Thank you, Lisa, for your report
about the Thomas More gathering co-hosted and sponsored by the Murphy Institute
at Saint Thomas and the excellent University of Dallas Center for Thomas More
studies. If I recall correctly, Marc had also posted an entry on this
conference earlier in the spring before the gathering convened. Coincidentally
during the same period in which the conference was held, I finished reading two
books on More and Moreana. In one of them, I came across reference to an essay
published in 1961 by the well-known More scholar Father Germain Marc’hadour.
Father Marc’hadour investigated in this particular article the topic of More’s
obedience. More surely was obedient to the law and civil authorities including
Henry VIII; however, his ultimate obedience was to God and His holy Church.
In pursuing this particular study, Marc’hadour
made a small digression in his pure study on More to demonstrate how the
political difficulties of Thomas More’s time that contest faith in general, and
Catholicism in particular, are not restricted to the Tudor era. During that
period many good people had to make important decisions and, then, choices
about loyalty and fidelity that essentially pitted the civil authority against
the Church. But as Marc’hadour and others have demonstrated, this test has not
been restricted to that era. I join the ranks of those who do not think that
the Church-State issues which confronted Thomas More and his contemporaries were
restricted to the sixteenth century. During that period, Catholic England
became something else besides a nation that was breaking from Rome; in short,
it was transformed into a totalitarian system headed and directed by a well-educated
but increasingly despotic monarch. By the 1950s, another Englishman,
Christopher Dawson, warned that the twentieth century democracies themselves
could mimic the terrors generated by totalitarian states, and here I would
include Henry’s England. Following the thought of Dawson, John Paul II noted in
the 1990s that a democracy without values is but a thinly disguised
totalitarianism.
Apparently Marc’hadour joined the
ranks of Christopher Dawson and JPII by penning in 1961 these thoughts (which
are quoted in James Monti’s excellent 1997 book, The King’s Good Servant But God’s First):
It may be that the near future will
face all of us with the problem of harmonizing, or simply reconciling, our
loyalty to Caesar with our loyalty to God… [But Caesar] is no longer a monarch;
he is a cabinet or a party… [or] public opinion, which shapes—and is shaped
by—the newspapers, the broadcasts, the schools… If we may bring a few examples,
there are today fields of conduct, such as divorce, sexual behavior and
education, the use of artificial contraceptives, abortion, mercy-killing… and a
few more, in which a Catholic, especially if he [or she] is a lawyer, a doctor,
a nurse, a teacher, will find himself alone against practically everyone else
in [the] profession… As in penal days, the Catholic will sometimes be alone of
his species in the whole street… [and] find fellow Catholics ready to taunt
him… In extreme cases fidelity to the doctrine of Mother Church will mean worse
than corporal death: it will alienate from a man the trust and esteem of the
people he likes, or even loves, best… The prospect of this social
disqualification, of this civic annihilation… is as strong and effective a
pressure as the old forms of physical duress… [T]housands will apostatize
simply because they see no rational justification for the Church’s position on
a number of points, and they have not enough faith… to cling to her through
sheer obedience.
However, Father Marc’hadour did
have a remedy to address this problem: it was “the fervent intercession” of
Saint Thomas More which “can remedy the sickly reluctance of many tepid
Christians.” While Marc’hadour understood how More could be both a “dangerous
patron” and a “dangerous friend,” something could be learned from one “who
never believed in being carried to heaven on a featherbed.”
Today we find the neuralgic issues
identified by Marc’hadour (and new ones such as the meaning of marriage and
family) very much with us; moreover, we find those in national, state,
provincial, and regional governments strongly pushing the agenda to transform
abortion, euthanasia, access to artificial contraception, etcetera into so-called “human rights” issues which no one,
especially faithful Catholics, should be able to challenge regardless of the
reasons tendered for opposition or objection to these newly discovered “rights”.
In addition, we see many in the academy and religious life, including those who
use the modifier “Catholic” to self-identify, urging their co-religionists to
cast aside the teachings of the Church and accept what are considered to be the
more enlightened views of the present age.
But here at the Mirror of Justice, most of our
discussions that are pursued and positions which are taken rely upon objective
reason to consider, understand, and explain the Church’s teachings on these
increasingly controversial topics, which have a bearing on the development of
Catholic legal theory. But our discussions on this site really go beyond the
important matters that intersect Catholic and any other legal theory—they also
address, quite often, the nature of the human person and what our individual
and social existence is all about: union with God.
