Apology:

1. A regretful acknowledgement of an offense or failure
2. A very poor or inadequate example of something
3. A reasoned argument or writing in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine¹

Until this year, my view on marriage was very simple: a marriage was a relationship in which a man and a woman vowed (preferably before God) to love, honor and cherish each other forever. I knew there was far more to it than that, and I remember bits and pieces of my 10^th grade moral theology class where we talked about it, but that was my simplified everyday version. “Gay marriage” was a term I had heard many times, but I knew that the Catholic Church does not recognize unions between people of the same sex to be marriages. I knew why, too – this sort of union does not follow the natural law, plus (as a slogan goes) God had made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, and He had destroyed Sodom, a city where homosexuality seemed the norm (see Genesis 19:4-8). I knew that the Church made it very clear that it is acceptable to have homosexual desires, but that it is not acceptable to act on them. The reasoning? You can’t really control your desires, but you can control your actions.

Then a new family entered my life, and some of the members of this family were happily in long-term stable relationships with people of their own sex. And I had to wonder, why is it not okay to call this a marriage? I knew it wasn’t, and because I couldn’t agree, I grew apart from this family I had connected with so deeply. I accidentally offended them on more than one occasion by not knowing how to introduce them and by freely speaking my beliefs to other friends in person and on social media. Looking back, I could have been far more tactful, and I’m heartily sorry for my tactlessness. I wish I hadn’t needed to disagree with them at all. Sometimes I wish I could turn my back on this one tenet of the Catholic faith I believe in, so as to regain that closeness. But though I lost the deep relationship I had with this family because I couldn’t agree with them, I know it would be far worse to lose my relationship with God because I disagreed with Him.

In order to justify the loss of relationships, I resolved to write this article. I needed to solidify my beliefs one way or the other, and I needed (for my own sake) to be able to defend them. I also felt led to write it because everywhere I looked I seemed to see something that prodded me to do so. When I was still only considering my position, 2 John 9 hit me over the head: “Anyone who is so ‘progressive’ as to not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God.”²  That made it clear for me, once and for all, that I was not budging on the subject, no matter where it got me. I hope and pray that this article will not estrange me further from this family whose good opinion I wish to regain, though I can’t expect to regain the same closeness.

What is marriage?

That depends on who you ask. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines marriage as “The state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” Technically not wrong, but according to this definition the number of people involved does not matter, nor do their sexes, ages or even species (though it is doubtful a non-human could legally give consent). For the purpose of this work, I’m going to call this definition of marriage “the relational view of marriage”, something described as “about affirming adults and their love and commitment for one another.”³

Interestingly, this definition does not match the definition found in Webster’s 9^th New Collegiate Dictionary. This 1983 edition defines marriage as “1. a: the state of being married; b: the mutual relation of a husband and wife; c: the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family….” This is much closer to the Catholic teaching.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines marriage in the following way: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”⁴ This is what I will call a Sacramental Marriage.

This is not to say that certain non-sacramental marriages (my term) aren’t real. A union could be considered a non-sacramental marriage if it is the union of a man and a woman, who give themselves to each other completely and become one flesh, whose relationship is ordered toward the good of procreation.⁵ This definition has been called the “conjugal view of marriage.”

It seems most people in our time ascribe to the relational view of marriage over the conjugal view. It also seems like that change has happened since Merriam Webster published its 9^th New Collegiate Dictionary in 1983. I’m not going to go into why that change came about, though it’s an interesting topic. But it’s also interesting that some of us – particularly the Catholic Church – have stubbornly held on to the conjugal view of marriage.

Why does the Catholic Church cling to the conjugal view of marriage?

There are many good answers to this one, but I’m going to start with a seemingly unrelated example first. If I were the judge of a pie contest, I would have to have a pretty good idea of what a pie was. It’s a meat dish or a dessert, typically baked and generally round, often with a crust on the top. It always has a crust on the bottom, and something inside as a filling. Now, a contestant brings me a cake to be judged in my pie contest. This contestant is adamant that her cake is a pie. She argues that it is a dessert, that it is round, that it is baked, and that it is delicious. I can’t disagree with any of those points, but her cake does not have a crust on the top or on the bottom, nor does it have a filling, and so it does not fit my definition of a pie. The contestant argues that my definition of a pie is wrong, but I show her my grandmother’s copy of Betty Crocker’s Cookbook and tell her if it’s good enough for my grandmother, it’s good enough for me. She accuses me of being old fashioned and gets one hundred people to back her up. But I have no reason to change my definition of pie, and if I’m the judge of this contest, I get to make the rules. Pie is pie, and there’s no reason to change the definition.

