The Meaning of Marriage

Homily for the Twenty Second Sunday in Ordinary Time
August 31, 2003
Fr. Kurt Nagel, Queen of Angels Parish

This is the second of a two part homily. Last week I spoke of the growing controversy in our society surrounding marriage and human sexuality, particularly as they relate to homosexuality. I decided to speak about this because it is so topical. As I mentioned a week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this summer that it's unconstitutional to outlaw homosexual acts. The Episcopalians elected their first openly, active homosexual bishop a few weeks ago and agreed to bless homosexual unions. Canada, Holland and Belgium have redefined marriage to include homosexual couples alongside heterosexuals. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is expected to do the same thing any time now. All this has brought to the surface a debate about just what IS marriage.

Before addressing that issue, first, a brief review. Last week I concentrated upon the meaning of human sexuality, that it is restricted to marriage, and that it has two purposes within marriage that can't be separated; the procreation of children, and the bonding and uniting of husband and wife so that they can more readily raise, nourish, and educate those children.

I also want to stress again that while homosexual acts are sinful, the homosexual orientation, not being a choice, is neither morally good or bad. And we must respect and love persons of BOTH heterosexual and homosexual orientations, as God does.

I did forget to mention last week that there are pamphlets in the vestibule advertising Courage, the Catholic organization for homosexuals that seeks to support their living a chaste lifestyle. There is also an organization called Encourage for family and friends of those struggling with homosexuality. Call the Seattle "Courage" chapter for more information.

I now want to turn to marriage itself as it figures in the current debate. Last week I made the distinction between persons of homosexual orientation, who must always be respected, and the Gay Rights ideology. This movement seeks not the mere legal toleration of homosexual acts, but their acceptance as morally and legally equivalent to heterosexual acts—and homosexual unions as true marriages. That ideology insists that to limit marriage to one man and one woman is an unjustified form of discrimination. That ideology must be opposed by the Church because it is contrary to the Truth.

In our first reading today from Deuteronomy Moses says, "In your observance of the commandments of the Lord, your God . . . you should not add to what I command you nor subtract from it." And the gospel warns of the dangers in substituting human precepts for God's commandments. But that is exactly what changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions would do.

A month ago the Vatican published a document on this issue. It stated that the natural truth about marriage's most basic principles was confirmed by revelation in the biblical account of human creation in the Book of Genesis. There are three fundamental elements of God's plan for marriages found there.

First, Genesis teaches that "male and female he created them."(Gen 1:27). Man and Woman complement one another. There is a natural fit, not only biologically, but spiritually.

Second, marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is formed by means of our sexual powers. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh."(Gen 2:24)

Third, God wills to give the union of man and woman a special participation in the creation and education of new human beings. "Be fruitful and multiply," God says.(Gen 1:28) In God's plan, then, the sexual complementarity of man and woman and their fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Although I've just noted scriptural passages, this understanding of marriage is part of natural law, open to human reason, not a matter of the Catholic faith alone. Non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians alike can, and do, hold the same beliefs. Marriage pre-dates Christianity. It predates our government or any government. Therefore, marriage is not the state's to redefine. For a government to define marriage to include homosexual unions is like passing a law making 2+2=5. It doesn't and can't change reality. It would just force us to pretend, and live a lie.

Now, the state DOES have a vested interest in marriage and has historically regulated, protected and rewarded marriage. And rightly so, but not because marriage is a creation of the state, or its servant. Rather, the state is interested in marriage because marriage is the fundamental institution of the family, and the family is the basic building block of the state because families produce children. And strong families produce good citizens. The institution of marriage, therefore, has historically been protected and favored over all other relationships, not out of homophobia or the desire to discriminate, but because of its vital role in the procreation and education of children—the continuation of the human race.

Stepping back for the moment from any consideration of individuals' happiness, as the natural source of human reproduction, marriage is uniquely necessary for the common good, the good of ALL society, in a way homosexual unions simply are not. Just as individual homosexual acts are not capable of procreation, so homosexual unions lack the capacity for new life. That is why marriage defined as the place of reproduction, has always been given, and must retain, exclusive privileges and protection.

You might object that not all children are products of marriage. True. And not all marriages produce children. Also true. There are cases of infertility due to advanced age or health condition. These situations can be true crosses for a couple, but they don't exclude marriage as long as the couple does not itself refuse children in their marriage by their own actions. Infertility is God's responsibility, not ours.

You might also object that, with adoption and new reproductive technologies, homosexual couples can "have" children. True again, although the Church condemns such technologies precisely because they separate sex from procreation. Yes, there are, of course, circumstances, sometimes understandable, sometimes sad, when children are not conceived, raised and educated in a home consisting of a husband/father and wife/mother. Nevertheless, that has been the ideal and norm—norm not only numerically (that has slipped grievously in western society), but "norm" in that this is according to God's design.

To pass a law, therefore, creating the legal fiction of marriage by not distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual couples would be an attempt to completely re-define society's most basic institution. It would remove reproduction as a fundamental part of marriage. And take away the reproductive element and marriage becomes simply a contract between any two persons—or group of persons, since there's no particular reason such an arrangement need be limited to two partners if it is not based upon a father and mother. Such a marriage would then simply be a contract to share property and benefits, and manage the financial responsibilities of living together. Admittedly, this has been the direction that marriage in the west has been going for some time now. But such a formal re-definition would be destructive for us as a society because we would be proclaiming that the procreation of children is not one of the necessary purposes of marriage, when, in fact, the procreation of children is, if not the only, the central reason for its existence.