In short, Thomas More understood
that the dangerous political and social maelstrom in which he lived and died
had to do not only with the civil governance of his time; it also had to do
with human destiny, that is, with final things, including the final thing which I
have just mentioned. As one goes through More’s vast correspondence and his
so-called Tower Writings that he left and which are extant, you can see the
mind and soul of the lawyer who was trying to be the good and obedient servant
of both God and country. In the eyes of some, he failed in the latter category;
but, I think the holders of this view are mistaken. Why? Thomas More understood
that there is more about the human condition than the present moment and
surviving it as best one can; he realized that the collection of “present
moments” is but a prelude to the final things which we must all face. Thus, he
used his intelligence and objective reasoning to try and avoid the traps with
which the totalitarian king of his day attempted to ensnare him; but while
doing this, More never lost sight of the final goal of the human condition and
the necessary obedience that must be directed to the Universal Sovereign.
This goal is not about doing well
in this world, a world which comes to an end for all of us with our natural or
accelerated death; this goal is not about how to make friends and influence
people; this goal is not about being the best or most powerful or most
influential; this goal is not about getting along with everyone by doing what
they are willing to do in order to join them in fellowship. The goal is about
getting ready to meet God, and this is the final destiny we all share in
common. Thomas More was the better lawyer, father, husband, and member of
society for the path he chose. And what about each one of us: which path do we
choose? After all, we are all like More because we share the important, final
thing, too.
Recently the state of Rhode Island
joined the ranks of those jurisdictions providing for the recognition of
same-sex marriage. Within the U.S., Rhode Island makes the tenth state which
recognizes the redefinition of marriage. Other jurisdictions, perhaps Delaware,
will soon follow in this move that, superficially, is based on the false
arguments of justice by ensuring equality for all. I, along with others, have
addressed the equality issue in the past from a variety of perspectives. Some
of us have incorporated into our arguments the “what” and the “why” of the
Church’s teachings on the nature of marriage, while others have chosen a
different course. As this weblog is dedicated to the development of Catholic
legal theory, we need to be aware that there are standards promulgated by the
Church, which include the writings of Blessed John Paul II and the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, instructing Catholics who hold public office on
how they are to conduct the efforts made in the execution of their offices
which impact public policy and the law. These texts also offer guidance to
other people of good will regarding what should be done and what should be
avoided in the execution of the responsibilities as public officials and
servants of the common good. The Church’s instructions and guidance are not
just the doctrine of the Church applicable to Catholics; they also constitute
wise counsel for the better governance of societies that are presumably geared
to pursuing the common good. This counsel is particularly applicable to democratic
institutions of governance, but even democracies, when the compromise their
values, becoming thinly disguised totalitarianisms, as Blessed John Paul II
noted some years ago. The evidence is building that on a number of fronts our
democratic institutions of the West, particularly those of the United States,
are being transformed into thinly disguised totalitarian states.
Last week The New York Times [HERE] published an op-ed contribution of
Governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. The opinion piece was entitled “Why I
am Signing Marriage Equality into Law” and presented the Governor’s case for
the dramatic change in the redefinition of marriage in Little Rhody a
jurisdiction of great fondness to me since, amongst other reasons, it was the
last jurisdiction in which I practiced law before entering the Society of
Jesus. However, this fondness has been challenged by the Governor’s recent advocacy
piece heralding Rhode Island’s move to join those other jurisdictions which
recognize same-sex marriage. I realize that the Governor and I do not share
views on some of the important issues of the day: he is pro-abortion, and I am
not; he is in favor of the use of embryonic stem cells, and I am not; and he
holds a very different view about church-state relations from mine. And now, he
and I see the meaning and nature of marriage from the antipodes. Allow me to
elaborate upon the deceptive statements advanced by the Governor which were
used to justify his advocacy for same-sex marriage and which will have a
widespread impact on movement of this political juggernaut around the country
and the world. (Deception had often been a crucial tool for totalitarian
systems to convince the public that what the state is doing is both right and
smart, but in fact is neither.)
