Archbishop Charles J. Chaput
Dominic Legge, O.P., is a Dominican priest and a professor of theology at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. He’s also the author of the article below — “Why Gay Marriage is Not Like Divorce” — which first appeared July 6 on the website of First Things magazine.
To repeat what the Church believes and has been said many times before: Christians have a privileged calling to respect the God-given dignity of all persons, including those with same-sex attraction. That’s fundamental to Christian love and justice. We are accountable to God for the way we treat others.
But Christians also have a duty to think clearly, and to live, teach and work for the truth about the nature of human sexuality, the purpose of marriage and the integrity of the family. We cannot ignore or turn away from what the Church teaches on these matters without separating ourselves from Jesus Christ himself.
I’m grateful this week to turn my regular column space over to Father Legge’s insight and counsel. His words deserve very wide consideration.
+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Philadelphia
Thomas Reese, writing about gay marriage in the National Catholic Reporter (July 2), argues that the Catholic bishops of the United States should “admit defeat and move on.” They’ve done this before, he claims: Think of “their predecessors who opposed legalizing divorce but lost,” and who then “accepted divorce” in practice if not in theory — for example, by hiring divorcées. “Today, Catholic institutions rarely fire people when they get divorced and remarried,” and the divorced and remarried “get spousal benefits.” “No one is scandalized by this,” he writes.
This is like saying: “The patient has been taking this poison for years, getting sicker and weaker — so let’s triple the dose.” The argument is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Further, there are manifold reasons why gay marriage is a different and greater threat than divorce, and why acquiescing in it would gravely damage the Church. Here are four.
[hotblock]
First, virtually no one celebrates divorce or regards it as a positive good. There is no “Divorced Pride” parade. At most, some think of it like abortion rights: a tragedy and an evil when it happens, but a necessary escape hatch. No one is clamoring for prelates to praise divorce.
In contrast, gay marriage is trumpeted as a positive good, and the Church will be shown no mercy by its advocates until bishops, too, march in the parade. We should have no illusions about the way cultural forces (and, soon, legal coercion) will aim to compel the Church not only to be silent on gay marriage, but to praise it and to integrate it into the Church’s life — or else.
Second, while divorce negates an important element of marriage, it doesn’t change the kind of relationship we’re speaking about. With divorce, we recognize that the old bond should have endured, but didn’t. A new legal act is needed to sunder what was joined. But even in this, we still grasp the nature of the bond itself: between a man and a woman, of a kind that generates children, implying permanence, if only for the good of the kids.
Gay marriage undermines true marriage in a different and much more dangerous way: It hollows out its very essence, applying the word to something else entirely, a relationship that itself has no potential to generate children, and so cannot itself (without help from the law or from outsiders) form a family. Gay marriage makes it increasingly hard even to talk about what is essential to true marriage.
To accept gay marriage as a genuine expression of marriage — and to treat it as such in the parish office, even if we could then keep it out of the parish church — would be vastly more destructive than accepting divorce (which has been bad). It changes the very essence of the institution.
Third, divorce and remarriage is often hidden from view. One often doesn’t know if someone was divorced years ago — and it’s even more rare to know whether there was an annulment. Gay marriage is obviously different, and the threat of scandal is much greater.
Fourth, it is not true that no one is scandalized when Church institutions hire divorced and remarried people. Reese’s argument implies that no one will be shocked if we have divorced sacristans (or gay-married parish receptionists), since everyone understands that it’s just the world we live in. But scandal, as Jesus spoke about it, is not a psychological shock. It is rather a skandalon, a stumbling block to others who will then be tempted to sin. “It is impossible that stumbling blocks should not come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck …” (Luke 17:1–2).
Is it plausible to claim that widespread acceptance of divorce has not contributed to more divorce? The effect will be even more powerful with gay marriage. If the Church accepts the new cultural and legal norms on gay marriage in its institutional life, even if not in its worship, it will say (especially to the “little ones” Jesus was talking about) that gay marriage is no big deal.
Even today, it is a grave scandal when a Catholic teacher gets divorced and shows up at school with a new last name. Every kid in the school knows it. It teaches a lesson more powerful than any textbook. Accepting gay marriage would do much more damage.
Yes, we may have lost the battle in civil law about the civil definition of marriage. That is all the more reason that the Church must now speak ever more clearly and firmly about the truth of marriage, or her “little ones” will soon weaken and fall. That would be the true scandal.
Used with permission of First Things.
Gay pride was not born out of the need to celebrate being gay, but instead our right to exist without violence and prosecution. So maybe, instead of wondering why there isn’t a Straight Pride month or movement, straight people should be thankful that they don’t need one.
