Wednesday, April 3, 2013


Kevin O’Brien wrote a decent article in the Plain Dealer during Holy Week concerning the state of marriage.  He definitely spoke against the political correct position.  In part he said:
“Marriage is the fundamental basis of civilization and the smallest functional molecule of the organism that we call society.  One may reject the idea that God ordained heterosexual marriage as part of his plant for humanity, but one cannot reject the argument that nature ordained it as a matter of practical necessity.  Only heterosexual relationships can perpetuate the species.  There simply is no other way of going about it.”


That’s called Natural Law. 


He goes on further (and this is where I think he really makes his case) “If we put the law at odds with the order established and replicated though out nature, then how can anyone ever justify drawing a new legal boundary line?”  In other words, if we redefine marriage to be any two people who want to commit themselves to each other for life, why stop there?  What about polygamy?  Why should such people be denied the right to marry?  What about the case of the mother and daughter who want to be recognized as married, not for any indecent purpose, but because they want to team up to raise the daughter’s child and want legal protections and benefits?  Why shouldn’t the men of Saint Andrew’s Abby (who take a vow of stability) be recognized as all married so that they may be protected and receive benefits?  The harm?  Once marriage can mean anything, it ceases to mean anything. 
I’ve hear people say that it wouldn’t go any further than same sex marriage.  That the idea of it going any further than that is just silly.  But nobody can say why or what there would be to put such a boundary up to stop it there – a boundary that would now be clearly imaginary.
Unfortunately I think he hurts his case by saying people could start marrying across species and with inanimate objects.   Other species and such objects cannot give their consent. 
After finishing the article we said, “Man, is he going to get crucified tomorrow” and he was.  But if there is going to be any meeting ground on this issue, it will be with points such as this.  “God ordained it” as much as I may believe it is not going to wash with those who don’t believe that.


Pat said...

" . . . Only heterosexual relationships can perpetuate the species. There simply is no other way of going about it.”

Now, one can purchase the "biological elements" (obtained at particular medical peril for the woman), and "rent" a womb for nine months, so that homosexual couples can "have" a child. But even in those cases, a man and a woman are needed.

This sudden push for gay marriage seems to have, at its heart, a desire for them to "fit in." They seem to be saying that they never felt as though they fit in with the heterosexual world. Ironically, now they want to be part of a heterosexual institution.

Heterosexuals are not supposed to say anything that might make them feel bad about themselves. This prohibition now also extends to their children. We wouldn't want their children to feel stigmatized for having two moms or two dads. Perhaps we should all stop using words like "mom" and "dad."

Heterosexuals have harmed marriage. Now we must learn to explain the obvious. The French have a great motto: every child has a right to a mother and a father. Those children raised by their biological, married parents tend to do much better in life.

Bear Paw said...

I suspect the real reason that the activists are pushing so hard for same sex marriage is in order to legitimize and gain acceptance of homosexual sex acts,to render them as the moral equivalent of heterosexual sex, not in order to be married. They've even managed to gain acceptance of this lifestyle by some Mainline Protestant denominations. I doubt most homosexuals truly want to be married, given the level of promiscuity that is rampant in their lifestyle. Really, the whole idea is absolutely ludicrous to me, as is the Supreme Court wasting their valuable time and energies to even consider this. At one time, not that long ago, the very notion of this would be unthinkable to homosexual and heterosexual alike. This fiasco has got to be one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the public.

MaryofSharon said...

I'm heartened to see that you, as a priest, have forayed into the tempestuous waters of this most difficult debate. We are losing most of our young people in this argument out of a tragically misinformed compassion. The fury on Facebook is unprecedented, and the youth who stand with the Church are being vilified, actually losing friends even in Catholic schools over simply holding the Church's views. If we cannot help our youth see reason and love in the Catholic position, the Church is going to get much smaller very quickly. Catholics, especially bishops and priests, must speak NOW with intelligence and compassion in order to help Catholics and society at large understand this complex issue. Any strides we hope to make in the New Evangelization will be ineffectual if we can't immediately persuade Catholics on the truth and goodness of her position on marriage in this watershed moment for civilization and the Church.

You won't be surprised to hear that I've done some research on this challenging topic:

Here's a great 15 minute video that was sent by the diocese in DVD format to 400,000 Catholic households in the Archdiocese of Minneapolis/St. Paul: One Man, One Woman: Marriage and the Common Good. It features brief appearances by several of the key advocates for marriage.

The best resource I found for young people is by Fr. Mike Schmitz speaking to a college audience in a homily. To listen, go to his homilies page and scroll down to his 10/7/12 homily called "Called to Love". Fr. Schmitz is the same priest who recorded the incomparable Lighthouse Media CD on same-sex attraction and Theology of the Body, "From Love, For Love, By Love". He does an exceptional job of combining accessible reason with deep compassion. Although he speaks mainly to young people, his message is for all.

The USSCB has a tremendous website called Marriage: Unique for a Reason. The whole site is worthy of study, but the FAQs, in particular, are a tremendous resource offering succinct replies to all the common questions on the meaning of marriage, sexual difference, children, common good, and religious liberty.

Again it should come as no surprise that I've created an entire web page of resources:
Online Resources for the Study of a Catholic Perspective on Same-Sex Unions.

Anonymous said...

I wish the church would do a better job explaining the full range of issues to the public, including property, inheritance, taxes, hospital visitation, etc., that impact couples wishing to spend their lives together. This is exactly the type of case that has been taken to the supreme court. Yet the church just keeps talking about reproduction.