It is not same-sex advocates who wish to redefine marriage, it is the Catholic Church, at the highest levels, which already has! And in doing so, has paved the way for same-sex marriage. The Kansas bishops' statement gives evidence of this:
In addressing this issue we must begin by recalling that when asked about marriage, Jesus said: “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’?” (Matthew 19: 4) Scripture, biology, and the Natural Law reveal that it is God’s design that the two sexes are complementary. While Americans have a laudable desire to treat all people with equality, equality does not mean interchangeability. The well-intentioned desire to accept any and all circumstances is misplaced when it applies to an eternal institution such as marriage. We would further note that God’s plan for marriage is for the wellbeing of men and women. However it is also, and especially, for children. - Kansas Bishops Issue Statement on the Supreme Court Marriage Decisions, June 27, 2013
Notice that the bishops, in this statement, separate the supposedly inseparable unitive and procreative ends of marriage.
Biological complementarity is positioned as an isolated end, almost a first principle, while procreation is added as a "however" and an "also". Even adding the word "especially" doesn't help because identifying progeny as "special," still (if not further) separates the procreative ends.
Biological complementarity is positioned as an isolated end, almost a first principle, while procreation is added as a "however" and an "also". Even adding the word "especially" doesn't help because identifying progeny as "special," still (if not further) separates the procreative ends.
Modern Catholic teaching on marriage is rife with this kind of language and it descends from a novel insertion into the 1983 Code of Canon Law known in Latin as "bonum coniugum" or the "good of the spouses", an insertion which caused renowned canonists like Cormack Burke to scramble to manufacture a justification.
The essential squabble is whether the "bonum coniugum" is an END or a PROPERTY - a "good" of marriage. Seen as an "eternal good," in that marriage is a path to heaven - the "good of the spouses" as an "END of marriage" can be easily admitted.
But seen as an earthly "good,'" it simply translates into mutual satisfaction and spousal happiness, which is really no more than ONE of the "goods" of marriage, and only a potential good at that.
But seen as an earthly "good,'" it simply translates into mutual satisfaction and spousal happiness, which is really no more than ONE of the "goods" of marriage, and only a potential good at that.
Theologians may squabble over whether the 1983 canonical insertion of the "good of the spouses"* was a good idea or not, but the net effect was an immediate avalanche of annulment requests, the wholesale abandonment of the sacrament of marriage by the following generation, marriages which see children as an option, accessory, appendage, or even a hindrance to marital happiness, and a fast track to the legalization of a marital union where spousal happiness is all that matters.
What's really sad is that these bishops this, in the above statement, are thinking that they are actually defending marriage, when in fact they are DESTROYING it!
Once upon a time our Church actually taught that children were the reason for marriage. They were not "however's", "also's", or even "especially's". They were "primary".
Once upon a time our Church actually taught that children were the reason for marriage. They were not "however's", "also's", or even "especially's". They were "primary".
This belief descends directly from the first account of creation (Gen 1:26) where, in a single act, God creates "them male and female" and commands them to be "fruitful and multiply".
There is no separation. There is no "oh by the way" when it comes to the duty to be fruitful. There is no "however" or "also". Man and woman are created married and fruitful in one act.
There is no separation. There is no "oh by the way" when it comes to the duty to be fruitful. There is no "however" or "also". Man and woman are created married and fruitful in one act.
This is why the Church does NOT recognize a marriage as valid - even after the wedding and all the proper sacramental form has taken place - UNTIL the man and woman "consummate the marriage" in a nuptial act that IS COMPLETELY OPEN to what the nuptial act was "God-designed" for: A CHILD. Only THEN are they husband and wife!
And so this draws into question whether or not Catholic couples are actually married when their first conjugal act is intentionally sterile - whether by natural means or not. Avoiding children through periodic continence (NFP) is allowed as an exception for grave reasons ("just cause" says the Catechism). If couples have grave reason not to conceive from the outset then the question is raised should the marriage proceed...or can there even be a marriage.
I don't think so. For that couple has just taken a vow to accept children "willingly and lovingly FROM GOD!"
The Order of Celebrating Matrimony #60:
I don't think so. For that couple has just taken a vow to accept children "willingly and lovingly FROM GOD!"
The Order of Celebrating Matrimony #60:
- "(Name) and (name), have you come here to enter into Marriage without coercion, freely and wholeheartedly?"
- "Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live?"
- "Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?"
Yet, in our pre-cana classes, so-called "natural family planning" is taught in a neutral way, and in a way which implies that it is perfectly legitimate to avoid a child from the outset. SMH.
