Ode to Frank Sheed: A 'Secular' (Natural Law) Defense of Marriage

For the question is not whether the law is old, but whether it is a law.

In response to (and in support of) Jennifer Hartline's commentary on the National Review's "The Case for Marriage," I would like to add the following thoughts-from a purely secular rather than religious perspective. They build upon the work of the great apologist Frank Sheed: "The moral law is no more made by man, or dependent on the approval of man, or in any way escapable by man than the material law. Man can ignore the moral law as he can ignore the material law, but the result in both cases is his own diminution or destruction." 

P>GRAND RAPIDS, MI (Catholic Online) -  In response to (and in support of) Jennifer Hartline's commentary on the National Review's "The Case for Marriage," I would like to add the following thoughts-from a purely secular rather than religious perspective.

In his 1933 book A Map of Life, Frank Sheed, a Catholic lay apologist whose work is still as vital and worth reading as it was decades ago, offered these observations on the laws of nature:

"Very early in life, man becomes aware that he is living in a world of laws: ...he discovers that fire burns, that hunger weakens, that rain wets, that bodies fall toward the earth and not toward the sky, and so with a myriad other things. If he reflects at all upon these laws, he realizes that they are not of his choosing-in fact that, in many cases, they are the reverse of what he would have chosen-but that their power is in no way affected by his disapproval. There is no way in which he can get free of them."

"He can act as though they did not exist, in which case they damage or even destroy him. If he is a sane man, he may dislike them but he accepts them and does his best to live in accordance with them. In any case, there is no such thing as freedom from them, but only freedom within them. And freedom within them can be attained only by one who knows them. This knowing them is always a matter of discovery and not invention; in other words, one finds out what they are, one cannot in any way make them to be."

Moving from the laws of nature to the laws of morality which flow from them, Sheed continued:

"The moral law is no more made by man, or dependent on the approval of man, or in any way escapable by man than the material law. Man can ignore the moral law as he can ignore the material law, but the result in both cases is his own diminution or destruction."

The founders of the United States recognized this central, inevitable truth about the source not only of laws, but of all human rights as well, when they wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence. The first sentence of this birth certificate of our nation recognizes and upholds "the laws of nature" as binding on us all. The second sentence proclaims: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...."

This founding document of our nation recognizes natural law as the basis of all laws and rights, acknowledging that humanity did not create the world or itself. Our founders held that human reason-apart from any religious influences-leads us to recognize that the world and all its inhabitants were created by some power outside of ourselves--whatever that power may be--and thus all rights are endowed upon us by this unnamed "Creator"--we don't decide rights or assume rights upon ourselves. Rights are discovered-not made-by human beings as they reflect upon natural law.

In reference to marriage specifically, Sheed wrote the following:

"One hears the phrase that the modern man is no longer to be bound by the two-thousand-year-old law of marriage. It is as though one were to say that it was beneath the dignity of modern man to be bound by the even older law of gravity. For the question is not whether the law is old, but whether it is a law. A man might very well say that he would not be bound by the law of gravity, yet he would be well advised to keep his affirmation within the sphere of words. Let him push it to act, and he will no longer be a modern man but a corpse, part of that history that, in his newness, he so heartily despises."

Sheed raised the question we face today about the nature of marriage: "The question is not whether the law is old, but whether it is a law." Human reflection across the centuries has discerned through natural law (the foundation of our system of law) that our "Creator" created us in two complimentary sexes, and that the union of these two sexes in a committed, life-long relationship constitutes marriage. Since marriage is the basis of family, the foundational unit of human society, certain rights have been discovered-not invented-as pertaining to persons who enter into marriage, rights that do not pertain to persons in other kinds of relationships.

While we recognize through natural law that all people are created equal, not all are created with the same access to life's varied treasures. For example, a man is not allowed by nature to fulfill perhaps the most incredible role a human being can perform-conceiving, nurturing and giving birth to a new human life. A man may claim the "right" to have a baby, but nature will simply not allow him to do so. This is not because nature has rendered men inferior to women; it simply has other roles for men to perform.

The same can be said of two people of the same sex who desire to be married. They may claim the right to do so, but nature simply does not allow it. This fact does not make homosexual persons inferior; it gives them a different role to play--in committed friendship--which can help them pursue their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The question often arises from good people: "How would 'homosexual marriage' threaten my heterosexual marriage?" I propose these questions to ponder: When I see a homeless, starving family from Africa on the evening news, how does that threaten my well-housed, well-fed family in America? If I see them as posing no threat, then why should I be concerned about them? Are there any connections between the answers to all of these questions?

In the history of our nation we have gradually come to recognize-not invent-rights that were once denied to certain people, such as African-Americans and women, to name just two groups. People often like to equate homosexual persons' campaigns for marriage rights to those movements. This is an apples to oranges comparison.

Natural law clearly reveals that people of all skin colors are people, and as such must be treated with equal dignity. Natural law also clearly reveals that women are equal members of society, and as such must have the same opportunities to participate in economic and political life. Natural law does not clearly reveal that persons of the same sex can come together in marriage, in which the physical sexual union of complimentary persons and the ability to procreate are recognized as primary attributes.

As some governments begin to recognize homosexual marriage, a deeper problem arises for society as a whole. Whereas heterosexual marriage is recognized universally, homosexual couples are recognized as married only in some jurisdictions. The stability of the family-the foundational unit of society-requires a universal definition recognized globally, so that a family is a family everywhere and not just in certain locations. History, reason and natural law stand squarely on the side of a monogamous, heterosexual definition.

"For the question is not whether the law is old, but whether it is a law."

-----

James Penrice is the author of nine books, a correspondent for Catholic Athletes for Christ, and a contributor to Catholic Online.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online