The Governor first of all advances
an interesting take on the primacy of equality and “equality’s” justification
for same-sex marriage. I have addressed the equality argument on these pages in
the past, most recently HERE. While the Governor states that the legislation
institutionalizing same-sex marriage “will be gratifying for many reasons,” the
first reason he notes is that it will instantiate “full marriage equality.” He
does not explain what he means by “equal” and “equality”; neither does he
assert that anyone, be he or she heterosexual or homosexual, is treated equally
before the law regarding the traditional requirements for marriage, which is
not a private matter or contract as the Governor suggests but is, in fact, a
public institution which bears on the common good of society. As I have
previously argued on many occasions including the Mirror of Justice, regardless of one’s sexual orientation, everyone
is treated the same under the marriage laws which define the institution as an exclusive
union of one man and one woman—a position with which the Church’s teachings
agree and impart. It would have been helpful for the Governor to explain why
same-sex couples—or any other group for that matter—are denied “equality” under
the traditional definition of marriage, but perhaps he agreed with then Chief
Justice Margaret Marshall of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts who,
in November of 2003, realized that the definition of marriage had to be
radically altered to satisfy the political juggernaut behind the recognition of
same-sex unions; thus, she redefined it on the basis of this “vital social
institution” as being based on the “exclusive commitment of two individuals to
each other” so that “mutual love and mutual support” can be nurtured and bring “stability
to our society.” She further offered a new definition of marriage by “using the
rubric of due process” to redefine this important public institution not with
reasoned argument but with the pen of a political theorist. But here we need to
take account of the fact that her redefinition was based on pretext rather than
objective reality that is comprehendible to objective human intelligence. The
Governor has made the same mistake as Margaret Marshall, C.J.
Another reason presented by the
Governor in defense of his action is that the redefinition of marriage is “the
right thing to do.” The basis of the justification for this argument is the
coincidence of a hoped-for economic recovery for Rhode Island which has been an
“outlier” but must now be an active participant in economic recovery. He argues
that Rhode Island is surrounded by states which have incorporated same-sex
marriage recognition into their laws. While it is suggested that these
jurisdictions (e.g., New York, Massachusetts, and Maine) have made solid
economic recoveries, he does not present data supporting the contention. In the
words of Cuba Gooding, Jr., in the film “Jerry Maguire,” show me the money! The
Governor does not; he merely relies on unsubstantiated theory. Still, he does
not want Rhode Island to be left out of the perceived economic recovery he
argues will follow when Rhode Island joins the same-sex marriage movement.
A theoretical justification used by
the Governor to support his decision to sign the same-sex marriage legislation
into law is his reliance on the work of the urban theorist Richard Florida who
contends that those urban regions which have high concentrations of technology
workers, artists, and persons with same-sex attractions and practices (whom are
identified as “high bohemians” and members of the “creative class”) are vital
to economic development. I gather if you don’t fall into these categories
identified by Professor Florida, you are not vital to economic development and
recovery. Moreover, the Governor, by accepting the Florida thesis, ironically
introduces a new form of class warfare into the social fabric, and class
warfare or class competition is antithetical to Catholic teaching, but I
digress. I hasten to point out that Professor Florida’s stance on economic
development has been strongly critiqued by other academics known for rigorous
standards in social science research. However, these criticisms were not acknowledged
by the Governor, again perhaps because these critiques would not support his
action in signing the same-sex marriage bill into law.
Perhaps the Governor tacitly recognized
the problems with this aspect of the Florida thesis; consequently, he reinvents
the argument of support based on the research of “many experts”, including
Florida, who contend that there is “a strong correlation between tolerance and
prosperity, particularly in high-tech sectors.” The Governor emphasizes the
issue of tolerance, but he does not explain what tolerance means. I have
explained elsewhere that in today’s political environment tolerance is
frequently used as a means of eliminating opposition to the insistence that all
comply with the positions asserted by the state whether the need for universal
compliance is necessary or not. I contend that this is meaning of “tolerance”
is used by public officials who view that moral concerns are not matters of
public concern. However, in fact they are and they must be if the authentic
common good is of concern. But the Governor dismisses quickly what he considers
“convictions of personal morality.” He does not consider the arguments dealing
with public morality. Instead, his concern is on “job creation” for Rhode
Island and “tolerance” of the Florida thesis is crucial to Rhode Island’s
economic recovery in his estimation. He does not pause to suggest that holding
onto the wisdom of traditional morality might actually have the means of making
Rhode Island an oasis that would attract the “talented” to a state which has
not capitulated to the relentless force of the same-sex marriage juggernaut.
