The Equality Fallacy Part II: A Brief Digression

As I continue this series of posts on the topic of gay marriage, let me digress for a moment to write a few comments on a slightly different but related subject. After publishing the first post in this series, a good Evangelical friend of mine sent me a PM on Facebook about the post. He was positive towards most of the content, but requested that I explain why I wrote that only the Roman Catholic Church was fully equipped to deal with the secular world on the matter of homosexuality and gay marriage. He wrote that he was confident that he could debate the issue, as an Evangelical, from even a non-Biblical perspective. Since I usually try to be as ecumenical as possible on my weblog, and try to not issue such non-ecumenical statements without giving solid reasons, I felt that the question merited a detailed response. And since I wrote that somewhat untactful comment here on my blog, I have decided to offer my reply here.

First, before answering the "why" or "how", allow me to address the "what". I would like to clarify precisely what I meant before explaining the reasoning process behind it. Most importantly, I was referring to Churches in their official sense, in their public teachings, not to individuals within those Churches. My friend writes that he is confident that he could debate the gay marriage issue with the secular world, and I do not question that for a minute. As an individual he is probably far better able to debate the topic than I am. (I tend to not be very good at face-to-face debates, which is why I like to write...) The fact that I was not referring to individuals in my original statement may be clearly seen from the fact that after describing the Catholic Church as the only Church equipped to fully tackle the issue, I then sharply criticized the Church for performing miserably on this very topic. I cited homosexual priest as an example. The fault for this poor performance rests on the shoulders of individuals (liberal Bishops, unconcerned pew-warmers, dissident nuns, etc.), but not upon the official teachings of the Church herself. This distinction between the individual and the official teaching of any Church is a crucial one, and most always be kept in mind in such discussions.

Very well, then. I was referring to the fact that I believe that the Catholic Church's official teaching on marriage, sexuality, etc., and her understanding of gender and family issues, is the best able to approach a secular/agnostic world on the issue of gay marriage. What are my reasons for thinking so? There are several, but I would focus on two central issues, which may be expressed in two words: contraception and divorce.

In 1930, at the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church accepted, for the first time, the use of sexual contraceptives. Their use, as described by the Conference, was for extreme circumstances only. While the "hard case" scenario is at least understandable (though still misguided), the Lambeth Conference proved to be but the first drop in an eventual watershed. Within a few short decades nearly every Protestant Church had followed  suit, and I am aware of no major Protestant denomination today that officially forbids the use of contraceptives. While I recognize that these Churches do not consider themselves bound to history or tradition, I do find it somewhat shocking that contraceptives were so easily accepted in the face of nearly two thousand years of Christian opposition, dating back even to the very early Fathers of the Church.

Let us pause here to remind ourselves what marriage is not. It not a legal contract. It is not merely emotion. It is not even just a vow. It requires sexual intercourse for its definition. Where sex has not yet taken place, the marriage is not yet consummated. Sex is central to marriage, and lies at the roots of our understanding of marriage. Contraception is an act which applies specifically to sex. Contraception strikes at, and alters, the traditional understanding of the purpose of sex, and thus violently alters the traditional understanding of marriage. Contraception puts a cap on the life-giving purpose of sexual intercourse, and has helped to lead us to the culture of death in which we now live.

In what way does contraception alter our understanding of marriage? Since sex is central to marriage, let us remember that their are three aspects to sex. Sex is pleasurable, it is a form of intimacy, and it is the act which leads to procreation. All three aspects are valuable, but they must be placed within a hierarchy. The most obvious aspect of sex, naturally and biologically, is that of procreation. It is here that the great gift of life has been placed into the bodies of men and women, where we become almost as gods, taking part in the creation of new, living persons. The point of pleasure is to lead us towards a goal, as food is tasty to entice us to eat. When the pleasure of a thing is sought solely for its own sake, however, we are in danger of becoming imbalanced. Now the pleasure of sex leads us toward two things, intimacy and procreation. Procreation is only possible between two people of opposite sex. But the contraceptive mindset (which has long left the "hard case" scenarios, and is accepted for any reason or no reason whatsoever), leaves us with the misguided understanding that sex is about only pleasure and intimacy. Children are merely an option, not an integral aspect of sex. Now intimacy is quite possible between two people of the same sex. Pleasure is equally possible between two people of the same sex.