Well, God is the judge of us. He’s also the One who created us, and the One who gave us marriage. So I’d say He’s got a pretty good right to define it. How does He do this? In the Old Testament, He presented Adam with Eve, and later He rained fire and brimstone (sulfur) on Sodom, where homosexuality was the norm.⁶  From the city of Sodom we get the word “sodomy,” a word that used to mean “copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal” as well as “anal or oral copulation…” but now is used only for the latter definition.^7,8 “Oh, but that’s the Old Testament. What about the New Testament?” Jesus’s first public miracle was in Cana, where he changed water to wine at the wedding of a man and a woman. If that’s not an affirmation of the conjugal view of marriage, I don’t know what is. He also confirms it in Matthew 19, when the Pharisees try to test him:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate”.⁹

Long story short, it doesn’t matter how many people clamor for God (or the Church that follows Him) to change it, it’s not going to happen any more than I’m backing down on my definition of pie.

But for those who would prefer a logical argument over the faith approach…

Why does only the conjugal view of marriage count for the Church?

The short answer is that the relational view of marriage does not account for a lot of marriage. Let’s go through it point by point. Again, the conjugal view of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, who give themselves to each other completely and become one flesh, whose relationship is ordered toward the good of procreation.

Why must it be a man and a woman?
Well, biologically speaking, it’s pretty clear that man and woman were made to fit together. Even if you look at Ancient Greece and Rome, where homosexuality was not unusual, the term “marriage” was used exclusively for man-woman relationships.¹⁰

Why must it be only one of each?
This is because one of the ends or purposes of marriage is the union of the spouses, the complete giving of oneself to the other. I don’t believe it’s possible to give yourself completely to more than one person. If I give someone a complete pie, I can’t give any part of that pie to anyone else unless I take some from the original person I gave it to. “But love isn’t pie.” True. But even Jesus said, “no man can serve two masters.” Not that spouses are masters, but the point stands. Think of the TV show Sister Wives, which shows the life of a Mormon man (Kody) and his wives. Kody had different times he would spend with his different wives. If he’s spending that time with Meri, he’s not spending it with Janelle. While I’m well aware spouses can’t spend all of their time with one another, I don’t see how he could be considered to have given himself entirely to Janelle if he’s spending some of his time, effort and attention on Meri (or one of the others).

What does it mean to become one flesh?
It is an echo of Genesis 2:24, which reads, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” This is repeated throughout the scriptures, as Jesus, St Paul and others quote it. It comes right after Adam is presented with Eve, and he calls her “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” ¹¹  What does this mean? It’s just a very Biblical way of saying that marriage is a sexual union, that spouses give themselves bodily to each other. The marriage is consummated. What is consummation? The New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as “to make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse.” Merriam-Webster – both in the modern dictionary and in the 1983 version – define “consummate” as, “to make (marital union) complete by sexual intercourse.” Does this mean a marriage isn’t complete without sex? Yes, since it is the ultimate giving of oneself to another. This is why sex outside of marriage is traditionally frowned upon. “Does that mean the marriage of Mother Mary and Saint Joseph wasn’t complete?” No, because although Mary died a virgin, their marriage was a fully valid Jewish marriage, and they were apparently quite content to live without consummating their marriage. There’s a lovely article on this that I’ll put in the citations here.¹²

What is procreation, and what does it mean that marriage must be ordered towards it?
Procreation is defined simply as “to reproduce” by the New Oxford American Dictionary. Both the early and the modern Webster dictionaries agree. The Catholic idea is the creation of new life through the union of God, husband and wife. Marriage must be ordered toward children because, as my mother says, it’s not about being self-centered, but being God-centered, spouse-centered, family-centered, child-centered. In the last few decades, the world has divorced sex from children through contraceptives and abortion, and it has become ever more self-centered. People selfishly use each other for pleasure and so see others as objects instead of persons (if you don’t believe me, listen to modern music, particularly my favorite genre, country). This is the opposite of what God intended. This is why the Catechism states “the spouses’ [sexual] union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves [pleasure and enjoyment] and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.” ¹³

What does this mean for people whose marriages don’t follow the Catholic standard?

Honestly, I don’t know. I suspect they might have a harder time building or continuing their relationship with God, but that’s just a suspicion, and it’s not my place to judge. After all, one’s relationship with God concerns no one but that person and God Himself. They might have a harder time maintaining their relationship with each other – my mother has said that the graces given through Sacramental Marriage have saved my parents’ marriage time and time again, as well as the marriages of other people they know.