Strangely the Governor reinforces his advocacy for same-sex marriage by the
thin hedonistic argument that the “talented workers who are driving the new
economy—young, educated and forward-looking—want to live in a place that
reflects their values.” And what are these values? The Governor suggests that
they are based “not simply out of a sense of justice, but because diversity
makes life more fun.” While fun is important to most people, sound public
policy that counters the hedonistic attitudes upon which the Governor relies is
critical to good governance. Again, the words of Blessed John Paul II are
instructive here: a democracy without values or the proper values is a thinly
disguised totalitarianism. Has the Governor decided to join the ranks of the
thinly disguised totalitarian systems of the present age? It would seem so.
Why do I suggest this? I turn to
his disingenuous conclusion he offers that the current political trend is to
accept the “belief in marriage as an institution” which requires “a desire to
keep government out of our personal lives.” But marriage is not simply about
personal lives and privacy; it is, rather, a critical public institution that
necessitates sound public policy which escapes the Governor’s rationalization
of what marriage is all about and why traditional marriage is important to the
future of the human family. He concludes his rationalization by again relying on
the false equality argument which once more escapes definition. He contends
that he does not want Rhode Island to cling to “old prohibitions” which he
assumes are detrimental not only to economic recovery but also to the flourishing
of society. He sees these “old prohibitions” as discriminatory, but he does not
examine whether the discrimination against same-sex marriage advocacy is just
or unjust. This distinction of “just” versus “unjust” is also relevant to
Catholic teaching and the making of sound public policy. For the Governor,
marriage depends on the ability to marry the person one loves, but as I have
also pointed out, this argument is insufficient. There are sound reasons why
authentic equality is not unjustly interfered with when the laws prohibit
persons from marrying “the person they love.” These sound reasons included age,
degrees of consanguinity, and communicable disease. Strangely, the Governor’s
sentiments that the new law will enable people to marry “the person they love”
is untrue as the new legislation retains many of the “old prohibitions” that I
just mentioned. Yet the Governor remains confident that equality will be served
as the legislation will accomplish “the right thing and the smart thing” which “are
one and the same.” Unfortunately for him, his action was neither. Objective
intelligence comprehending the intelligible reality does not agree with the
position and argument advanced by the Governor, but the political juggernaut of
which he is a part still plows ahead on its non-deviating course. In the meantime
the sound values which the State of Rhode Island adhered to in the past have
been sacrificed to the thin values that are aligned with new totalitarian
system identified by Blessed John Paul II.
Research is an enterprise not
restricted to lawyers and academics, but it is a large component of what the
members of these two professions do. In my life which has intersected both
pursuits, I have come across texts that have fallen into the category of “unpublished
manuscript.” Over the past year I have labored on two projects (one dealing
with an aspect of religious liberty in China and the other dealing with lessons
to be learned from past statutory making and interpretation) which will not be
published. So I make these available to the readers of the Mirror of Justice HERE
Download Render Unto Mao and HERE
Download Statutory Making and Interpretation Lessons of 1534-5 for the Present Age.
In the context of the essay on
statutory making and interpretation, two catalysts for the project were
thoughts of Joseph de Maistre (“a nation gets the government it deserves”) and
George Santayana (“those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat
it”).
In David O. Selznick’s classic film
about the American Civil War, one of the principal characters, Scarlett O’Hara,
engages the Tarleton brothers with the following dialogue:
Scarlett:
Fiddle-dee-dee! War, war, war; this war talk’s spoiling all the fun at every
party this spring. I get so bored I could scream. Besides... there isn’t going
to be any war.
Brent Tarleton:
Not going to be any war?
Stuart Tarleton:
Why, honey, of course there’s gonna be a war.
Scarlett:
If either of you boys says “war” just once again, I’ll go in the house and slam
the door.
Brent Tarleton:
But Scarlett, honey...
Stuart Tarleton:
Don’t you want us to have a war?
Of course there was a war, and it
was, like most wars devastating and took tragic tolls on human life even though
many Americans characterized by the Tarleton brothers may have initially welcomed
the conflict.
Rick has just brought to our
attention another report about another grave conflict in the United States by
focusing on the American President’s address before Planned Parenthood in which
Mr. Obama defended once again what now are called “rights”—the right to take an
innocent human life. The President employed rhetoric, “an assault on women’s
rights,” to critique those organizations and states who prepare and execute
policies designed to regulate abortion. [President’s entire address is HERE]
Real wars involving real assaults against innocent civilians do bring casualties
to the conflict. What the President failed to do in his speech before the members
of the Planned Parenthood organization was to identify the real victim of
abortion politics and the ensuing conflicts emanating from these politics, the
over fifty million young Americans whose lives have been snuffed out by the
very “right” he champions.
