In case some are wondering, yes I do still hold to Catholic teaching on sexual morality and that includes the belief that the male/female sexual act is intrinsic to marriage. Especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that declared same-sex “marriage” legal, it is all the more important to articulate views and their foundations clearly and respectfully.
As Chief Justice Roberts put it in his dissent,
“The premises supporting th[e] concept of [natural] marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.”
Roberts sums up the foundation of marriage in such an obvious way that no one should be surprised. And yet few people can articulate it simply because it is so very basic. There is no hate or discrimination that joins marriage to procreation, but simply the reality of human biology and how the human race continues.
It is true that there are other reasons people get married: companionship mostly and less noble reasons as well such as money or status, but the uniquely procreative sexual union of male and female is an intrinsic, indispensable part of marriage; it alone has the power to give children access to both actual parents, a right that each child ought to have. (I realize that older and infertile male/female couples can marry, and this is because they still engage in the uniquely procreative act even if conditions do not result in pregnancy. More on this here.)
Ultimately, I believe this scientific approach is true about marriage. At the same time, I understand that men and men and women and women may have very strong feelings for one another and even sexual attraction. Yet good choices are based on more than subjective feelings; not every desire is one that human beings should act upon. This may present a heavy burden or cross, heavier perhaps than others experience when they must discipline their own desires. The call to Christian moral life is a true challenge, but it is possible and worthwhile.
The Pursuit of Happiness, or the Good Life
And there is good in such a life, a life lived in accord with basic realities about human nature, which is what is called the Natural Law. The goods of this life include the classical virtues, the transcendentals which are the true, the good and the beautiful. It leads the follower into a life of flourishing and of self-mastery. This classical notion has roots back to Ancient Greek thought in Aristotle. It may no longer be fashionable, but it is not irrational or hateful.
To promote traditional marriage is merely to promote the view that a certain way of life is good for humans. That does not mean I want to stigmatize gay people or be remotely involved in anyone’s bedroom. St. Thomas Aquinas said regarding law, that it is not good to suppress every vice, for much further damage could come of such policies (Summa Theologica I-II, 96, 2). As a supporter of traditional marriage, I do not intend to inflict suffering on any person or an over-involvement in the lives of others. Rather, I support some philosophical and theological positions which I think are good for (all) individuals and society, especially children. I do not intend to regulate other people’s private affairs. Every citizen (both classically speaking and in this country’s founding documents) is called to vote for or enact an order of law based on rights which include, famously in the Declaration of Independence, “the pursuit of happiness.” Therefore, it belongs to all citizens (including religious ones) to vote for what they believe constitutes true human happiness, which is not always considered only as a subjective feeling.
Catholic Teaching Regarding Homosexuals
The Church does not look down or reject anyone because the Church, and her children, do not reduce the human person to a subset of his or her desires or to his or her sexual preferences. A human being is always a whole, a person of great value as made in the Image of God, with a unique lived experience and a unique vocational call. The callings a person may experience and his or her individual contribution and gifts will always vary greatly, and the Church values each person’s specific role.
In my own life, I am very grateful for the guidance and influence of a particular woman, who late in life, identified as gay. I harbor no ill will toward such people nor do I think of them as only a sexual choice; human beings are always full human beings and worthy of respect.
All people, regardless of the desires they experience, are called to chastity, which is the integration of a person’s desires with his or her vocation. “Under charity’s influence, chastity appears as a school of the gift of the person. Self-mastery is ordered to the gift of self. Chastity leads him who practices it to become a witness to his neighbor of God’s fidelity and loving kindness” (2346). All persons are called to develop friendship especially and the control over oneself that comes from ruling our own desires reasonably. Some hear the word “chastity” and think that married people get a “free-pass” for anything sex-related. But those of us who are married know well the call to embrace life-giving sexual relations, and that to space children, frequent abstinence is required. Chastity is a struggle for every individual.
Yes, then, to someone who feels same-sex attraction, chastity requires celibacy. Indeed, the practice of celibacy has always been held in great esteem in the Catholic Church; it is the way of priests, nuns, and monks. Pope Emeritus Benedict, then Joseph Ratzinger, said in 1997’s “Salt of the Earth” interview and book, that:
“The renunication of marriage and family is thus to be understood in terms of this vision [of the value of children]; I renounce what, humanly speaking, is not only the most normal but also the most important thing. I forego bringing forth further life on the tree of life, and I live in the faith that my land is really God….In this sense, celibacy has a christological and apostolic meaning at the same time….The point is really an existence that stakes everything on God and leaves out precisely the one thing that normally makes a human existence fulfilled with a promising future” (emphasis added, Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth 195).
Persons who embrace celibacy are models for the rest of the Church; they model a different way of life, one lived in expectation of the goodness to come and trust in the goodness of the present.
Stephanie Pacheco is a writer, blogger, and speaker in Northern Virginia. She earned a M.A. in Theological Studies, summa cum laude, from Christendom College and holds a B.A. from the University of Virginia in Religious Studies with a minor in Government and Political Theory. She has presented at a conference of the American Catholic Historical Association and for Christian Women in Action. She lives with her husband and two young children.
For all of us, the call is different. Each person must bear the unique burden and opportunity of his or her individual composition and nature. Some people’s struggles are more obvious. Yet everyone has something, and we are all sinners (1 John 1:8). “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician,” Christ said, “but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). There is no room for hatred or judgement about individual consciences in the Christian tradition.
It is my hope, as the repercussions of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision plays out, that we who disagree with each other will continue to hold each other in esteem and mutual respect, recognizing that we differ not in goodwill, but in philosophical and moral accounts of human life. I hope that we can be truly tolerant, in the best sense, of one another and not batten-the-down the hatches and try to litigate the other into extinction. I hope we can accept with gratitude the gifts that we both bring to the public square and to individual hearts while maintaining enough space for us to live side-by-side even if we do not always see eye-to-eye, all the while hoping for peace and unity.
Stephanie Pacheco is a writer, blogger, and speaker in Northern Virginia. She earned a M.A. in Theological Studies, summa cum laude, from Christendom College and holds a B.A. from the University of Virginia in Religious Studies with a minor in Government and Political Theory. She has presented at a conference of the American Catholic Historical Association and for Christian Women in Action. She lives with her husband and two young children.
){kind=link}