And miles to go……
Defending Marriage and the Family in Light of Same-Sex Unions
by Bishop John C. Nienstedt
Along with the other eight active Catholic bishops in the State of Minnesota, I recently added my voice to support the proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution defending marriage as only a union between one man and one woman with no legal equivalent.
To be sure, the reality of marriage and family has been under assault for a number of years. Its decline is all too apparent:
40% of this country’s marriages end in divorce; Over 4.9 million heterosexual couples cohabitate;
33% of all babies are born to unmarried mothers; 35 million babies were aborted between 1993-1998.
Yet, the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court on November 18, 2003 to extend the right of civil marriage to homosexual couples undermines the fundamental understanding in our society as to the inherent meaning of marriage and its importance for the role of family as the basic building block of social order.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is quite clear that marriage is the faithful, exclusive and lifelong union of one man and one woman joined through the mutual gift of each other in a "two-in-one flesh" union that allows for sharing the gift of life in their children. It is equally clear in that teaching that homosexual acts cannot achieve the two-in-one flesh union that either allows for the procreation of children or the true meaning of self-gift expressed through the complimentarity of the body.
1The Scriptures provide numerous citations that prohibit homosexual activity: Genesis 19:4-11; Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Jude, v. 7. While some reductionists try to dismiss these Scriptural references as irrelevant in light of contemporary culture, the Scriptural evidence is too overwhelming to be denied.
Moreover, many proponents of same-sex unions disavow any argument from a purely faith perspective. In that case, the follower of Christ can still argue from the truth of natural law which likewise speaks to this issue. The point of convergence becomes that of human reason as it reflects on the natural order of creation as well as human experience.
While a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to nutrition, sensation and locomotion, when it comes to reproduction, they are only potential parts of a mated pair. It is through their complimen-tarity that they become an "organic unit," establishing their "two-in-one flesh" communion.
2Homosexual acts of fellatio, cunnilingus or sodomy cannot unite two persons of the same sex organically in a "two-in-one flesh union." More to the point, to be a true "marital" act, the partners must intend the ends of marriage itself. A desire for pleasure, mutual affirmation or even intimacy alone does not measure fully that which is called for in the "two-in-one flesh" union. The mutual self-gift of a true "marital" act requires a union of persons consummated and actualized by acts which are reproductive in type.
3 The sexual complimentarity expressed by a male and female creates the conjugal bond that lies at the heart of the reality we call marriage. 4Bishop Robert McManus has pointed out that in our contemporary society many people find it difficult to believe that something can always be morally wrong irrespective of the circumstances or intentions involved. Many will not accept as self-evident the limitations which nature imposes: things are what they are and cannot be other. He further specifies his point:
"For example, although an elephant may have ears bigger than some birds wings, an elephant cannot fly. It is not in his nature to do so. Although both dogs and cats are animals and both can be enjoyed as pets, a dog cannot have kittens. It is not in the dog’s nature to do so. Although people of the same gender may establish close relationships and even live together for years, they cannot marry, because the nature of the marital relationship demands the establishment of a life-long commitment between one man and one woman that is fundamentally open to procreation and the upbringing of children within a bond of sexual complimentarity."
5Having outlined the argument above, however, does not suggest in any way that denying marriage to homosexual persons allows for the unjust discrimination or a lack of respect for persons with a homosexual orientation. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "(Homosexuals) must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (2358)
It is in the light of these arguments that the Catholic Bishops of Minnesota have given their support to the proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution which would define marriage as only a union between one man and one woman with no legal equivalent. The Bishops acted in this way to use the only limited legal option open to the American public in the face of the aggressive judicial activism of the Federal Courts. Had the courts allowed for the discussion to happen in the legislature, whereby all parties could discuss the outcome, the results might have been quite different. However, at this point only a Constitutional Amendment will assure the protection and promotion of the authentic meaning of marriage for our society.
We stand at a crucial impasse at this particular moment of history. I am grateful to all those married couples that have said yes to love, yes to life, and yes to God. I believe they need our support both legally and ecclesially to shore up the commitments they have made. Marriage is a social institution and, therefore, it depends on social public support. The proponents of same-sex unions would have us believe that this is all about private rights. It is not. It is about the future of marriage, properly defined, upon which rests the future of the family. The outcome of this debate will determine the kind of society in which our children and grandchildren will live and, even more so, how they will understand their own human nature.
God love you!
1 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage Ruling," Origins 33:25, 433-434.
2 Germain Grisez, "The Christian Family as Fulfillment of Sacramental Marriage," a paper delivered to the Society of Christian Ethics Annual Conference, (Sept. 9, 1995).
3 Dr. Robert P. George, "‘Same Sex Marriage’ and ‘Moral Neutrality’," Proceedings of Fellowship of Catholic Scholars (1999) pp. 83-84.
4 Paul Thigpen, "What the Church teaches: Same-Sex Marriage," Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. (Huntington, Indiana, 2004).
5 Robert J. McManus, S.T.D., "The Theology of Marriage and Same-Sex Unions," Linacre Quarterly, volume 70, no. 4 (Nov. 2003), 273.
June 2004
Falta Mucho por Recorrer
Defendiendo al Matrimonio y a la Familia en Vista de las Uniones del Mismo Sexo
Por el obispo John C. Nienstedt
Recientemente junto con los ocho obispos activos católicos del estado de Minnesota, dí a conocer my apoyo a la enmienda propuesta a la constitución del estado de Minnesota y defender al matrimonio como la única unión entre un hombre y una mujer sin equivalencia legal.
La enseñanza de la Iglesia dice que el matrimonio es la unión fiel, exclusiva y de por vida entre un hombre y una mujer unidos a través del regalo mutuo que se dan el uno al otro "dos en una sola carne" que permite compartir el regalo de vida y el de sus hijos. La enseñanza también señala que homosexuales no logran el "dos en una sola carne" que permita la procreacion y el verdadero significado que se dan expresado a través de la complementariedad del cuerpo.
Las sagradas escrituras proporcionan citas numerosas que prohiben la actividad homosexual: Génesis 19:4-11; Levítico 18:22 y 20:13; Romanos 1:26-27; 1 Corintios 6:9-11; 1 Timoteo 1:8-11; Judas, v. 7. Mientras algunos tratan de descartar aquellas referencias como irrelevante en vista de la cultura contemporanea, la evidencia de la sagrada escritura es muy abrumadora para ser negada.
Mientras que el hombre y la mujer son personas completas en lo que se refiere a la nutrición, sensibilidad y locomoción y cuando se refiere a la reproducción ellos son solo partes potenciales de pareja. Es mediante su complementariedad que llegan hacer una "unión organica" y así establecer la comunión "dos en una sola carne."
La verdadera afeccion mutua en un acto conyugal requiere de la union de personas consumidas y actualizadas por actos que son de tipo reproductivo. La complementariedad sexual expresado por un hombre y una mujer crea la unión conyugal que yace en el Corazon de la realidad que se llama el matrimonio.
En vista de estos argumentos es que los obispos católicos de Minnesota dieron su apoyo a la enmienda propuesta a la Constitución del Estado de Minnesota en la que definiría al matrimonio como la única unión entre un hombre y una mujer sin equivalencia legal. Los obispos actuaron de esta manera para usar la única opcion legal limitada disponible al público Americano frente al activismo agresivo judicial de las cortes federales. Si las cortes hubieran permitido conversaciones en la legislatura donde todos los partidos pudieran haber dialogado los resultados pudieran haber sido diferentes. Sin embargo, en este momento una enmienda constitucional solamente asegurará la protección y promoción del significado auténtico del matrimonio para nuestra sociedad.