It is not hard to see where this leads. If our understanding of sex is changed, then our understanding of marriage is changed. Let me be quite clear. We can only oppose gay marriage from a non-Biblical perspective if we can defend the traditional understanding of marriage. Contraception and divorce are the two great blows that have in great measure destroyed the traditional understanding of marriage, leaving us severely handicapped. The gay rights activists believe that marriage is nothing more than a legal contract involving love and sexual intimacy. Too many churches are painting almost precisely the same picture, except they believe that marriage is also God-ordained, and for some reason should only be between a man and a woman. When contraception enters the picture, the traditional view of marriage begins to crumble. I have a difficult time writing this in response to an Evangelical friend who might, for all I know, accept contraception. In no way am I trying to be judgmental, nor am I unaware of many solid marriages in which the couple uses contraception unwittingly. But I have been asked to give a reply.

Divorce undermines traditional marriage as well. The history of Christian divorce has its pivotal moment also in the Anglican Church, but we must be careful understand it correctly. The very word "divorce" has greatly changed in meaning since the days of Henry VIII. In the traditional Catholic viewpoint marriage is a sacrament consummated by sexual intercourse. It is indissoluble. The Church takes very seriously this matter of "What God has joined, let no man put asunder". Yet there is the matter of Catholic annulments. This must be understood precisely. An annulment is often seen as the Catholic equivalent of divorce. It is not. The Church forbids divorce, and annulment is no cop-out. An annulment is the dissolving of the legal ties of marriage, based upon evidence that the marriage was never valid in the first place. For example, if one of the spouses was forced to marry against his/her will then the marriage was never valid. If the couple went through the legal ceremony but never consummated it sexually, then the marriage is dissoluble, etc. Although the word "divorce" was used in Henry VIII's time, that word was being used in precisely the same way as we would use "annul". It would have been pointless for the King to petition the Pope to grant a divorce in the modern sense of the word. Rather, Henry's whole case rested upon desperately trying to prove that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was never valid. However, no satisfactory evidence was ever presented to prove his case, but in the end the Archbishop of Canterbury gave the "divorce" anyway. And the rest, as they say, is history.

In spite of Henry's divorce, most western nations (even Protestant ones) remained strongly opposed to divorce in the modern sense for a very long time, in some cases centuries. The United States did not accept "no-fault" divorce until less than a century ago. Dear Ireland, poor wounded Bride of Christ, held out much longer. Yet divorce has found its way deeply into the Evangelical Churches. It is quite true that Evangelicals genreally view divorce with horror, and strenuously oppose the damage it does to families and society, yet I feel that an increasingly legal view of marriage has done its damage here as well. The proof is in the pudding. Many a Protestant pastor would counsel a couple against divorce, but how many do you know who would refuse to marry a person who had been divorced? This is a point well worth thinking about....

Divorce has nearly wrecked traditional marriage, and the acceptance of it is an Achilles heel to those who defend traditional marriage. How does one strive with all of one's might to defend the traditional understanding of marriage, and yet willy-nilly accept "no-fault" divorce?

The Protestant and Evangelical Churches can oppose gay  marriage from a thousand points. I do not argue that fact. But the twin problem of divorce and contraception has done so much to destroy marriage and our understanding of it, that I feel no compunction about repeating my belief that only the Roman Catholic Church is fully equipped to defend it, and to oppose gay marriage. I might mention the Orthodox as well, but the voice of the Orthodox Churches in the public sphere in the United States is exponentially smaller (though immensely valuable) than that of the Catholic Church.

Thus far I have only mentioned the negative reasons for my statement. But I also firmly believe that the positive side of the Church's understanding of marriage, sexuality, family, and gender issues, is  an invaluable weapon in this battle. Peruse the key points of Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body", and you may also be convinced that the voice of the Catholic Church is like no other on these topics.

I hope that I have offended no one of good will in this post. I also recognize that I have offered virtually no Scriptural arguments for my opposition to contraception and divorce. These must wait for another time. For now I am simply giving reasons for the statement I made in my previous post. I also feel a little apologetic for having made that statement in so un-ecumenical a tone, but if it leads to fruitful dialogue I will not be too sorry.