Posted by: fvbcdm | February 26, 2014

Feast of Saint Paula of Saint Joseph of Calasanz (26 February 2014)

In a recent Catholic periodical, there is an interesting article on the absurd idea of same-sex marriage now being legitimized by some of our states and widely discussed from coast to coast. Like all these moral matters, it becomes a political football in elections, and therefore in our daily newspapers and radio and television news reports.  All of this lends a certain air of seriousness to what the whole world would have simply laughed about a few years ago.

This article of which I speak carries the idea of same sex marriage to its logical conclusion.  If it is lawful for two men or two women to marry one another, then it must be lawful for any two unmarried people who happen to live together to do so.  Let’s suppose, the author says quite logically, that two unmarried men are in business together and share a home.  They could be married.  And then, when one of them dies, he can leave all his worldly possessions to his “spouse.”  That would effectively cut any of their relatives, including children by former marriages, out of the succession if the state laws so provided.  Their marriage would also confer upon them tax benefits for spouses which they could use for their business purposes.  And if their business venture should ever end, then they simply divorce and marry someone else, male or female, the union with whom would be beneficial financially to both.

What if two brothers who live in the family household should present themselves to the marriage court—or a brother and sister, or two sisters? Could the state refuse to marry them? If it can’t prevent marriage on the grounds of same sex, could it prevent it on the grounds of family affinity? And if not, could a parent marry his/her own child to keep the money in the family? The whole thing gets more absurd and grotesque by the moment.

If a state or national government wishes to legalize some sort of homosexual union, it would certainly be immoral as all homosexual unions are, but it might confer some privileges and obligations upon the two persons involved. Two persons? Why just two? The concept of two persons flows naturally from the fact that marriage is based upon our God-given sexuality, wherein a man and a woman unite sexually to have children and perpetuate the human race. It takes only one man and one woman to have a child.  And it is natural for a woman NOT to want to share her mate with other women, and a man not to want to raise the children of another man.  But if the marriage we speak of is homosexual, why not three or four participants, since no children will be the result?  And again, if one or more of the participants wants out—or the others want him or her out—well, a divorce easily solves that problem.

As we go down this garden path, we find ourselves getting closer and closer to the jungle and farther and farther away from human dignity, nobility, and any thought of sanctity or conformity to the holy will of God.   Thank you for seeking God’s truth.  God bless you.  Father Victor Brown, O.P.

Note:  This message was composed some years ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: