questions answered

by wm. b. smith

Same-Sex Marriage?

Answer: I believe there is a Catholic position-a position rooted in Revelation, in unanimous Catholic tradition, in the teaching of Vatican II and the papal magisterium of John Paul II.

First, I offer a word about "words." I realize, as all readers do, that the print and video media always refer to "same-sex marriage." To use a vintage Buckleyism, "same-sex marriage, is, I think, an oxymoron. Same-sex marriage is a nullity, not a marriage. It is as meaningful and available as "dry water." That is, it ain't and cannot be. Nonetheless, pervasive media designation of this relationship as a "marriage" tries to invest it with a status and dignity that it does not and cannot have.

What is marriage? Canonically, the 1983 Code defines marriage as "a covenant, by which a man and a woman (quo vir et mulier) establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, which of its nature is ordered to the well being of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children, . . ." (canon 1055, #1) (Confer as well, Catechism of the Catholic Church [1992] #1601; and, Vatican II's, Gaudium et Spes [1965] n. 48.)

Fortunately, the 1983 Code is specific (vir et mulier) (cn. 1055). In the pre-politically correct days of the 1917 Code, the definition of matrimonial consent was generic two "persons capable by law"(inter personas iure habiles) (cn. 1081, #1) (1917).

The Code (1983), the Catechism (1992) and the Council (1965) are all at one-Marriage was instituted by God the Creator and qualified by his laws. God himself is the Author of matrimony; God has endowed marriage with various benefits and purposes (cf. GS, n. 48; CCC ##1602-1605).

It is simple but simply essential to repeat over and over-God is the Author of matrimony. No court, no congress, no convention, no cabal can erase Divine Authorship; marriage is of God's design and no human source or authority can alter that. Human authority can respect and honor this fact, or, they can disfigure and distort it; but they cannot change it; it is beyond human competence.

As the Catechism (#1602) teaches, Sacred Scripture hymns a consistent song-beginning with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-27) and concluding with the vision of "the wedding-feast of the Lamb" (Rev. 19:7, 9).

Divine Revelation is consistent and specific about the nature of true marriage: "For this reason a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). This marital purpose and passage is solemnly invoked and proclaimed by Jesus Christ (Mark 10:7) and emphatically insisted on by St. Paul (Eph. 5:31). To repudiate this essential teaching of marriage is nothing less than sheer moral heresy against the ordinary and universal magisterial teaching of the Church to be held by all believing Catholics.

The words, teaching and solemn condemnation of the Council of Trent are easily extended to the present case: "since impious men of this age, madly raging against this teaching (sacramentality of marriage) have not only formed false judgments concerning this venerable sacrament (marriage), but according to their custom, introducing, under the pretext of the Gospel, a carnal liberty (libertatem carnis) have in word and writing asserted many things foreign to the mind of the Catholic Church . . . (DS. 1800).

Presciently, the Council of Trent repudiates a gospel distortion, i.e., "a carnal liberty," which is, precisely, what the advocates of so-called "same-sex marriage" advocate today. Holy Scripture repudiates the same error. Those who belong to Christ Jesus are called to crucify their flesh with its passions and lusts (Gal. 5:24). Thus, believing Christians are called to crucify self-indulgent lusts, not to celebrate them, much less legalize them.

This is not a question of tolerance-if by tolerance we mean the patient virtue to bear with opinions or practices different from our own without bigotry. There is no such thing as a "moral right" to self-indulgent lust. Thus, to work or speak against the canonization or legalization of a non-existent "right" to which no one has any conceivable "moral right" is to discriminate against no one.

Heterosexual marriage is the only sexual activity and state that properly enjoys the sanction of our civil and moral law. Bigamy enjoys no such sanction; nor does polygamy; nor does any other self-indulgent failing. If so-called "same-sex marriage" were to be granted a privileged place (sanction) in civil law, then we as a society disfigure, distort and demean the privileged place of heterosexual marriage in society.

Rather than retreat into vacuous slogans, Vatican Council II called upon all Christians and public authorities to promote authentic marriage and family life. Indeed, "Public authority should regard it as a sacred duty to recognize, protect, and promote their (marriage and family) authentic nature, to shield public morality, and to favor the prosperity of domestic life" (GS, n. 52).

The toleration, escalation, celebration or legalization of so-called "same-sex marriage" accords in no way with the teaching of the Council; instead it repudiates the specific call and challenge of the Council.

With clarity and true Christian compassion, Pope John Paul II addressed this very point when the European Parliament took a giant step in the wrong direction in 1994. Of the mistaken sanction of the European Parliament, the Pope taught (February 20, 1994): "It does not merely defend people with homosexual tendencies by rejecting unjust discrimination in their regard. The Church agrees with that-indeed, she supports and approves it. She does so because every human person is worthy of respect."

"What is not morally acceptable is the legal approval of homosexual activity. Being understanding towards the sinner who is unable to free himself from this tendency is not the same as lessening the requirement of the moral norm (VS (8/6/93) n. 95) . . . The Parliament's resolution seeks to legitimize a moral disorder. The Parliament has unduly institutionalized deviant kinds of behavior not in conformity with God's plan; they are weaknesses, as we know, but Parliament has supported those weaknesses. It is not recognized that the true human right is the victory over oneself so as to live in conformity with a correct conscience" (L'Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed., #8/1329 [February 23, 1994] pp. 1; 8).

Enemy Within?

Answer: In short, it can't; or at least it should not be.

The Presidential (W. Clinton) veto of the Partial-Birth-Abortion ban drew unanimous Catholic criticism. It was condemned by all eight American Cardinals and the NCCB President, Bishop Anthony Pilla (Life Insight [NCCB] v. 7:3, 4/96, pp. 3-4). It was condemned, by name, by the Pope's press officer, J. Navarro-Valls (4/19/96). It was even condemned by the editors of America magazine (v. 174:15 [5/4/96] p. 3).

But the vigilant editors of the NYTimes scoured the entire country, perhaps the hemisphere, to come up with the one priest who would repudiate the Church while endorsing Clinton (cf. R. F. Drinan, S.J., "Posturing On Abortion" NYT [6/4/96] p. A-15).

An Op-Ed: "Posturing on Abortion"! This is the posture of an imposter. Drinan writes: "I write this as a Jesuit priest who agrees with Vatican II, which said abortion is virtually infanticide, . . ." He may agree with Vatican II, but the Council taught no "virtuals" in this regard. Rather the Council forcefully condemned both abortion and infanticide as "unspeakable crimes" (GS, n. 51).

Fr. Drinan also urges Congress to legislate "the woman's health as justification for the late-term procedure." This is a moral theology of his own making that directly contradicts the most formal teaching of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (3/25/95) n. 62-that direct abortion "always constitutes a grave moral disorder," a doctrine based on the natural law, the written Word of God, the Church's Tradition and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church.

Citizen Drinan can get as close to Clinton (without inhaling) as he chooses, but to contradict Catholicism so clearly in such a core moral doctrine raises questions about his commitment as a Jesuit and a priest.

We know, as Congressman, Fr. Drinan voted to fund abortions (HR-15580); we know he voted against a ban on research on human fetuses (HR-13999); we know he voted against the Hyde amendment every chance he had. We also know he did oppose some killing because on May 6, 1975 he moved a resolution (#268) condemning the killing of whales. Whales attracted his protective vote, but not unborn humans!

Another self-serving Op-Ed, "My 50 Years as a Jesuit" (Boston Globe [1992]) tells us he ran for Congress and stayed in Congress with full Jesuit support: "No Jesuit I ever met thought it a good idea that I was required to leave Congress after serving from 1971-1981." Perhaps, he only talks to or meets with selected Jesuits. His "claims" of Church support are open to radical questioning (cf. Catholic World Report v. 6:7 [July 1996] pp. 38-45).

As the supreme chaplain of the Left Wing of the Democratic Party, as the exalted acolyte of the Americans for Democratic Action, the former Congressman can write whatever opinions he pleases; but please, please spare the Catholic Faithful the pain and embarrassment of writing as a Jesuit and as a priest. Neither your Order nor our Church can possibly approve of what you advocate. Is Fr. Drinan the only Catholic in the country who does not understand that?

Say a prayer for this man, there is still time before he dies.

Please address questions to Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y. 10704. n