|
 (Posted 2/23/10
www.RemnantNewspaper.com)
As the institution of marriage is now under near constant attack
with several additional states gearing up to redefine it altogether,
it is appropriate to consider the arguments in support of the
divinely ordained nature of this institution. It is imperative to
do so at this time in particular as the organs of power in our
society are bent on denying that marriage is the lifelong union of
one man and one woman for the purpose of begetting, rearing and
educating children.
We have a
president and media Gestapo who propagate the falsehood that
marriage is whatever they declare it to be. Interestingly, in a
public debate in which I participated over California Proposition 8
last November, my challenger began his remarks by stating that he
believed the State had no business defining what constituted a
marriage. He concluded therefore that the law should let anything
be accepted as a marriage that is claimed to be such by individuals,
regardless of its form.
I began my
reply by saying that he was absolutely correct in his premise that
the State had no business defining marriage. His inference was,
however, incorrect. The reason the state has no business defining
what is marriage is that no person has the competence to do so. The
state, and any individual, for that matter, is likewise incompetent
to define or redefine what is water, fire or the sun. Marriage is
what it is, as these other substances are. People have the ability
to think about and understand to a greater or lesser extent what
comprises the pre-existing essence of marriage. The state has only
the ability to craft laws with respect to the implications flowing
from this reality to the extent necessary for the common good. The
institution itself is not in any way subject to the volition of
individuals or the state.
So if marriage
is not whatever we want it to be, how do we know that it is the
lifelong society of one man and one woman for the purpose of
begetting, rearing and educating children?
There are two
sources of our knowledge, the Natural Law and the Divine Law. In
this article we will consider the Natural Law reasoning which proves
this definition. We will examine the Natural Law, not because it
says anything different from Divine Law or is superior to it. On
the contrary, as they both have their origin in the same source—the
Eternal Law, the Divine Reason—they are completely in accord with
one another. Our reason is that we must be familiar with these
arguments to defend the truth in a nation whose leaders willfully
refuse to listen to arguments from the Divine Law.
Our ultimate
object must be the total willing conversion of society to Christ and
His Church so that all joyfully and willingly accept the Divine Law
and desire to act accordingly. In the interim, prior to that time
which we must work toward in tandem, if our society conforms its
mores, institutions and laws to the Natural Law the common good will
be better served. Again, we should not abandon the efforts towards
conversion; yet we should seek to improve the current situation by
reference to arguments made on the natural level, the only level of
discourse open to those in whom grace is not yet operative. As St.
Thomas would say, since grace perfects nature, the more people
conform to nature the more disposed they are to accept grace.
With this
explanation for the need of articulating Natural Law arguments about
what constitutes marriage, let us turn to the substance. Natural
law thinking employs a methodology of deriving principles of moral
action (“ought statements”) from what we can discern about the way
things are. One approach to reasoning from the nature of things to
the law obligated by such nature looks at the purpose or function of
things to deduce proper action on the basis of asking whether the
proposed action accords with or detracts from that purpose.
We can thus
make arguments about what marriage ought to be (and derivatively
what society should recognize as such in its institutions) by
examining the function or purpose of the act distinguishing this
state from others. The thing that separates marital relationships
from other relationships is the use of a particular act,
appropriately enough referred to for centuries as the “marital
act.” Now what is the function or purpose of this act? Simple
observation demonstrates that this act has the function of bringing
into existence other creatures like those making use of it. The
function of the act, that which it naturally produces, is
procreation. This logical inference is no different from concluding
that the function of inhaling is to breathe oxygen.
Some try to
argue that it is possible to use the marital act for other
purposes. Yet, the fact that a thing oriented for a purpose is
capable of being misused for another purpose does not disprove the
fact of its natural inclination. One can use the ability to inhale
to breathe in deadly poison, but doing so is not using the act in
accordance with its natural function. Modern technological
knowledge about the operation of the biological aspects of the
marital act has only confirmed what people have always known. For
the act to be oriented towards this function of procreation, a male
and a female must be the participants. Resorting to use of the
marital act (or more accurately a part of it) by two persons of the
same gender is inherently not ordered to this purpose. The purpose
is in no way capable of being attained in this manner.
So far we have
proven only that a man and a woman together making use of the
marital act are necessary to orient it towards its natural
function. We have not yet demonstrated the further conclusion that
for humans (as distinguished from other animals) the act involves a
long term stable relationship between the partners. To do so we
need to consider human beings not in relation to what they have in
common with animals but the aspect of their nature that
distinguishes them.
First, we can
note that unlike many animals, human beings are born incapable of
satisfying even the most basic needs for survival. They require an
extended period of complete care by mature humans to even survive.
Just on a physical level, people are born social animals (creatures
that depend on being present in a society). This indicates another
purpose associated with the act of procreation. It must be
undertaken in a situation in which a society exists, the presence of
people capable of fulfilling this long term need for care. Thus,
the end of the act can be further described as procreation and care
(or rearing of) offspring.
True, some
other animals also require similar periods of physical care. But Man
is further distinguished from all animals by his unique
characteristic of having the use of reason and volition. It is also
evident that these powers are present but not capable of being used
at all initially. They need to mature. Human history also
demonstrates they are capable of being used well or poorly. As St.
Thomas explains we need to be trained in the use of these faculties
and in the subjection of the lower faculties (the passions for
example) to them. If modern psychology has proven anything, it has
demonstrated the great complexity inherent in this process of
training reason and will. Training, in the use of these complex,
interrelated faculties requires more than mere physical care. It
requires education and discipline. These processes extend over
several decades (almost one before the faculties are even able to be
used, the age of Reason) and another decade to acquire the
discipline of how to use them well.
