The Bishops of the Diocese of Los Angeles have finally managed to issue a statement on the California’s Supreme Court decision that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Looking at their statement I am not quite sure if it was worth the effort.
It starts off with the standard caveat that persons with same-sex attraction must be treated with respect, and compassion, and that no form of violence can be used against homosexual persons. While I understand such caveats and the truth behind them it always makes it sound as if it is Catholics are acting in this manner in the first place and have to be constantly reminded of this.
All people, regardless of sexual inclination, are called to holiness; and "should be encouraged to take an active roll in the faith community" and to live according to its teachings.
I think this part is badly worded since to me it makes it seems that the teachings are according to the "faith community" rather than ordered towards the whole Church. But I admit that is nit-picky. I prefer how the Catechism puts it.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
It then goes on:
Nonetheless, the Church cannot approve of redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God’s creation, joining a man and woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended.
This part is surely badly worded since it only seems aimed at one end of marriage and "committed relationship" is so broad that it hardly touches on the theology behind marriage. As the Catechism states "1601 The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring;" and 2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family." In a statement such as this obviously you are going to keep it short and not densely packed with theology, but you have to get the basics right.
The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition.
As Karen Hall says in her excellent fisk of this statement "I can make the exact same statement about Nascar." They have not made a very good natural law argument here which would have been appropriate.
The state has a primary and fundamental obligation to protect and promote the family, which is rooted in marriage and sustained by it.
This part I can totally agree with. The state though has done massive damage by not living up to this and is complicit in the destruction of families via no-fault divorce – one of the greatest evils of our time. Some argue that the state should just get out of the marriage business in the first place, but the reality is that it does have a duty to protect and promote the family and not a redefined family.
The statement then goes on to say that same-sex marriage is not required since basically same-sex partners can get benefits such as visitation rights and healthcare without it. From the whole statement you would basically have no idea that "homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."
I also found it interesting that none of the footnotes use Vatican documents. It seems to me that a statement of this type would do well to look at Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. But maybe that is just me.
6 comments
You wrote: “From the whole statement you would basically have no idea that “homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.””
Exactly. Therein lies the source of the problem, resulting both in the ineffectual manner of the bishops’ statements and in the failure of California residents to understand what is wrong with same-sex marriage.
One of the foundational premises must be the following: same-sex attraction (homosexuality) is a disorder. It is not a neutral condition, it is not a desirable condition, it is not a healthy condition, it is not a good condition, and it is not in any way equivalent to normal (heterosexual) sexual desire. Homosexuality is a disordered bodily/psychological condition.
Begin with that premise, and there’s no way that you can reason to the conclusion that same-sex unions ought to be given any legal recognition whatsoever (e.g. domestic partnerships), much less treated by law as an equivalent to the marriage of a man and a woman. Begin with the disorderedness of homosexuality, and you will reason correctly to the conclusion that a healthy society does not normalize, sanction, celebrate, nor solemnize deviant relationships.
But of course, these days anyone who states that homosexuality is a disorder will be looked at by about 50% of the population as a backwards, unenlightened, morally underdeveloped bigot.
Nevertheless, reason and common sense are all that are necessary to conclude that same-sex attraction is a disorder.
Is color blindness a visual disorder or merely a different visual orientation?
Is cardial arrhythmia a heart disorder or merely a different cardial orientation?
Is deafness a hearing disorder or merely a different audial orientation?
All three of the previous conditions are recognized as bodily disorders because a correct analysis of means and ends in understanding bodily functions is employed. The eye is ordered toward seeing the visual spectrum, the heart is ordered toward the efficient pumping of blood, and the ear is ordered toward hearing.
But regarding the analysis of homosexuality, the analysis of means and ends is jettisoned. Any fifth grader can tell you that the male and female anatomy are ordered toward each other. It takes a lot of leftist propaganda to condition people to think that the desire to unite your reproductive organ with the body of someone who has the same reproductive organ as yours is not a disordered desire. You see, we are told, it’s just a different orientation. Nevermind the physical complementarity between the opposite sexes; nevermind the reproductive purpose of the organs. Whereas the eye, heart and ear all have physical purposes, the only purpose of the genitals is “to express love and pleasure.”
Until the bishops have the courage to put first things first and state the truth plain and simple, that homosexuality is a disorder, then there is no hope of persuading people to oppose same-sex marriage.
As long as sexual desire is framed as orientation-neutral instead of in terms of means and ends (union of spouses and procreation) the argument against same-sex marriage is hopeless.
The bishops get a “D” from me for their statement.
It makes me wonder whether the bishops even believe in what Scripture and the Church’s doctrine teach about homosexuality. Such a mealy-mouthed statement as the one they produced sounds to me like it comes from people who feel an obligation to oppose something they secretly support but cannot admit to supporting.
Mark,
After that awesome post LA clergy will now be taking your name in vain.
This quote pretty much summarizes everything, “It makes me wonder whether the bishops even believe in what Scripture and the Church’s doctrine teach about homosexuality. Such a mealy-mouthed statement as the one they produced sounds to me like it comes from people who feel an obligation to oppose something they secretly support but cannot admit to supporting.”
Gravey,
Check out CCC 2012 and forward. Christian perfection refers to love of Christ, etc.
“Some argue that the state should just get out of the marriage business in the first place, but the reality is that it does have a duty to protect and promote the family and not a redefined family.”
I don’t think the State has a duty to do any such thing. All governments and states are completely free to self-destruct over time and mostly they will. We know this about secular government and it should be no great bother to us. What do we care if Caesar’s empire crumbles?
IMHO we got into this sordid mess by giving too much absolute power to the state to begin with, by allowing it to function in the place of religion. I just don’t think a judge or a court clerk has the authority to marry people.
Mark, great explanation
You’re a nicer grader than myself, they get an “F” from me.
Govermnen should be promoting the common good of society. I’ve yet to figure out how a mockery of Marriage is common good.
I tried to defend reproduction as the primary function of sexuality in a letter to the editor, but all my friends acted like I had just said the world was flat. But we all know what happens to cultures who don’t value reproduction…
It is as if farmers started throwing seeds on a gravel road and celebrating it as an alternative form of planting crops, even when nothing grows.