (and not attending church should be illegal).
    3) argue that people should be allowed to sin in some ways but not others, in which case you need an argument for why not attending church should be legal but “schmarriage” should not be.

    —-
    Re the rest:

    I agree that not believing in God doesn’t make him cease to exist, and that believing doesn’t make him start existing. But given what I said above, I don’t think we need to come to a consensus on whether he does (that’s probably not possible here anyway).

    I don’t think there’s been an increase in SSA, though (or at least, not one greater than normal random variation in population numbers. Rather, I think it’s just that fewer people these days feel the need to hide it.

    I also continue to oppose your link between divorce etc. and homosexuality. I agree that there doesn’t need to be a 100% link in order to show causation, but in reality, the supposed link is far, far lower than 100%.

    1) A 2011 gallup poll reported that 3.4% of adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx)
    2) Statistics on divorce rates aren’t as clear, but I’ve seen claimed it’s between 30% and 60% - this is far, far higher than 3.4%, and not even all of that 3.4% of LGBT people are going to be in this group. Not even most.
    3) The rate of childhood sexual abuse has been going *down* (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/rate-of-child-sexual-abuse-on-the-decline.html?_r=0), this is contrary to an apparent rise in homosexuality if there’s causation.

    Finally, saying that some people “suffer” from SSA is rather condescending. Do you “suffer” from being a Christian?

  • Andrew Prizzi

    Metalogic42,

    I’ll take your last point first, being a Catholic is a great blessing. While I don’t suffer from SSA, I have plenty of temptations and failings of my own. We all suffer from the Fall and have what is called concupiscence- an inclination towards evil and disorder. Christ offers us the Way of the Cross, and through that way we can turn our sufferings into our joys.

    Your point on free will is a very important one. I do believe in free will. A great many people in this debate seem not to. I draw a careful distinction between the person with a same-sex attraction who makes the choice to act on that attraction and the person who makes the choice to not to act on it. So much discussion on the topic of sex, both between members of the opposite sex and the same sex, is based on the premise that people MUST act out their attractions, and that discipline, chastity, is either unhealthy or impossible.

    As for your first 3 options…
    I’ll take number 3, as I think any reasonable person would. Do you believe every possible action should be allowed by the civil law? If not, there goes #1. Do you believe that everything you think is wrong should be banned by the civil law? If not, there goes #2. Which leaves us with #3. Catholics call this principle subsidiarity. Not all issues are best dealt with at the same level. If my pitches a fit about what we’re having for dinner, he is violating the 4th commandment. I don’t need federal agents to bust down my door and deal with the problem though- that would cause more problems than good. As a father, I’m equipped to handle the situation better than the state is. Marriage, an institution whose primary purpose is the creation and education of children, is fairly important to the state, seeing as without children, the state will cease to exist. Marriage has a secondary purpose of the mutual benefit of the spouses. It protects women especially from abuse and abandonment. Here the state also has a great interest in safeguarding the institution.

    Pax Christi

  • Metalogic42

    Andrew Prizzi,

    Many people would say that their attraction to the same sex is a great blessing. Many would also say that your catholicism is not a blessing, because you are beholden to the will of the church. The point I was getting at is that you are not in a position to claim that someone other than yourself is suffering from SSA, especially when their own testimony says they are not suffering at all. (Likewise, a non-catholic shouldn’t claim you’re suffering from catholicism for the same reason).

    ” So much discussion on the topic of sex, both between members of the opposite sex and the same sex, is based on the premise that people MUST act out their attractions, and that discipline, chastity, is either unhealthy or impossible. ”

    I’d say it depends on scope. I agree that discipline is a good thing in the short term (i.e. don’t go sleeping around with strangers), but not in the long term. As you may or may not be aware (I have no details about your personal life), being in a long-term relationship can be extremely fulfilling. I’d say that a lifetime of chastity is actually a vice given the possibility of such a relationship.

    ” Marriage, an institution whose primary purpose is the creation and education of children, is fairly important to the state, seeing as without children, the state will cease to exist. Marriage has a secondary purpose of the mutual benefit of the spouses.”

    It is not the case that allowing same-sex marriage will result in fewer children, though. Straight people aren’t going to suddenly decide they’re going to get gay married, and gay couples aren’t going to suddenly “straighten up”. So why not let same-sex couples have that secondary purpose?

    ” It protects women especially from abuse and abandonment. Here the state also has a great interest in safeguarding the institution.”

    If two women marry, wouldn’t that be double protection, then? (I don’t agree with this point though - some husbands do in fact abuse their wives, and sometimes the difficulty of divorces can make it harder for them to “get away”.)

  • Andrew Prizzi

    So if people disagree about something, then we should simply “agree to disagree” and take a “neutral” stance with our laws? Well, a shoplifter might see taking something from the store without paying for it as a great blessing. The storeowner is likely to disagree. By your standard, it seem like there is no way to know which of them is correct? Or maybe both are right, or neither are right. In any case, laws against shoplifting would be arbitrary and condescending.

    I agree that long term consequences are more important than short term ones. The obvious related question is what happens to people after they die? If people are immortal, then our earthly lifetimes are very short term indeed.

    Pax Christi

  • Gian

    Metalogic42,
    The State is concerned with natural felicity of the people and not with the sins. A sin is an offense against God and thus pertains to the supernatural felicity. Of course, the natural realm is both grounded in and points towards the supernatural realm and there does not exist a total disjunction between “sins” and “crimes”. It is a matter of judgment to be settled by a people.

    The state can define a civil marriage howsoever it likes but if the state fails to understand and recognize what a marriage is, it invites divine judgment. It is a matter of speaking, in the same way a man invites divine judgment when he fails to recognize the law of gravity or the law of electricity.

    The Church is both natural and supernatural. As a natural organization of citizens, she has full right to take part in political debates and to seek to realize her vision of the Good, naturally speaking,
    Supernaturally, she seeks the salvation of all individuals, but that is not pertinent in a political discussion.

  • Gian

    A good discussion of marriage is taking place at http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net.

    I would add that while marriage is for children, another way to express this would be to say with Aristotle that family is an irreducible entity along with the City (in the sense of the ancients) and the individual.

    Why tax breaks for the married couple and why estate tax breaks for the widow etc-all these matters are easier to appreciate when we regard a man and his wife, not as two individuals but as an irreducible couple.

    Why State should recognize marriage is that marriage is not merely a matter of union of a man and a woman. The union is celebrated in the City. It is a public union. With Aristotle, man is a political animal, thus city-living. A City is a particular self-ruling morally authoritive community and is necessarily involved in marriage.
    A private marriage is not much of a marriage. It may be sacramental (that is, may be required supernatural character) but lacks the required natural character. The dual nature of marriage also needs to be kept in mind.

  • Ulrich vom Hagen

    Hello Andrew,
    A very fundamentalist Roman piece. Thought-provoking, although the homophobic conclusion is a bit of a stretch.
    Marriage was not identified as a sacrament by the Church until the 12th century. In some traditional Anglican and Lutheran currents, it is common to refer to matrimony as being “sacramental” in the sense that a good marriage is an outward sign of inner grace. And those who are involved in ecumenical dialogue and debate could find grounds for agreement about marriage, should more serious issues still dividing Reformers and Romans be resolved.