Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 5:50am

It's About the Children. Seriously.

I must confess that today’s judicial ruling out of California which overturned Proposition 8 has riled me up, suprisingly so. I heard about the ruling while listening to the livestream of a tech podcast in which one of the three podcasters is a lesbian (previously “married” in CA) and the other two (middle-aged married men) evidently supported the decision. The ease with which they threw out bromides (“finally, equality!”) bothered me, primarily because it revealed two things: 1. a group of intelligent people couldn’t grasp that there might be real objections to same sex “marriage”, and 2. as I’ve noted previously, too many (probably most) Americans simply don’t understand the essential nature of marriage. Simply put, the state’s interest isn’t strong feelings or commitment… it’s children. And — to state the obvious — a homosexual relationship isn’t structured towards procreation the way marriage is.

But people don’t understand that anymore. Most people think of marriage as an institution which indicates the strong feelings which two people have for one another. But the state doesn’t have any interest in privileging strong feelings. Rather, the state is interested in the perpetuation of society, which — to again state the obvious — requires procreation. That is why marriage has historically been privileged, not because of the warm fuzzies two people have for one another.

I was recently in Steubenville for catechetical conference and had the opportunity to have lunch with some of my former professors and colleagues. One of them is Patrick Lee, a philosopher who has focused his attention of late — in collaboration with scholars such as Robert George, John Finnis and Germain Grisez — on bioethical questions. Lee and George are currently working on a book specifically addressing the question of SSM, and Pat is actually optimistic about the future of traditional marriage in the US. I must confess that I am less so: as numerous commentators have noted, once contraception and divorce achieved normative status, a rational opposition to SSM became almost impossible, and hence said opposition retains the force of a mere taboo, and with time, a taboo will eventually crumble unless it is reinforced with some substantial rationale.

So regardless of how the Prop 8 case is ultimately decided — and I tend to think that Prop 8 itself will be upheld & traditional marriage will remain the law in CA, at least for now — it remains incumbent upon us as Catholics to educate others (beginning with our fellow Catholics!) about the true nature of marriage and its twofold purpose: the growth in love of the spouses and the procreation of children. Only if society comes to see that children occupy an essential place in the institution of marriage and that it isn’t merely about strong feelings will there be true hope for this fundamental cell of society in our nation.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
j. christian
j. christian
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 12:03am

Well said.

restrainedradical
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 12:17am

Exactly. Americans, even conservative Protestants, have removed children from marriage. Without a procreative intent, admittedly, there is little reason to ban gay marriage. Or incest for that matter.

Joe Hargrave
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 4:34am

Americans?

Westerners. America still has the highest birth rate in the Western world, and Utah has the highest birth rate out of all the states.

Supposedly “family friendly” Europe cut children out of the picture a long time ago. All of the welfare provisions, reduced work weeks, paid maternity/paternity leave didn’t do a damned thing to reinforce families or birth rates.

This is because Europe not only removed children from the marriage, but God from their lives and culture. Mormon Utah thrives for exactly the opposite reason. When will Catholics get it?

restrainedradical
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 8:29am

Actually, welfare did help increase the birth rate in Europe. The Scandinavian countries have the highest birth rates in Western Europe.

Pinky
Pinky
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 9:24am

How would things look if marriage were dead? Out-of-wedlock births, acceptance of any cohabitation arrangement, the presumption that any relationship in non-binding…exactly what we have today. Marriage is dead as a norm in the West. There are only pockets and subcultures that preserve it.

We talk about the “war on Christmas”. Christmas has been stripped of its old meaning and given a new purpose; a few of its traditions are unthinkingly continued. By the time the courts started enforcing “holiday pageants” in public schools, the war was long lost. That’s exactly what’s happened to marriage.

Maybe my blood sugar is low or something, because even I am not usually this pessimistic. I’m just not seeing any reason to be encouraged.

j. christian
j. christian
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 10:09am

Marriage is dead as a norm in the West.

Yes, this is what I’ve been saying about the SSM debate all along. To those who ask, “How is SSM going to harm your (traditional) marriage?” I say, “It’s not — the damage has already been done. I just don’t see the reason to codify the death of marriage in law.”