If he were really interested in discussing and
debating the real casualties of the conflicts over abortion with the alleged
right he defends so freely and enthusiastically, he should have mentioned the
deaths of our young brothers and sisters who have been the real casualties of the abortion wars. But instead, the President
defended women’s questionable Constitutional rights, but he did not mention that there are
other ways of protecting their authentic rights with moral legitimacy—that there are
other ways of avoiding assaults on the authentic rights of women. Rather, he allowed the
sacred memory of the victims of abortion to be forgotten. Sadly, he chose not
to speak about them or the rights which objective reason grants to them. Why?
Well, after all, they, too, like the subjects in Selznick’s film are gone with
the wind.
Greg, Robby, and Rick, amongst
others, have underscored in recent days the deficiencies in the reporting of
momentous events which impact us on an individual and communal basis. The
underlying theme of their postings has been the thunderous reticence of much of
the media in reporting the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his intentional
killing of new born babies who were targeted for termination by abortion. Is
there not a duty on the media’s part to report truthfully the news that impacts
the common good? Those of us who are lawyers are or should be familiar with the
responsibility to be accurate and forthcoming in what we present. If we do not,
there are distinct consequences. Business people must do the same, and so
should the members of the other learned professions. Tradespeople have duties
to disclose information about consumer products and services; the failure to do
so will lead to their being held accountable. But why do many members of the
media think that they are different? In reporting the events of the day, it is
often said by them that there is a “right” for the public to know what
government officials are up to; what ecclesiastical officers must disclose by
way of protection of the vulnerable; and, what folks in business are purveying
to a consuming public. In justifying what they do, the media often rely on the
need of the public’s “right” to know, but it seems that if the media do not
think there is a story to sell, the obligation to disclose does not exist;
hence, there is no “right” to know that which does not need to be known if the
media determine it so. Moreover, if the media’s editors believe that
publication of an important story would not accord with their editorial
policies dealing with neuralgic issues, e.g., abortion and other reproductive
“rights,” then the story does not merit publication in whatever format the
media organ uses.
But the media, like the learned professions
and businesses, do serve to a major degree the common good, i.e., the
simultaneous good of each and the good of all—for the two are inextricably
connected. In short, do the media not have a recognized duty to publish the
truth objectively, especially about major issues and events, rather than to
make its own “truth” through silence or misrepresentation? This was a theme of
Benedict XVI in his 2008 World Communications Day message when he said,
We must ask, therefore, whether it
is wise to allow the instruments of social communication to be exploited for indiscriminate
“self-promotion” or to end up in the hands of those who use them to manipulate
consciences. Should it not be a priority to ensure that they remain at the
service of the person and of the common good, and that they foster “man’s
ethical formation … man’s inner growth”? Their extraordinary impact on the
lives of individuals and on society is widely acknowledged, yet today it is
necessary to stress the radical shift, one might even say the complete change
of role, that they are currently undergoing. Today, communication seems
increasingly to claim not simply to represent reality, but to determine it,
owing to the power and the force of suggestion that it possesses. It is clear,
for example, that in certain situations the media are used not for the proper
purpose of disseminating information, but to “create” events. This dangerous
change in function has been noted with concern by many Church leaders.
Precisely because we are dealing with realities that have a profound effect on
all those dimensions of human life (moral, intellectual, religious, relational,
affective, cultural) in which the good of the person is at stake, we must
stress that not everything that is technically possible is also ethically
permissible.
Perhaps not reporting major issues
is not always the same thing as “creating” events, but the failure to report
accurately stories of the day having an impact on the common good is surely the
kind of misrepresentation for which many others, including lawyers, can be
sanctioned. Indisputably the failure to report the intentional killing of
newborn children is of a major concern. I wonder if many in the media find this
uninteresting and not worth reporting because they have accepted the deaths of
over fifty million young Americans in the reproductive health clinics of the
nation? If they have conditioned themselves into accepting this tragedy, what
else may they find uninteresting and therefore not worth reporting?
I am grateful to Susan for bringing to our attention the matter of Johns Hopkins University and what is considered to be generating discomfort for some members of the university to have a recognized pro-life group on campus. What Christopher Dawson projected a half century ago regarding certain beliefs not only being unwelcomed but being pushed out of existence is the reality of the present age.