Steve, it’s clearly a personal and touching subject. For what it is worth, I don’t think there is a catholic around who at least knows violence and persecution are wrong. Hopefully we all understand that we agree on that and can come together on that. What is more at issue, and what Archbishop Chaput is pointing out, is that marriage is a celebration. And so you see, he is trying to point out while he had no prior objection to parades because he was free to not participate in them, he is now being forced to march if you force him to celebrate marriage. So no, no one was wondering about the original parades. I don’t know that either of us can say what everyone’s intent was who marched in them, but I certainly accept if yours was to be free of violence and persecution and not to change the definition of marriage. I would gladly march in any parade that supported any person’s right to be free of human violence and persecution.
Thank you, Archbishop Chaput. I am so glad some people do see what is happening in the US. I was almost disgusted at Joan Dawson McConnon, James J. Maguire, and Mary Scullion’s piece in philly.com. How dare they really? So public, so full of lack of understanding. Did they not bother to try to bring this issue up within the church first?
It is as simple as love the sinner, hate the sin. Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more. Yes, we are called to love everyone. But no, for God’s sake, no we are not called to love the sin, to pretend the sin is a good thing. Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. We are called to *agree with the Truth.* Agree with Jesus Christ, our Lord, who stated so clearly that marriage on earth was made by God the Father for man and wife. No, we don’t get to re-write that, in the name of being non-judgmental.
I am sorry if I am harsh, but this lesson is important. We have the truth written in our hearts. Do you know the saying in for a penny in for a pound? What is happening now is diabolical. Please, for God’s sake don’t agree with lies. You don’t have to agree with what someone else wants to love them. It is harder sometimes to say what is unpopular, easier to say what someone wants to hear. Just because you tell someone no, and they are wrong, does not mean you don’t love them. To think otherwise is false compassion. You love them more to tell them the truth.
I apologize if what I stated earlier was unclear and/or unkind, I had just read the philly.com piece and was upset after reading it. To clarify, I’d like to include the following which are parts of a private letter sent to the authors of the philly.com piece:
These days, the very phrase “marriage equality” is being used in an erroneous and misleading way. Marriage is fully equal now. Barring medical or other legitimate reason, it is open to every man and woman. Every one is indeed free to marry. It is not a matter of inequality. The matter is rather of the definition of marriage. What is marriage? If marriage is a sacrament made by God for man and wife, then it most surely is equally given now. However, there are those who would re-define it. Hence they claim it is unequal.
Our Lord Jesus Christ stated clearly that marriage on earth was made by God the Father for man and wife.
But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment.
But from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife],
and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.”
Mark 10: 5-8
We are called to agree with our Lord, and uphold the truth. Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.
The authority to fire Margie Winters was indeed given to those who decided. And Archbishop Chaput had the right to support their decision. I do agree that her gifts should be supported. However, a catholic teacher is openly to uphold the truth.
We have the truth written in our hearts. When people push and persuade people to go against the truth, it is an attack on the truth in people’s hearts. If something is not from God, then where is it from? We should not change our minds to agree with lies. And thank God we do not have to agree with others who are wrong to love them! Love does not mean telling people what they want to hear. In loving, sometimes it is more difficult to stand up for the truth. We are to love, not judge, Margie Winters. God no doubt gave her gifts to share. None of that is in question.
Some comments seem to be missing the point. They are still confusing civil marriage with religious marriage. The civil laws on marriage in this country are not trying to influence anyone’s religious beliefs. Civil laws on marriage have nothing to do with whether a couple wants children; gets married by a minister, priest, rabbi. Civil law recognizes divorce but has nothing to do with a persons religious beliefs. Civil law is about equal protection under the law and property rights, You can be an atheist and get married under civil law because civil law doesn’t care whether one believes in God or has any religious beliefs.
We have more freedoms in this country than anywhere else in the world. Civil laws protect those freedoms. Civil law doesn’t care whether we like the law, agree with the law or what we think about the law. Even supreme court justices seldom agree on every decision regarding the constitutionality of a case. I’m a life-long Catholic who graduated from the old West Philadelphia Catholic HS for Boys and I believe any religion has every right to disagree with laws that conflict with their religion. However, I am able to separate civil laws from religion quite easily in my mind and the supreme court’s ruling on same sex marriage has zero impact on my life, my beliefs or anyone else. I also don’t believe that civil law must always reflect Christian beliefs anymore than they must reflect the beliefs of Islam or Judaism. We do not live in a Theocracy so lets not get bogged down thinking this legal decision is anti-religious.
Some comments-from a Protestant (You have 1 second to hiss!).
1. Not all Protestants have admiited defeat and “moved on”, the same-sex “marriage” issue has led to splits and schisms and those churches embracing it are experiencing loss of membership and financial support.
2. Whatver you may think of Luther, his insistence that people be capable of reading Scriptures for themselves has led to greater knowledge of the Bible and made people more capable of recognizing false prophets.
3. It is true that The Man did not say much about homosexuality but He made it clear that He was here for another reason, and as He said “I have not come to overturn the law and the prophets, not to destroy but to fulfill”. And the Two Great Commandments do not require us to turn a blind eye and tolerate-or accept unconditionally-immoral behavior.