The very notion of homosexuals even being considered eligible for marriage could only happen because the procreation of children has already largely faded as a central element of heterosexual marriages in the popular imagination. But, one might ask, if openness to life and the procreation of children are not an integral part of heterosexual sex, then just how DOES that sexual activity differ morally or theologically from homosexual acts?

Children have become a lifestyle choice rather than an automatic part of married people's assumptions about the future. Despite all the talk of an over-population crisis, in Western Europe there is a growing demographic crisis because there are no longer enough children to replace the dying. In America we're not far behind. The sexual revolution of the 1960s, which was supposed to give individuals greater freedom, undermined the common good because separating sex from procreation (the goal of the sexual revolution—achieved in contraception and, its inevitable shadow, abortion) has, thus, over the course of decades, by watering down the reproductive purpose of marriage, eaten away at its very meaning. As difficult as it is for many to live out, in light of this crisis of homosexual marriage, the reason for the Church's doctrine against contraception has become more obvious, more prophetic and the cost of ignoring it ever more clear.

Proponents of expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions downplay the fundamental shift it would produce. It might take decades to have its effect, just as the sexual revolution has. But, make no mistake, such an action would hopelessly confuse the meaning of human sexuality in our culture. And the re-definition of marriage to exclude any necessary connection with the procreation of children would produce, in fact, a brand new institution despite retaining the old name. And with that revolution - since marriage has been the foundational institution of our social life for thousands of years, a new civilization would arise, founded in direct contradiction to natural law and the Creator's design, a civilization which I can only vaguely imagine, but in which I certainly would not wish to live.

"In your observance of the commandments of the Lord . . . you should not add to what I command you nor subtract from it." In the days, months and years to come we Americans will face the question, "Do we include homosexuals in the legal definition of marriage?" The Catholic Church sees and warns against such a change as an example of human willfulness overthrowing God's commandment.

This opposition to so-called "homosexual marriage" is not based upon the hatred or fear of homosexual persons, but upon a love for all persons shown by protecting God's design and command to make the marriage of man and woman the cradle of human life. We do all struggle with our flaws, weaknesses and sins—homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. But in our desire to show mercy and understanding we must beware the arrogance and danger of thinking we are our own creators and our existence is infinitely malleable to our own wills. We must not, in the name of freedom and tolerance, play God.

 

Copyright © 2003 by Fr. Kurt Nagel. Used with permission.

Instruction concerning the criteria for the discernment of vocations with regard to persons with homosexual tendencies in view of their admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

(Congregation for Catholic Education, November 4, 2005) This document gives the criteria for dealing with candidates for the priesthood who have struggled with same-sex attraction.

Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons

(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003) Addresses Catholic teaching regarding government recognition of same-sex unions.

Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons

(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, July 22, 1992) This statement deals with legislative matters related to homosexuality.

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1, 1986) This letter is the most in-depth treatment of homosexuality yet given by the Vatican.

Persona humana: Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics

(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 7, 1975) The declaration follows Humanae vitae as one of the Church's earliest responses to the sexual revolution. It responds to a wide range of topics in sexual ethics, including homosexuality.

Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care (PDF)

(United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 14, 2006) This statement provides basic guidelines for pastoral ministry to persons with a homosexual inclination or tendency. These guidelines are intended to assist bishops in evaluating existing or proposed programs and ministerial efforts and to provide direction and guidance for those engaged in this ministry.

Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions

(United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 12, 2003) A reflection by the Catholic Bishops, appealing to both faith and reason, about the meaning of marriage, its purposes, and its value to individuals, families, and society.

Courage

Courage was founded in 1980 at the direction of the late Terrance Cardinal Cooke. Fr. John Harvey, assisted by Fr. Benedict Groeschel, created the organization to provide moral, spiritual, and fraternal to Catholics struggling with same-sex attraction. With the endorsement of the Holy See, Courage now has more than 110 Chapters and contact people world-wide, over 1500 persons participating in its ListServs, and hundreds of persons per week receiving assistance from the main office and website. A sister organization, Encourage, supports parents, siblings, children, and other relatives and friends of persons who have same-sex attractions. The current director of Courage and Encourage is Fr. Paul Check.

Christian Anthropology and Homosexuality Series

This 1997 series on Homosexuality was published in L'Osservatore Romano, the semi-official newspaper of the Holy See. Covers a wide range of topics with input from specialists in a variety of disciplines.

The Psychology of Temptation

A talk by Fr. Jeffrey Keefe, O.F.M.Conv. Ph.D., S.T.L., given at the 2002 Courage Conference in San Diego. Fr. Keefe draws on his knowledge of both psychology and pastoral care to give insight into the nature of temptation and how to overcome it.

Homilies on Catholic Teaching Concerning Homosexuality

Two homilies preached at by Fr. Kurt Nagel looking at the "hard sayings" of the Church on homosexuality. The first argues that these hard sayings are for our own happiness, since Christ "has the words of everlasting life." The second explores the call to fidelity to Marriage as God ordained it. "In your observance of the commandments of the Lord, your God," Moses said, "you should not add to what I command you nor subtract from it": But that is exactly what changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions would do.