Scottish Catholic Observer

On his recent visit to Germany, Pope Benedict XVI praised the ‘fresh air’ of the ecology movement in that country: it had, he said, brought to the fore once more that the world of nature has its own laws, to be respected and observed. But he then affirmed that there also exists an ecology of the human being. The human being, too, has, in its two-fold form of man and woman, an in-built law, a natural structure, both spiritual and corporal, which must be respected. Human nature is a given, not a construct. It precedes the human being and is the foundation upon which each man and woman must then build, accepting that any attempt to alter that foundation will destroy the whole.

Marriage belongs to that foundation. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, the Book of Genesis, with majestic sapiential simplicity, identifies for us the basic nature of the human being and of marriage. The human being does not exist ‘in the abstract’ without a male or female body, and then somehow make a choice to become either male or female. Any human being, every human being, exists from his or her beginning as male or female. The image and likeness of God in us is not simply our ‘soul,’ but our being incarnate, sexually defined spirits.

“Male and female He created them,” (Gen. 1,26-28) not as isolated individuals, but as one-for-the-other. He brought the man and woman to one another as helpmates (Gen. 2, 21-24). They recognised in one another, and freely gave and received, not only their soul mate, but also their soul-in-body mate. The very physical complementarity of man and woman speaks to the deeper spiritual complementarity of the two. Sexual complementarity in this deepest form cannot exist with someone who is of the same physical-spiritual structure as oneself. There can indeed be other forms of non-sexual complementarity and unity, but not of the sexual kind in the way that the mind and will of the Creator, or as ‘nature,’ intended it.

You could almost say that God created man and woman as married, or as betrothed to be married: to become, through their respective act of consent, one flesh (unity), that no human will or project should put asunder (indissolubility), for the purposes of mutually and co-equally helping one another (the good of the spouses) and of multiplying to fill the earth (the procreation and rearing of children, both male and female). (NB. The case of a naturally infertile marriage requires separate and sensitive consideration; all things being equal, such marriages are true marriages.)

While there were historical and cultural versions of marriage which did not come to this vision either completely or quickly, others did without the influence of religion. The monotheistic religious traditions of Judaism and Christianity confirmed the collective intuition of civilisations that marriage is between one man and one woman with the essential properties of unity and indissolubility and with the essential aims of the good of the spouses and the procreation and rearing of children. Jesus Himself, though not referring explicitly to the aims of marriage, reminds those Jews who would advocate for divorce that, from the beginning, God established the unity and indissolubility of marriage (Mark 10,2-5).

These two aspects in particular so reflect—‘image and likeness’—God’s own inner life and His relationship with humanity that the human reality of marriage was taken by Him and made a sacrament for the Baptised. Just as the human male reality of the priest is taken up by Christ to become the sacrament of His own incarnate priesthood, that is, of Christ’s mediation between God and humankind, so the human reality of marriage is taken by Christ and made the sacrament of the unity resulting from that mediation. In other words, the Sacrament of Marriage is the sacramental sign of the actual unity between Christ and the Church.

Opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’

In summary form, the above constitutes the essential core of the Catholic Church’s opposition to same-sex ‘marriage.’ It is not a question of homophobia, or of discrimination, or of inequality. Nor is it one of a stubborn refusal to ‘move with the times’ or of gratuitous resistance to political or governmental views, as if the Church took some kind of perverse delight in attracting the wrath of the so-called ‘gay community,’ the liberal media or the political left. For the Church, the question of marriage is quite simply one of reality as it truly is, and not as it seems, or is wanted, to be.

Marriage is not primarily a legal or social construct, or a loosely defined abstract category that can be chopped and changed at will. Marriage is a reality rooted in the prior givenness of human nature in its concrete male-female complementarity. It is human ecology. In fact, it is the fundamental reality of human interpersonal or social engagement. It is the condicio sine qua non of any society; it is the genetic code of society; it is the foundation upon which its entire edifice rests. To tamper with it is to risk, not simply the loss of a secondary good in society, but the survival of society itself.

What are called the essential properties and aims of marriage are like the irreducible components of matter. Marriage is simply not marriage when any one of those essential properties or aims is acutely deficient or absent as the result of free choice—inquiring into the why of such deficiency or absence is the meaning of marriage annulments. Aristotle coined the principle of non-contradiction: something cannot be what it is and at the same time not be what it is. Either ‘same-sex marriage’ is not marriage or marriage between one man and one woman is not marriage. Both can’t be true at the same time.

A major factor in the deterioration of true marriage has been the attempt to separate its two essential aims. When sexual relations are deliberately closed to procreation, this weakens the whole ‘package’ of marriage. In ecological terms, it ‘pollutes’ marriage. For example, it weakens the essential property of unity, because it makes possible the idea that ‘sex’ can take place with anyone. It can lead to divorce, and thus to the undermining of indissolubility. The notion of ‘same-sex marriage’ is only possible, when the status and dignity proper to married heterosexual genital intercourse is falsely attributed to other forms of sexual-genital expression. These other forms are of themselves incompatible with the purpose of the true sexual act which is to unite the man-spouse and woman-spouse in the very act of reaching lovingly beyond themselves in the procreation of another male or female human being.