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 10:33am

Marriage is certainly in disrepair in the west. Many forces contributed to that, but the disentanglement of sex, children and marriage via modern birth control options is certainly a key part of it, resulting in the normalization of premarital sex, cohabitation, divorce, serial monogamy, etc. That said infidelity (i.e., extramarital sex) is still largely unaccepted in the US. Marriage may be in the ICU, but it is not dead yet.

trackback
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 11:08am

[…] Even after logic, reason, and the law showed that their arguments held no legal water, gay marriage … Most people think of marriage as an institution which indicates the strong feelings which two people have for one another. But the state doesn’t have any interest in privileging strong feelings. Rather, the state is interested in the perpetuation of society, which — to again state the obvious — requires procreation. […]

Phillip
Phillip
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 11:28am

The trolls are out.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 12:23pm

restrainedradical wrote Thursday, August 5, 2010 A.D. at 8:29 am
“Actually, welfare did help increase the birth rate in Europe. The Scandinavian countries have the highest birth rates in Western Europe”.

The birth rate in Sweden is 1.67 children born/woman (2010 est.), i.e., less than replacement. Much of this is probably due to immigrant populations.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 12:34pm

It seems to me that there is an assumption that the U.S. is a fine moral country.
The opposite seems to be true. The number of child murders continues to increase.
Poverty is widespread despite “Wars on Poverty” [because of?].
The immigration question continues to fester. {On what moral basis can immigrants be denied entry?].
The continued base treatment of Indians reeks to heaven.
Justice Ginsberg speaks of “undesirable populations”.
Multi-skillionaires give much money to killing babies in this country and abroad.
Pornography becomes more and more widespread like a plague.
Actors are treated as moral gurus, because their faces are familiar, not because they know how to behave.
To put it succinctly: what is it in the U.S. which gives it any claim to be a light unto the nations?

Maisha Z. Johnson
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 5:14pm

I’m not sure I understand the argument. People who don’t procreate shouldn’t get married? Then where are the rallies against childless marriages? Why aren’t we banning people whose disabilities prevent them from having children from marrying? Or the elderly? Why aren’t we protecting the procreative institution of marriage from these barren impostors? And what about adoption? Since adoption by same-sex couples would challenge your argument, you must be against that, too. In which case, shouldn’t we stop straight couples from adopting, too? Those children may be in need of care, but of course the bigger need is for people to have their own babies. Please help me understand how we can include the disabled, the elderly, adoptive parents and those who are childless by choice into the Prop 8 campaign, because clearly we’re leaving a lot of people out.

Karl
Karl
Thursday, August 5, AD 2010 10:02pm

When I comment on subjects like this my post is in danger of being deleted, which is ok, I have to answer to God for me, not whomever does the deleting.

That being said:

With the Catholic Church, the children are really just pawns. The real battle is keeping the pews full, I think for the power that gives the Church. I would like to think otherwise but I really do not, based upon personal experience.

When divorce happens, the Church does and says nothing, to heal a marriage, when it is clear to the Church, as they have all the evidence they need in nullity cases, that a marriage has simply been abandoned and the abandoner has taken the spoils, including the children.

Rather, should not individual priests and bishops in authority, address the situations, especially when these are presented to the Church for nullity investigations and work, tirelessly, pastorally and with canonical strictures, to restore marital union? Especially so when nullity is shown NOT to exist?

No such thing happens, at all!

No, Chris. I do not agree it is about the children. It is about power and control, although it should not be that way.

If you must delete this, go ahead. I did not mean any disrespect by it. I just commented on my personal experience and from what I have heard from others, who have been through it.

Regarding marriage, I believe, the chemical inability to make the sperm/egg do not invalidate, the inability to “perform the act” necessary for procreation, either physiologically or psychologically, is what validity and hence, real marriage, hinges on, provided the people are free of all other impediments.

Karl
Karl
Friday, August 6, AD 2010 1:45am

Going there would hijack the topic. I simply wanted to infuse my personal experience into my comment.

I have never, once, seen the slightest concern for the scandal and abuse our five children have experienced by any of the priests or bishops who were supposed to pastor them. To this day the scandal is encouraged.