What I know is this: it is God’s place, not mine, to judge people. He has called me to love Him and to love people regardless of their situations, be they neighbor, friend or enemy. He has also called us to tell the truth. As Mother Teresa said, “Jesus said, ‘I am the Truth’, and it is your duty and mine to speak the truth. Then it is up to the person who hears it whether to accept or reject it.” ¹⁴  She also said, “If you judge someone, then you have no time to love them.” ¹⁵  She was well aware that we are all called to Love – not love as in “I want earthly happiness for them” but Love as in “I want eternal happiness for them.” Granted, I want both for myself, my friends and family, but eternal happiness is more important, which is why our relationships with God ought to be our first priority.

I was taught to ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’, and I try to live that, because a person does not consist solely of their mistakes. We must look on people with hope that they will change for the better. I hope people look at me that way. After all, we are all sinners, each in our own way. It is all we can do to build our relationships with God as we inadvertently or purposely continue to do things that pull us away from God, for what is sin but something that separates us from Him?

“…[F]orgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us….”

Conclusion

When I originally sat down to write this article, it was simply my side of a conversation I never got to have. It developed from there as I discovered exactly how the Catholic Church defined marriage, and as I posed questions and found answers. I talked with some friends who gave me more questions to look into, and others who steered me toward more resources for more answers. Now I am once again content with where I stand on the subject of marriage. I hope my findings might be helpful to other people, too.

As for the family that started me on this journey, I don’t think any less of them, though we don’t see eye to eye on this subject. They’re good people. I respect them and, given the chance, I’d still enjoy their company. I offer them my friendship, my well-wishes and my prayers, and I hope they will accept my apology for my tactlessness and any other offences. I also hope that they will accept me for who and where I am, as I accept them.

Questions and Answers

I’m answering these based on my own opinion, on the Bible, and the Catechism when possible.

“If it’s not hurting anyone, it’s making them happy, and isn’t affecting me, why should I care?”
Maybe you shouldn’t. On the other hand, maybe God is calling you to gently correct this person. I can’t answer that one for you. All I know is that for me, when I had the opportunity (before writing this, before losing those relationships I talked about earlier) to use the term “marriage,” “husband” or “wife” in a way that didn’t follow the definition of the Catholic Church, the words stuck in my throat. I either couldn’t say them or I had to modify them because I had a strong sense that it wasn’t right to call the union in question a marriage. I’m paying dearly for it, but I can’t turn my back on the Church and her definitions. What I should have done was found alternative words to use – maybe ‘significant other’ or ‘partner’ instead of ‘husband’ or ‘wife,’ ‘relationship’ instead of ‘marriage,’ or some other terms that would be considered acceptable by the individuals.

“Do I have to say something to them if they call their union a marriage and it doesn’t match my definition?”
That depends entirely on the situation and on you. If you are uncomfortable with them using the term “marriage” for their union, perhaps you can find a non-confrontational way to tell them. Either way, find an alternative term to use that is not offensive to them.

“If someone I’m close to is in a relationship that estranges them from God, is it my duty to say something?”
That also depends on the situation, I would think. There’s a point where if it’s none of your business, it’s none of your business. However, Jesus said, “If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone…”¹⁶ St. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.”¹⁷  If you do say something, say it in a loving, gentle way, remembering that it is not your place (as it is not mine) to condemn anyone. Don’t forget that Jesus also said, “How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”¹⁸ Similarly, in John 8:7, when Jesus encountered a prostitute (who obviously wasn’t following the Catholic or Jewish standard of marriage), He told the Jewish judges “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

“If my society normalizes that which estranges people from God, is it my duty to object?”
Absolutely. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want anyone to stumble in their walk with God when I could have prevented it by speaking out, as Jesus said, “If anyone causes one of these little ones – those who believe in me – to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone to be hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”¹⁹  Even if I can’t prevent it by speaking out alone, my objection combined with others’ may eventually change the laws.

“What about living together?”
Living together or cohabiting is frowned upon by the Catholic Church primarily because the couples typically engage in sex outside of marriage. Additionally, living together has all the cares of a marriage (i.e. finances and chores and all the other things that come with sharing one’s life and home with someone else) without any of the graces. If you think about it, cohabitating with someone says, “I don’t trust you enough to promise myself to you forever,” or “I don’t trust your promise of forever.” If you need more reasons, check out this video and article combination: ²⁰

“What about divorce?”
Malachi 2:16 reads “I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “because the man who divorces his wife covers his garment with violence.” Additionally, Jesus covered this pretty well in Matthew 19, saying “…what God has joined together, let no one separate… I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”²¹  However, the Church can declare a marriage annulled (void, invalid) if there is a serious or just cause, such as the sexual immorality that Jesus mentioned.