4. The argument for recognizing same-sex “marriage” is to obtain either government or employer benefits, the need for authority to make medical decisions arose from the AIDS plague which in turn was caused the atmosphere of promiscuity and moral laxity that is the heart of the modern homosexual ethos. In effect they’re asking to be rewarded for their improper behavior.
5. And not long ago I heard an Episcopal priest (Yes!) say in The Man’s time-and ours-Christians are the Counterculture and in surrendering to current trends we are losing the meaning of His message.
6. And as Clarence Thmas pointed out, the state does not confer dignity, those who insist it does should remember what the state congers it can take away.
I agree that divorce and same-sex marriage are very different theologically, but I would love a response to this question: I ask this question not from a theological or catechism right/wrong standpoint. I ask this because I am wondering why the Church speaks more about one secular institution then another. Why is a same-sex secular marriage a larger issue to the Church than a heterosexual secular marriage in which the couple may not be open to children, may seek to only adopt children (no way to consummate the marriage properly if purposefully not trying to have their own children), or may seek to use artificial fertility forms? Notice, I am using a definition of a secular heterosexual marriage that would not be approved in the Catholic Church, and I say larger issue due to the many more public statements made for one over the other. Is the issue with displacing the sexual act or is the issue with discerning whether a child needs two separate gendered parents?
“…There are manifold reasons why gay marriage is a different and greater threat than divorce, and why acquiescing in it would gravely damage the Church. Here are four.”
His thesis points to grave damage in the Church by the church learning to accept one’s constitutional rights and love all. It implies a tone of condemnation rather than love.
“Gay marriage undermines true marriage in a different and much more dangerous way: It hollows out its very essence, applying the word to something else entirely, a relationship that itself has no potential to generate children, and so cannot itself (without help from the law or from outsiders) form a family.”
When we point to gay couples as “dangerous” or as hollowing out the concept of family, I cringe. Many gay couples lovingly adopt abandoned, needy children and raise them in families filled with love and human compassion. To label this as as a bond that “hollows out [marriage’s] very essence” is one-sided and blind to the love involved.
“…If the Church accepts the new cultural and legal norms on gay marriage in its institutional life, even if not in its worship, it will say (especially to the “little ones” Jesus was talking about) that gay marriage is no big deal.”
Instead, the implication is to teach our “little ones” intolerance and a lack of charity to those who are not traditionally-minded. This reminds me of Jesus’s encounter with the Pharisees and scribes in Luke 5:29-32.
We can honor Church teaching and respect one’s human, constitutional rights as well. We must cease the finger pointing, learn to love unconditionally, admit our own sinfulness, and ask Christ for his acceptance and mercy.
There is a fundamental difference between the Sacrament of Marriage and state approved civil union. This is a difference of kind, not of quality or attribute.
The confusion between the two began with Luther, the heretic priest who insisted that the state be in charge of marriage (so as to permit divorce and remarriage). A desacramentalized “marriage” is nothing at all besides a legal maneuver. It is a legal contract between consenting adults that must be accessible to anyone irrespective of race, creed and sexual preference. Non-Christians have never been in any doubt as to the secularity of the state sanctioned ‘marriage’ contract. The only ones confused are Christians who continue to confound the age-old Christian idea of a monogamous “fruitful” sacramental marriage with the modern civil union. They are entirely different.
The confusion began when Protestants desacramentalized Christianity. You throw out the Sacraments, what do you have? The state takes the place of God in the minds of the people. Put the sacraments back into Christianity, and suddenly you have Holy Orders. You have Holy things, like Holy Marriage. Like Holy Vows. These things are above the power of the state. These things are permanent, defeating even death.
If you want marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman, you must discourage state sanctioned civil union and restore the Sacraments. Protestants want to “eat their cake and have it too” by pretending that modern marriage is “traditional marriage” except blessed by the state. It cannot be. They are living in a dream world. In the real world, when you give a power to the state it becomes a legally binding contract. These contracts must be universally applicable to citizens, including (eventually) children. The state is simply taking its time about it. The state is in no hurry. The state knows that once the Sacraments were abandoned, all Christian traditions were null and void.
@Paul Bennet, I consider myself progressive and pro-homosexual gay marriage. I think you have hit the nail on the head. I agree with you in an absolute way. There is a monumental difference between sacramental matrimony and the state-sanctioned contract between two individuals. Though I fully support the latter for people in the LGBT community, I think the Church is right to refuse to join two same-sex individuals in Sacramental Marriage.
One other point, divorce can be imposed on a person who doesn’t want it. Gay marriage is always a choice.
No one can compel the church to do anything – or else. Maybe it’s time we take that stand. Bring on the persecution and battle on for the faith. What are we protecting? Let Satan overplay his hand.
Educating our children about marriage must now begin at the earliest ages. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that many public school systems will now do their very best to introduce children to the “new” definition of marriage in whatever ways they possibly can. The best defense is a good offense.