I wonder if those responsible for the denial of the pro-life organization's recognition would also be "uncomftable" with the need to: work, study, write, publish, think, evaluate, research, discuss, debate, and (perhaps most importantly) search for the objective truth which does, in fact, exist if we care to look for it.
Yesterday’s oral arguments on the
California Proposition 8 case disclosed many interesting thoughts about the
meaning of marriage not only in California but everywhere else. Today’s oral
arguments which should be underway by now will likely do the same. The scope of
my posting today is limited to the very first remarks made by Theodore Olson
arguing on behalf of the Respondents (those seeking to legalize same-sex
marriage in California, and elsewhere) and the Solicitor General Donald
Verrilli, Jr. who argued in support of the Respondents’ position. Mr. Olson
opened his argument with this:
[Proposition 8] walls-off gays and
lesbians from marriage, the most important relation in life, according to this
Court, thus stigmatizing a class of Californians based upon their status and
labeling their most cherished relationships as second-rate, different, unequal,
and not okay.
In his opening words, General
Verrilli said this:
Proposition 8 denies gay and
lesbian persons the equal protection of the laws.
Both of these opening remarks are
important and expected claims; however, both of them are untrue. Proposition 8
does not deny equality to anyone. Rather, it levels the playing field so that
any person is treated the same when it comes to marriage. No one is
stigmatized. No one is second rate. No one is unequal. All persons—heterosexual,
homosexual, bi-sexual, transgendered, questioning, etc.—are in the same boat
under Proposition 8; therefore, all are treated equally. There is no denial of
equality; there is no instantiation of inequality by Proposition 8’s operation.
Knowing that I am entering a topic
that bears great sensitivity, I want to express clearly that it is not my
intention to insult, demean, or marginalize anyone and the dignity that is
inherent to everyone. I think that there must be equal access to the claim of
dignity which does not imply or require the further conclusion that all persons
are equal in all respects nor must their ideas and positions be judged equal in
all respects. To disagree with someone with different views on any
subject—including same-sex marriage—is precisely that, to disagree—a
disagreement that is based on intelligence comprehending and intelligible
world. The nature of disagreement is to enter a debate with reasoned analysis
and objective commentary supported by factual analyses. To disagree is not to
demean; to debate is not to insult; to contradict with objective reasoning is
not to marginalize or unjustly discriminate.
By insisting through legislation or
adjudication that one thing is equal to something else does not in fact make it
so (our human intelligence and our understanding of the intelligible world lead
us to this conclusion)—for there must be some foundation based on facts and
reason that can justify the equality claim (once again, our human intelligence
and our understanding of the intelligible world inexorably lead us to this
second conclusion). If this factual-rational foundation is lacking, the
equality claim must necessarily fail unless the legal mechanism considering the
claim is a purely positivist one. This is patent when the physical differences
of male and female and their biological complementarity essential to the
continuation of the human race are taken into account. The promotion of “legal
argument” that attempts to justify same-sex unions as being the equal of
opposite-sex marriage is a contradiction of reason and fact which destabilizes
the integrity of a legal system and the substantive law that undergirds it.
Reliance on an “equality” argument to advance legal schemes to recognize same
sex-marriage does not make relations between two men or two women the same as
the complementary relation between a man and a women when reason and fact state
that they are equal in certain ways but not in other ways that are crucial to
the institution of marriage. While the sexual relations between same-sex
couples and opposite-sex couples may both generate physical pleasures through
sexual intimacy, these two kinds of sexual relations are substantively
different in that the latter exemplifies the procreative capacity that is the
foundation of the human race based on the ontological reality of the nuclear
family (the fundamental unit of society) whereas the former is sterile from its
beginning and cannot achieve this objective.
But let us assume for the moment
that I am in error on other pertinent issues regarding same-sex unions and that
the relationship between two persons of the same sex is the equal of the
marriage between a man and a woman. What conclusions do we then reach as further
considerations surrounding the marital context are pursued? These
considerations include: equality claims made for other relationships in which
proponents argue that these relationships can also be marriages if the
relationship of same-sex couples can become a marriage; moreover, by denying
the marital status to the partners of these other relationships is there also a
violation of equality? A list of such affiliations might include these: a
collective of men or women—or a mixture of both sexes—who claim the right to be
equal and therefore married in a polygamous context; a sexual affiliation of
someone in age-minority and someone in age-majority who claim the right to be
equal and therefore married in spite of current prohibitions on age limitations;
a sexual relationship of closely related persons who, in spite of legal
prohibitions due to degrees of consanguinity, claim the equal right to
marriage; or any combinations of human beings who wish to associate with other
biological entities who (at least the humans) insist that their relation is or
should be considered the equal of a marriage between a man and a woman.