Again as
modern psychology has demonstrated the details of each person’s path
to making proper use of these faculties is highly unique. It
interacts with the nuances of each person’s personality type and
other factors. Thus, those directing this process must be able to
acquire the relevant breadth of experience of the contingent factors
present for each new child over the course of time. Thus, the
aspect of the end of the marital act which we have called the
education and training of children requires a fixed, stable society,
i.e., a society which is not dissoluble and whose members are not
coming and going.
Again, man is
a social animal. He needs stable social interaction to develop and
make use of his faculties. Where people can come and go from a
place at will, they are not in a society; they are merely sharing
for the moment living space. The reason and will need to be made to
work in harmony with Man’s social nature. This learning is acquired
by observing and experiencing others living in society. One living
in an environment that is not a society of two adults that can serve
as the model for societal interaction is not able to be educated in
the use of his social nature.
Human
experience confirms this conclusion. One need not look to Catholics
(or even Natural Law proponents) for evidence that children who grow
up in incomplete or non-existent familial societies have greater
difficulties in mastering the use of reason and their wills.
Another aspect
of the social nature of man confirms the need for a man and a woman
to form this society. As Aristotle and St. Thomas explain, society
is born out of the incomplete nature of individuals. This does not
mean that human beings are incomplete physical forms (like a dog
with a missing leg). Rather, they are incapable of fulfilling all
of their needs (in the broadest, not just material sense)
themselves. Society results from the completion of each member
through interaction with the others. A society is formed among
those in need of what others have. Thus, for centuries
neighborhoods formed, in part, because some families produced food,
others clothes, others shoes and they needed to live together to
compliment and fulfill each other’s material needs.
Now, men and
woman compliment or complete one another. We have already seen this
on the physical level. Neither a man nor woman contains within
himself or herself what is necessary to beget a child. Each one
brings something to complete the process. It is also true on other
levels. Men and women’s physical, intellectual, emotional and
spiritual compositions differ and therefore compliment each other.
Therefore a society of merely one type is incomplete, lacking the
balance of complimenting abilities. This is why societies of one
gender need to transcend the mere natural level: a supernatural
grace (religious vows) is needed to make such an unnatural society
possible. Grace supplies for the want of nature in such supernatural
societies.
The state of
marriage is a natural society. (I recognize that Christ transformed
this natural state among the members of the Church into a
supernatural sacramental state. Yet, grace does not eradicate
nature but merely builds on it.) Thus, for this society to be a
society it requires members that complete one another. Thus, this
society needs to be more than long lasting; it needs to be comprised
of members that compliment rather than mirror one another.
To summarize,
the ends or purpose of the marital act are the begetting, rearing
and education in a society of children. These ends require the use
of the act by a man and a woman who have formed a stable, enduring
and complimentary society.
Now, some may
object to these arguments by suggesting that the end of the act can
be defined not as we have, but as the attainment of pleasure. We
can observe that the act results in this sensation so whenever it
does so, it is fulfilling its purpose. The problem with this
argument is that pleasure is not a useful guide for practical
decision making about means to proper ends. The experience of
pleasure is a byproduct of attainment of a proper end (or put
another way, doing good) but it can also accompany other
situations. For example, one may experience a sensation of pleasure
in inhaling burning tobacco smoke. Yet, this sensation of pleasure
does not correlate with a conclusion that smoking tobacco furthers
the good or end of bodily health and preservation of life. This
type of reasoning is analogous to the following argument. I need to
go to Egypt. I know that if I am in Egypt I will feel hot. I board
a plane that lands in Panama. I experience the sensation of being
hot. I would wrongly conclude that I have reached my end
destination, Egypt. Pleasure may then be an aspect of a properly
oriented act (or in as Aristotle and St. Thomas would say attaining
a state of happiness) but it is not identical with it. Pleasure
therefore cannot be an end (or good) in itself as it is merely an
attribute associated with ends.
This trap of
misconceiving pleasure as a guide to right behavior is not the
exclusive property of those holding an incorrect understanding of
marriage. Even some Catholics, such as Christopher West, have
succumbed to this fallacy by making pleasure (albeit one they
attempt unsuccessfully to keep properly restrained) the center of
the argument.
Thus, we have
proven from the book of natural observations that the nature of the
marital act indicates ends which necessitate a complimentary and
permanent society to be formed between a man and a woman. Since God
is the author of both nature and direct revelation we know that
these conclusions from Natural Law will concur with revelation. A
brief look at the traditional Nuptial Mass will confirm such.
Marriage is referred to as an institution ordained for the
“propagation of the human race” (first part of the Nuptial Prayer).
Note this phrase is not just the birth or more individual humans but
the propagation or continuation of the human race (humani generis)
which requires the training and education in that which makes one
human. The Epistle from St. Paul speaks directly of the
complimentary roles of man and woman that make up the marital
society (Eph. 5: 22-33). There are several references to the need
for permanence – “May you see your children’s children” (second Post
Communion).
Thus, Natural
and Divine revelation concur. Their author designed it this way.
Marriage is designed to further the purpose for which it is
created. The fact that Divine Revelation (even from the first book
of the Bible) needs to reaffirm this fact demonstrates why we need
to be reminded of the conclusions of nature. Men who are poorly
trained in the use of their reason can fail to recognize this truth
written in our nature. Yet, the law written on the heart cannot be
totally erased (even if obscured). Thus, the more Natural Law
arguments are made eventually the heart will see the Truth of the
way things are. Those in power know this all too well. Unable to
defeat the arguments from nature, their only resort is to pass laws,
currently pending before Congress, to silence them by force of law
dressed in the guise of law. |
VIDEOS