“Does adoption or fostering count as procreation?”
No. Adoption and fostering are both amazing things, and I hear they’re both very fulfilling. However, being a parent doesn’t necessarily mean you’re open to new life. “…Wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: ‘Be fruitful and multiply’.”²²

“What if the couple physically can’t have kids?”
If a man and a woman who have given themselves to each other completely and become one flesh are open to procreation – that is, they are not trying to do anything to prevent it (i.e. using contraceptives), their marriage is following the Catholic guidelines. While children are the “supreme gift of marriage,” the Catechism also says “spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning…”^23,24

“Does this mean gay marriages aren’t real marriage?”
The Catholic Church does not recognize same-sex relationships as marriages. Bishop William Love of the Anglican Church in Albany NY explained it well when he said that allowing gay couples to marry does “a great disservice and injustice to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ, by leading them to believe that God gives his blessing to the sharing of sexual intimacy within a same-sex relationship, when in fact He has reserved the gift of sexual intimacy for men and women within the confines of marriage between a man and woman.”²⁵.

“Hasn’t the gay community been persecuted enough?”
The gay community has suffered intense persecution, and it should never have been persecuted at all. But my intention is not to persecute anyone or point fingers, only show what the Catholic Church believes and defend it. The Church doesn’t seek to persecute anyone either, but only seeks to steer people closer to God. That doesn’t mean that people who call themselves Catholic don’t persecute others; sadly, this happens. However, no matter who says otherwise, the Catholic Church teaches only love, not hate. Jesus said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.”²⁶

Author’s note and disclaimer

I am far from an expert on marriage. Though I strongly believe my vocation is marriage, I am not married and I have never been married. I do, however, have many good examples of Catholic marriage in my life, including my grandparents, who faithfully lived their ‘till death do us part’ and were married for 52 years; my parents, who have been married for 28 years and counting; and many of their friends, most of whom have been married for decades. For the full text of what the Catholic Church teaches on marriage, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part Two Article 7: The Sacrament of Matrimony and Part Three Article 6: The Sixth Commandment. There’s also a really great article you can find here²⁷ that delves into the great historical significance of the Jewish teachings about sexuality, upon which the Catholic doctrine was built.

Citations:

All websites accessed November 2018. All Bible quotes from NIV translation.

1. New Oxford American Dictionary (online)
2. usccb.org/bible/readings/101918.cfm
3. How to Talk about Same Sex Marriage (talk) by Trent Horn – Lighthouse Catholic Media, Augustine Institute 2016
4. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1601
5. How to Talk about Same Sex Marriage (talk) by Trent Horn – Lighthouse Catholic Media, Augustine Institute 2016
6. Genesis 2, Genesis 18:20 -19:27
7. Webster’s 9^th Collegiate Dictionary, 1983
8. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
9. Matthew 19:3-9
10. How to Talk about Same Sex Marriage (talk) by Trent Horn – Lighthouse Catholic Media, Augustine Institute 2016
11. Genesis 2:23
12. canonlawmadeeasy.com/2018/10/11/canon-law-and-the-marriage-of-the-virgin-mary-to-saint-joseph/?fbclid=IwAR38J3guHqTatgw-6czhozWE4ESVQSXh9zno3RzGLucgTAYEg9R_GNXkOn0
13. CCC 2363
14. Matthew 18:15
15. Mother Teresa of Calcutta: A Personal Portrait by Leo Maasburg
16. Ibid
17. Galatians 6:1
18. Luke 6:42
19. Matthew 18:6
20. GodTV.com/10-practical-reasons-not-to-have-sex-before-marriage/
21. CCC 1652
22. CCC 1652
23. CCC 1654
24. Matthew 19:3-9
25. anglicannews.org/news/2018/11/albany-bishop-says-no-to-same-sex-marriage-rites-despite-general-convention-resolution.aspx
26. Matthew 22:37-39
27. crisismagazine.com/2018/judaisms-sexual-revolution-judaism-christianity-rejected-homosexuality?fbclid=IwAR2XMx6mCZe4pIDoYApzqxWQ1NbBqlveptpOs3ISYWQqzDxnzgnSNk3qgCs