The equality argument supporting
same-sex marriage runs into difficulty when one considers that the heterosexual
marriage partners, because of their biological nature, are typically capable of
reproducing with one another but the homosexual partners are not. It is
absolutely essential to take stock of the indisputable about the physical
nature of the human being and its bearing on marriage. A homosexual man and a
heterosexual man are presumed equally capable of inseminating any woman, and a
lesbian and a heterosexual woman are presumed equally capable of being
inseminated by any man. Why? Because intelligence and the intelligible world
demonstrate this conclusion to be true. But no man, heterosexual or homosexual,
can inseminate any other man. Nor can any woman, heterosexual or homosexual,
inseminate another woman without the assistance of artificial means. Neither
judicial nor legislative fiat can
alter this biological reality of human nature. Any man can deposit his semen
and sperm in another man, but this does not lead to fertilization of human eggs
and procreation. No woman can produce sperm-bearing semen and inject it into
another woman thereby leading to the fertilization of the second woman’s egg.
The procreation argument against same-sex unions works not because of legal
fiction or artifice but because of biological reality that is inextricably a
part of human nature that has been a part of the traditional definition of
marriage that the majority in Goodridge
could not dispute. Again, human intelligence and the intelligible world are
working in tandem when these conclusions are reached. Put simply, the Goodridge majority and others making
similar claims ignore these crucial points about reality, and ignoring reality
does not make for wise and sound law except for the steadfast positivist whose
will typically overcomes the intellect. The only way to overcome this obstacle
to the same-sex marriage campaign is to put aside the natural and historical
definition of marriage and manufacture a new one that suits the needs of
same-sex marriage advocates.
The final point I’ll offer today is
this: heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, transgendered, and sexually
questioning persons share the same position under Proposition 8 which treats
all alike. No heterosexual man can marry another man regardless of his
orientation. No homosexual man can marry another man regardless of his
orientation. No heterosexual woman can marry another woman regardless of her orientation.
No homosexual woman can marry another woman regardless of her orientation.
This is not inequality; rather it
is equality pure and simple. This is another reason why Mr. Olson’s and General
Verrilli’s assertions are without merit.
We are about to enter Holy Week as
we finish Passion Week. Why do Christians—including those at the Mirror of Justice—celebrate this time?
Because we are sinners and know that we are in need of reformation in this life
because we are destined for another one. As we are reminded on Ash Wednesday,
we must repent and believe in the Gospel because we are dust and to dust we
shall inevitably return. I was reminded of this yesterday as I had a radical
chemotherapy procedure done through the insertion of cytotoxins via several lumbar
punctures. Even though doctors are trying to help prolong my life, I realize
that this corporeal existence does not and cannot last forever. This is not the
destiny of any of us; the destiny we share and must all face individually is
judgment before God who will forgive us of our sins if we consciously seek the
conversion taught by Christ. This is a life-long struggle, but it is the
enterprise of the person of faith. During yesterday’s procedure, I was also reminded of the passion of Christ
who died not because he was a nice guy who simply cared for others but because,
as God incarnate, He died for the remission of our sins. God incarnate shows us
what we must do in this life to prepare for the next. The prayers used at the administration
of ashes came to mind once again. We are all that woman in Saint’s Gospel who
had sinned; Jesus encourages her and us that He does not condemn us, yet He also
directs us to sin no more.
In this regard, I should like to
call attention to the allocution delivered by our Holy Father Francis to the
diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See earlier today. [HERE: scroll down
for official text in English] In his address, Pope Francis recalled once again
why he chose the name of Francis in order to honor the one of Assisi whose love
for the poor who suffer the indignities of this corporeal existence. His
exhortation urged the representatives of the nations of the world to help “the
sick, orphans, the homeless and all the marginalized, thus striving to make
society more humane and more just.” But Pope Francis properly noted that
another Francis might be at work in his Petrine ministry, and that is the one
of Xavier who went forth into the world seeking the conversion of souls, or as
Father Ignatius argued, for the defense and propagation of the faith and for
the progress of souls in Christian life. The Holy Father thus spoke of another
kind of poverty that devastates the world today.