Our acceptance of divorce has prepared the groundwork for this “dumbingdown” of marriage.

It is about the children and their souls, that is clear, but I do not see the Catholic Church as having the moral high ground. Not over divorce, Chris.

God is teaching his Church, if it will listen to spouses like myself and others who have seen its evil deeds, to repent and to LISTEN. Bur for twenty years, the ears of the Church have been sealed, in my personal experience.

I hope, whatever it takes to break the back of the dead consciences of the Catholic intelligencia, lay and clerical, is done. They do not listen. They listen to “experts” they DONOT

Karl
Karl
Friday, August 6, AD 2010 1:48am

LISTEN to their victims.

Karl
Karl
Friday, August 6, AD 2010 2:18am

The Church must defend marriage, period, not selectively in the face of a homosexual challenge.

It must cease allowing its teachers to stress the “benign” nature of divorce. It must do so with strong canonical sanctions. It must hold to account, with formal canonical sanctions those who abandon marriages, particularly when they do not seek counsel from the bishop or when they abuse those few specified canonically allowed circumstances when separation is allowed.
Wrongful divorce must not be unaddressed, in public and those who refuse, without substantive, serious reasons, to work, endlessly if necessary, at reconciliation, especially if there are children involved, should be formally and very much in public, be admonished and in short order, formally excommunicated, if the refusal to work toward healing the marriage continues. All those who cooperate, formally, with the support of the unrepentant, should similarly be held to account, with more vigor if they are a religious or in any position of authority/importance in the Church.

The Church has lost all credibiliy due to its generations of laxity regarding marriage. This is constantly used against the Church and justifiably so.

Unless this is addressed and addressed, last year, the Church is the hypocrite it is so often accused of being.

May God have mercy on His, very unfaithful Bride. It is those of us who are struggling to be faithful to both our spouses and our faith, who God requires
His Bride to listen to. The Pope and the rest of the Catholic clergy need to understand how much harm they do each day our cries are left unanswered with almost anything but disdain, from those who should know better.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Friday, August 6, AD 2010 12:23pm

Karl,
When you write that “the Church” has been moving in the direction of accepting divorce, I believe you should modify that by saying many [most?] priests and bishops have been moving in this direction. And it is, as you rightly note, part and parcel of the sexual scandals. Once start hedging – even in the smallest manner – on matters of Church teaching, the hedging simply grows.
The hierarchy is mealy mouthed when it comes to the use of the pill. Most of the pills are abortifacient. All of them sterilize. How often do priests and bishops note this? How often do they remind the faithful that they are committing a mortal sin by the use of the pill?
But I believe there is a mistaken notion that our bishops, as such, are a saintly lot. They are not. You have but to read a bit of the history of the episcopacy to realize that bishops do not contribute much to the list of saints, to those we are enjoined to emulate. They are for some reason a timid lot.

Phillip
Phillip
Friday, August 6, AD 2010 12:55pm

Unfortunately too true. We must remember that the priesthood and episcopacy are charisms, gifts for the good of the Church, and not holiness. A mother at home raising her children may have a far greater place in heaven than many a bishop.

c matt
c matt
Friday, August 6, AD 2010 2:29pm

How is SSM going to harm your (traditional) marriage?

That is really the incorrect question – it should be “How is SSM going to strengthen marriage as an institution?”

And the answer is, it is not. It will only further hide the now barely recognized fact that the proper end of intercourse is procreation.

ron chandonia
ron chandonia
Friday, August 6, AD 2010 8:15pm

I think there’s a real serious question whether ANY church in the USA takes marriage seriously–with (ironically) the possible exception of the Mormons. Among Catholics, even those who cannot remember the number of the commandments, let alone the content of the list, can tell you that when we want to divorce and remarry in church, we just get an annulment on some (frequently bogus) “psychological” ground. This happens no matter how long the supposedly invalid marriage has lasted or how many children it produced. This last point is especially important; the annulment regime now in force is saying that it is NOT important to stay married “for the children’s sake.”

Tony
Tony
Saturday, August 7, AD 2010 7:54am

ron chandonia, I agree that there have been serious abuses in Catholic Church annulments. But the idea of an annulment does not hinge on whether the apparent marriage lasted many years, nor on how many kids there are, nor on whether it is better for the kids’ sake to stay together. If a couple never did get married to begin with, despite appearances, then it means that they have been living an error for however long the apparent marriage has been going on, whether short or long. I accept that a long-lasting arrangement suggests that there must have been a real commitment to permanence, but there are other commitments needed for the marriage to have taken place to begin with.

I know a couple who got married 20 years ago, and got an annulment 2 years ago: the guy had been a pornography addict and sexual deviant the entire period. He was incapable of a real commitment to marital fidelity at the time of the wedding, because he was addicted to porn.

The Church usually states that if a couple has kids, they both have a deep, serious obligation to see to their welfare even if a divorce or annulment occurs. How can it be better for the kids for the Church and society to pretend that a marriage took place when it didn’t. I should think, generally, that a couple with young kids, who discover that they never did truly marry, ought to ask themselves whether they might have a moral obligation to actually make real the apparent marriage that they had been living in action, for the sake of the kids. But of course, nobody discovers this without a marital breakdown, and at that point it is often difficult to establish that it really would be better for the kids if their mom and dad got married even when they hate each other.

Given that at least 30% of heterosexuals don’t seem to have a grave problem with the very idea of homosexual marriage, it is probable that many, many people don’t understand marriage enough to actually form a marriage bond with another person. Given that, it should not be surprising that many annulments are granted correctly.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Saturday, August 7, AD 2010 11:53am

May one not also ask what is the difference between gay “marriages” [sodomy] and marriages in which the female uses the pill to sterilize herself? Marriage is not even chiefly for procreation. Procreation is an added blessing. To reject that blessing is to reject the Almighty.

Consider also the vow “until death”. As Harry Truman remarked “if a man will not keep his word to his wife, to whom will he keep it”? The Church does not prohibit divorce when it is but separation. It prohibits divorce – it points out the breaking of the vow – for “remarriage”.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Saturday, August 7, AD 2010 1:17pm

Gabriel,
It is my understanding that the Church does not so much prohibit divorce as simply not recognize it. Indeed, while legal separations may be favored over divorce as such, I believe that the Church understands that divorce under civil law is often necessary in order to ensure protection of the weak — usually but not always the wife or children. Consequently, what is not permitted is remarriage (absent an annulment of course), since the first (without an annulment) the marital sacrament remains in place and remarriage constitutes adultary.

Thanks for the Truman quote. I was unaware of it.

Karl
Karl
Saturday, August 7, AD 2010 1:38pm

How mislead and scandalous these comments are.

How easily you have swallowed the Kool Aid of divorce to think that it is anything but condemned.

Do you reacall it says…..God Hates Divorce. How easily man has rejected the expressed Will of God and searches for rationalizations for his sins.

Watch and learn as society and the Catholic Church decay for their self-serving attitudes, especially towards marriage. The reconing will come.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Saturday, August 7, AD 2010 3:02pm

Karl,
Emoting about Kool Aid is not productive. While I’m hardly an advocate of divorce, and it is certainly true that the rate of broken marriages is scandalous, the fact is that obtaining a divorce in and of itself is not understood by the Church to be a sin. Indeed, the Church views a civil separation and a civil divorce indentically. Neither has any effect whatsoever on the marital Sacrament. The Church recognizes that the parties are not morally enjoined from selecting whichever legal route leads to greater justice under our civil law system. This is especially important in the case of serious abuse. Neither legal approach, however, permits “re-marriage” in the Christian sense, even if civil divorce does so under civil law. The sin occurs if a person bound by the marital sacrament to his spouse remarries or otherwise has relations with another regardless whether the married couple are separated, divorced, or neither. Note the important fact that the Church does not view civil divorce as disturbing the status of a Christian marriage.
Of course, as I noted the rate of divorce is evidence of deep and disturbing problems within our society. The wounds, especially to children, are incalculable. But divorce is a symptom of sin, not the sin itself. This is pretty straightforward Church teaching.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Sunday, August 8, AD 2010 12:57pm

Karl,
Catechism 2383:
“The Church teaches that the separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases. The Catechism states: “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”

Which is to say “divorce” is a civil separation, not a breaking of the marriage vow.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top