It has always been the teaching of the Church, under the authority of Christ, that any form of sexual activity outside true marriage is an offence against marriage, because sexual activity can find its true meaning, its given ‘human ecologica’ meaning, only in true marriage. Homosexual activity, even in its mere physical structure, falls outside the order of nature. That cannot be altered just because some, however passionately, want it to be altered, and no matter how many arguments are used, laws are passed or people vote for it.

Love and support

But while there is reality that is truth, there is also reality that falls short of the truth, or perhaps better, there are situations of fact which need to be recognised and attended to in the service of truth. Our human ecology is in need of healing. Christ came to heal what is broken, to redeem to the truth what had fallen away from it. And while He came as the Rabbi, the Teacher, the living Word and the Truth, He also came as the Healer, the Forgiver, the Restorer and Redeemer. Likewise, to use the immortal phrase of Blessed Pope John XXIII, his Church is not only Magistra, Teacher, but also Mater, Mother.

As an imperative of both the Gospel and reason, the truth must be spoken in its integrity, fearlessly and uncompromisingly because it alone can set free. But it must also inspire and direct action in compassion, mercy and practical assistance, lest we ‘tie up burdens and lay them on people’s backs, but not lift a finger to help them’ (Mt. 23,4). He who is the Truth is also the truest Friend of those who need the Truth, to draw them to Himself.

Christ is no enemy of the homosexual person, or of any other person. But His love and friendship cannot condone what is wrong, because what is wrong hurts those He loves. He draws close to us so as to draw us out of wrong into the freedom of Truth. He asks us not to justify what in us is at odds with his Truth, but to be liberated from it by that Truth.

Not every homosexual person justifies the ‘gay lifestyle.’ Not all belong to the ‘gay ideology’ or advocate ‘gay marriage’ or ‘gay rights.’ The American author J Nicolosi (Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, London 1991) distinguishes between ‘gay homosexuals’ and ‘non-gay homosexuals,’ between people who make of their same-sex attraction a cause celebre, and those who live with it, struggle with it and suffer through it. These people genuinely and even desperately seek assistance to live their condition in ways that are compatible with the Truth. In a 1986 document on the pastoral care of homosexual persons, the Church expresses Her deep concern ‘about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda’ (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, n9).

The document asks: “What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord?” (n12). It offers a very concise spirituality for homosexual persons who want to be faithful to the teaching of Christ:

n The union of their suffering to the Cross of Christ, just like so many other people with different kinds of suffering; through their weakness Christ makes them strong in bearing witness to Himself.

n The cultivation of a deep devotion to the Holy Spirit, for his gifts and strength.

n The spirituality of self-denial—the virtue of ‘no’ in favour of a much greater ‘yes’—as a result of the first two points, something which is again the norm for every believer.

n The association with groups whose mainstay is the clear and unambiguous statement of the teaching of the Church as regards homosexuality.

As regards such groups, the document encourages the bishops, both individually and as a Conference of Bishops (n17), ‘to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses’ (n15). It then states: “An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognise its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them” (ibid, n16).

Such programmes will avoid reducing the dignity of homosexual persons to the question of their sexual orientation. It will include ‘the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.’ Further, ‘the bishops are asked to exercise special care in the selection of pastoral ministers so that by their own high degree of spiritual and personal maturity and by their fidelity to the Magisterium, they may be of real service to homosexual persons, promoting their health and well-being in the fullest sense’ (n17). This injunction presents a real challenge to the Church in the modern world, but it is one which can be met.

One example of a trustworthy organisation which helps homosexual persons in the ways envisaged by the Church is Courage (www.couragerc.net). It has been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family. This organisation has one group in England, so it already has a footing in the UK. For the many homosexual persons who are Catholics in Scotland, and who want to live in accordance with the difficult but liberating teaching of the Church, perhaps this could open a door of greater hope and, yes, courage in witnessing to the power of Christ’s crucified love in their lives.

Defending values

A society that wants to introduce a form of ‘marriage’ that contradicts the root meaning of marriage and which is the source of that very society’s own existence can only be said to be courting its own ruin. It is deceiving itself, it is deluding those homosexual persons who advocate for it, it is tempting those who do not and it is undermining the prior given of marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman.

The ‘gay ideological agenda’ is a minority agenda, but more importantly it is an agenda which seeks to detach rights and law from reason and truth. It is well-organised, well-funded, it is clever and vociferous in its manipulation of buzz-words like discrimination and equality, but it should not be thought of as representing either the majority of homosexual persons or, even less, the majority of Scots. So radical, so counter-rational and counter-cultural is this proposal that, a thousand times more than the question of Scottish independence, it deserves and demands a referendum. We must, as a matter of conscience, not simply give up on this question: it is a gauge of the direction an independent Scotland would take, a dark and uncertain direction.

Pope Benedict XVI called upon us at Bellahouston to speak out, as the Ecclesia Magistra, for faith-filled and reason-filled values in the public square. This is the time to do so with whatever means are available to us in our particular state of life, and it is also the time for us, as Ecclesia Mater, to reach out to our homosexual brothers and sisters and offer them through practical help and closeness the healing love and truth of the Gospel.