Confronting the Unreality of Same Sex 'Marriage'

1/14/2013

(Page 2 of 3)

things, of natural things, including natural institutions. Art (techne) and convention (nomos) become superior to nature (physis), and even begin to work at cross purposes with it.

Given this mindset, all things--and this includes marriage and all natural institutions--become subject exclusively to art (techne). Art for art's sake. Science for science's sake. Laws for laws' sake. Profits for profits' sake. Marriage for marriage's sake. There is no natural morality walking about and governing our modern artists, scientists, politicians, businessmen, or advocates of same sex "marriage."

The poet David Jones called the event that caused this "the Break." It is the rejection of nature as a God-given limit, as a source of meaning. It finds its source in the Enlightenment, but it has continued forward as if it were a destructive juggernaut. Whatever created thing hits "the Break" is broken. Once "the Break" hit marriage, and marriage suffered the effects of "the Break," marriage was broken. Same-sex "marriage" is the result of the natural institution of marriage that has suffered "the Break."

Once appropriated by modern man and rejected as a source of meaning, nature loses its significatory or symbolic message. Since grace builds upon nature, it follows that when nature suffers "the Break," the sacraments suffer as well because the sacraments build upon the symbolic or significatory meaning in natural things (bread, wine, oil, water, marriage, conjugal sex, etc.).

That is certainly true of the sacrament of marriage. In his letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul talks about the natural institution of marriage: "For this reason, man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh." (Eph. 5:31). That's nature.

Immediately, building upon natural marriage, follows the sacrament: "This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and the Church." (Eph. 5:32) That's grace.

In a sense, the sacrament of marriage does not destroy the original, natural institution, but perfects it. But it also presupposes it.

To marriage, which is a natural something-God-given-worked-with, something with all its inherent signs and symbols (complementarity of the sexes, openness to life, fidelity, monogamy), is superadded grace, a supernatural something-God-given-worked with.

Like the natural institution of marriage, a natural gift, the sacrament of marriage is also something given, a supernatural gift. For this reason, the Church has no authority to dicker with, to change, or to re-work the fundamental law of marriage, whether natural or supernatural.

"Therefore, what God has joined, let no man put asunder." (Mark 10:9)

When the natural institution of marriage suffers "the Break," something we are witnessing even now, its natural symbols are destroyed. There is no natural significance or symbolic meaning left in same sex "marriage." That's why it is no marriage at all, but a mockery of marriage, an ape of marriage, a travesty of marriage. It is an equivocal, an unreal marriage.

It is unable to hold any natural signification or symbolism which means, of course, it is not open to any sacramental grace which builds on natural signs and symbols. A sacrament is both a sign of the underlying reality and a cause of the underlying reality. If there is no underlying natural reality, no sign or symbol, it simply can't exist.

You can't baptize with dirt (you need water). A dog cannot confess (you need a person who can both sin, and confess sins). A woman cannot be ordained a priest (you need a man, an adam). You cannot receive last rites with toothpaste (you need oil). Two men or two women cannot marry (you need one man and one woman).

Same sex "marriage" is not only intrinsically lacking in complementarity of the sexes, it is intrinsically sterile. It is unnatural, has no natural significance or symbol, and cannot transmit or hold or contain, as it were, any grace.

It is as graceless as it is unnatural.

There is no natural good in it upon which grace can build. Same sex "marriage" is at most a human artifice, and an ugly one at that. Only a natural good can be a carrier of grace. An artifice--especially one which is unreal--cannot be a carrier of sacramental grace. It is as elusive a thing because as unreal a thing as the smile on a Cheshire cat.

Grace, a supernatural reality, requires nature, a natural reality. Something as unnatural as same-sex "marriage" is unreality.

In one of his sermons, John Henry Newman declaimed against "unreal words." In the sermon, ...
- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords: homosexual marriage, gay marriage, marriage, natural institution, Andrew M. Greenwell

NEWSLETTERS »

Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 5 of 5 Comments

DLL
4 months ago
Same sex attraction is to have enough respect for the same sex as to never have same sex sex.This also applies to children as well. Never have sex same or otherwise with children and certainly never babies. Opposite sex attraction is enough respect for the opposite sex so that sex is procreative and relations are saved until after the couple is married. That is what love and respect for each others sexuality means. That is true for every human being not just members of the Catholic Church. This is common sense. This sense of a common sense is the basis for the common law,now common law is being destroyed by the GBLT agenda. Gay,lesbian,bisexual,trans-sexual,excludes the rights of all heterosexuals,that is discrimination for those who wish to be obedient to the laws of God and the rules of common law,which is simple common sense. The law is becoming an impediment unto itself because it is losing its definition. The law should never be proposed and inacted on some principal of an agenda that has its basis in the kind of reasoning that basically proposes that the ultimate point of view is one where there is none at all. The church teaches right from wrong and so does all math and science which strives to to this as well. Even in training a dog their is a right and wrong way to do it. Their is a right and a wrong way in the way human beings relate to each other. The Catholic Church as well as any human resource department in any employment situation teaches right from wrong. The author of this article writes from a standpoint of love for others and that there is a right and wroong way in human relationships,not in disdain for others.
vance
4 months ago
Thank you Andrew for a great article. You touch on all the major points. The greatest point is that God created marriage and modern man is loath to accept it. I've made the point in the past that we can step outside religion and look at it in a pure scientific view. All of creation is heterosexual both organic and the inorganic. All organisms, save single cells, require a male-female component to reproduce. The laws of electricity works on positive-negative charges to function. When we try to put two magnets together at their same polls, they repulse. The opposite polls attract. This is why God says that sodomy ( Homosexuality ) is a rebellion against him. Because it is a rebellion against his creation which is the "Natural Order". Same sex attraction ( Homosexuality ) is a mental and spiritual disorder and should be treated as such.
Andrew M. Greenwell
4 months ago
@Tom McGuire: Thanks for your comments. You suggest that I am not compassionate, but I think that compassion must be built on truth, or it is false compassion. I am quite familiar with the struggle for purity and the difficulties of living an authentic human and Christian life, though mine have not happened to be involved in same-sex attraction. But it's not like those struggles are not part of my life, either, and I always ask for God's grace in the matter of chastity. I assure you by common consent that heterosexual persons suffer every bit as much a struggle for chastity as homosexual persons.

With respect to your question: your question is framed improperly. You ask "How does [a person born with an attraction for the same sex] enter into a relationship of love"?

By "relationship of love" you mean one of three things, I suppose.

First, let us suppose you mean by "enter into a relationship of love," love in the sense of "love your neighbor" or love of friendship, i.e., one without conjugal component. Then the answer to that question is that such a person must do so under the same restrictions and same conditions as any other person. Same sex attraction--supposing it is "a given, and not an opinion" as you dogmatically state--does not in any way change the patterns of love of neighbor or the love of friendship. It must be chaste, as it must be for any other human person.

If by "relationship of love" you mean a relationship involving conjugal sex, then a person with a same sex attraction has to have conjugal sex in the same way everyone else should: within a life-long marriage between a man and a woman that is exclusive and that is ordered to the procreation of children.

If by "love" you mean homosexual sexual activity, then you are playing games with words because homosexual genital activity is intrinsically disordered and cannot be, and never can be, and is always and in each instance opposed to, authentic love of the other person or authentic love of one's self. It cannot be the basis of a "relationship of love." It makes the mistake of equating (any kind of) sex with love. In such a case, the question itself is an oxymoron and is unanswerable (love is not equal to homosexual genital activity), is a loaded question by its implied assumptions (love equals homosexual genital activity), or collapses into a silly question, such as "How does [a person born with an attraction for the same sex] enter into homosexual genital activity"?
Tom McGuire
4 months ago
In your passion, I find no compassion for the person born with an attraction for the same sex. That is a given, not an opinion. How does that person enter into relationship of love?
abey
4 months ago
There is the difference between the Contract & the Covenant, where the former is to the convenience, the latter is to the truth by the reproduction, where the former is not anointed the latter is & hence Holy unto the Creator. Contracts are broken but not Covenants 'cause it is with the Lord. In terms of religion where is come the clash between the Pagan belief to the contracts & the True belief to the Covenant , the former is to the beliefs & ways of men whereas the latter is to the will of God which is the way of life, for that which is not to life is to death. So chose between life & death irrespective of what the Majority feels, for feelings are often deceptive & in this case sure is, to the Biblical words of the manner "Heaven & Earth may pass away but the word will remain" for in the beginning was the word & the word was with God & the word was God- The light of men for without it is darkness symbolized by these half naked protestors in the path to the nakedness -before God where contracts & contacts turn to dust like it happened in the very beginning.

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment