Confronting the Unreality of Same Sex 'Marriage'
The sacrament of marriage does not destroy the original, natural institution, but perfects it. But it also presupposes it.
When the natural institution of marriage suffers what the poet David Jones called "the Break," something we are witnessing even now, its natural symbolism is destroyed. There is no natural significance or symbol 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.
Marriage, like human nature, is first something given, then something worked with. So marriage viewed as art is something-God-given-worked-with, not something we make from nothing. Marriage is not ours to create, to define, to make out of nothing as if we are gods, or what modernly is more powerful than the ancient gods . . . social engineers.
The "raw materials" so-to-speak of marriage are given to us; we are not the ones who make the raw materials of marriage. We do not will the "raw materials"; rather, they are willed for us by nature and nature's God as part of the fundamental parts of our human nature.
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it: "'The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage.' The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics." (CCC § 1603)
Since marriage is part of creation, a work of the Lord, it follows that it is a great good. It can be praised, as can any work of the Creator:
"Praise the name of the Lord. For he spoke, and they were made (facta sunt): he commanded, and they were created (creata sunt). He hath established them for ever, and for ages of ages: he hath made a decree, and it shall not pass away." (Psalm 148:5-6)
Recruiting the insights of Psalm 148:5-6 and applying them to marriage, we might say: "Marriage is something spoken of by God, made by God, commanded by God, created by God. He has established marriage for ever, and for ages of ages. God has made a decree, and it shall not pass away."
This, of course, is something that moderns--particularly the advocates of same sex "marriage"--are loath to recognize. That marriage is a natural institution, something of God's handiwork, is an affront to them and their false philosophies, since, like anything with a form, it imposes limits beyond which they may not go.
In his interpretation of the Psalm quoted above, Cassiodorus distinguished between creare (to create) and facere (to make). The former (to create), strictly construed, is reserved to God alone, Cassiodorus says. The latter (to make) is allowed to man. It is, in a sense, a limited participation in creation.
"Facere enim possumus etiam nos, qui creare no possumus," Cassiodorus wrote. For we to whom it is given not to create, are able yet to make.
Marriage is first creatio, a created thing, then, building upon that which is given, a factitio, a thing worked at, a thing made from the prior given. It is both God's handiwork and man's handiwork, but first God's handiwork. That's why Archbishop Fulton Sheen famously said that it takes three to get married: God and the two spouses.
It is this distinction which completely eludes those who advocate same-sex "marriage." They view marriage as something over which they have the power of creation, of definition, when they only have the power of "factition," of working with what is a given.
The advocates of same sex "marriage" suffer from a convention that arises from a psychic disease. In fact, modernity is characterized by a chronic psychic disease. It is the disbelief in creation, in created nature, a nature which is the handiwork of God and therefore bears within it the logos or reason of God, the supreme Artist. Moderns reject the notion that nature has within it a sort of residual meaning, a sign or symbol, which must be respected.
If nature has no meaning, it cannot be a sign, a symbol, a thing of wonder, a source of morals. Instead, it becomes a thing to be used. Wonder in nature is lost. Nature no longer speaks to us of real things, of true things, of good things because we no longer wish to listen. We moderns only understand nature by its utility to us, which means we use nature as we want, and not as it might have been intended by its Creator.
Modern man's rejection of God as Creator and nature as his gift allows him to assume (or think he can assume) the powers of creation over created ...
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More Marriage & Family News
- Combating the Secularist Elitist Attack on Motherhood: Learning from Jesus and Mary
- Freeing Ourselves from the Hideous Strength of Contraception and Abortion
- Two Opposing Visions of Women, Part Two
- Two Opposing Visions of Women, Part One
- Answering the Question: The Right to Marriage and Infertile Couples
- 'Sexually aggressive behavior' in males traced to print advertisements
- Movie director flouts China's one-child policy with purported SEVEN kids
- Baby boy born with half a heart thrives after surgery
- 'Soul Surfer' Bethany Hamilton engaged to be married
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?