That is the poverty which is
spiritual and afflicts, in particular, the developed countries of the world
such as our own. He specifically noted and appropriated Pope Benedict’s phrase
of the “tyranny of relativism” that afflicts those in the world who have no
need for faith in God in their lives. Faith is essential to a just, peaceful,
and secure world. And, the peace of Christ is essential to all this, but as
Pope Francis continued, “there can be no true peace without truth” which Saint
John’s Gospel (which we’ll hear next week) reminds us, is Christ who is the
Truth in spite of what Pilate thought.
By the use of our God-given
intelligence which capacitates us to comprehend the intelligible reality of
ourselves, our human nature, and the world that surrounds us, we can live lives
that place ourselves on the straight path to God and away from the crooked path
to sin. We have the intelligence to formulate norms (including human law) that
will facilitate this for Christians, other believers in God, and for all people
of good will. This why Pope Francis reminded the members of the diplomatic
corps that it “is not possible to build bridges between people while forgetting
God” for He is what it’s all about. But by the same token, our path to God must
also not forget our brothers and sisters everywhere regardless of who they are.
Somehow, some commentators who are
superficially embracing Pope Francis are concentrating on his personal humility
and his work with the marginalized—or those marginalized who are at the center
of the causes that these advocates endorse. However, the selectivity in
endorsing Pope Francis’s work must be carefully evaluated and critiqued. It is
not only good to love those with whom you identify, but it is expected of Christians
and certainly those of Loyola’s company to help all people understand and
address the Original Sin that permeates the human condition. Humility and good
works are wonderful and essential elements of Christian existence but they are
empty if they are not directed to the conversion necessary for the salvation of
souls. That is something that many in our developed world today forget,
including the most prominent members of our society who think that embracing
the ways of the world are a permissible means of seeking God. If these ways
forget our sinfulness, then they become empty gestures that defy rather than accept
what Francis lays before us. I say again to us all: repent and believe in the
Gospel. Francis is helping us along the way by his own example.
Prior to the euphoria associated
with the election to the papacy of Pope Francis, The New York Times published this past Monday an editorial entitled
“Unholy Alliance.” [Here] The editorial was a harsh critique of the Holy See
and alleged that it was in an “unholy alliance” with the Islamic Republic of
Iran and the Russian Federation designed to derail the “final communiqué” of
the annual two-week meeting at the United Nations Headquarters of the
Commission on the Status of Women. In relying on finger pointing of some “delegates”
and “activists”, the Times argues
that this “unholy alliance” is trying to eliminate language that would “eliminate
violence” against women. I cannot say what approach the Iranians and Russians
have taken in the discussions leading to the final text of this year’s
Commission, but I can with humble confidence say something about the Holy See’s
position and method of proceeding as expressed in its official intervention in
the plenary sessions of the Commission. [Here]
I cannot reconcile the Times’s branding of the Holy See as part
of a Trinitarian “unholy alliance” with the Vatican’s actual position in and
contributions to the Commission’s deliberations. The Times fails to understand or accept the possibility that even “conservative
hard-liners” might be right on certain issues, particularly when the subject
matter deals with the falsehood that abortion is a “human right” as the Times contends. If we could ask to over
fifty million young Americans who lost their lives from an abortion performed
on them since Roe was decided, I am
confident that they would also disagree that abortion is a “human right.” In
this regard the Times defends its
view with the statement that “[t]he efforts by the Vatican and Iran to control
women are well known.” But is the Church’s position as well-known as the paper
contends? Again, I cannot speak about Iran’s position, but it is imperative
that if anyone including the Times
and is interested in what is truly going on in the current session of the
Commission on the Status of Women they must read the Holy See’s intervention to
which I have already supplied to link. It is this statement, and not some
phantom “unholy alliance”, that guides those delegates who represent the Holy
See in their great efforts to stop violence against women and girls and to
promote their genuine dignity and worth that is a central element of the UN’s
mandate. When an objective reader considers the Vatican text, I doubt that he
or she would reach the same conclusion that is proffered by the Times. It is not control of women that
the Holy See is after; rather, it is the protection of everyone’s fundamental
and natural claims to the life God has given us all.
The Times derides “traditional values” that it asserts are used to “justify
the violation of basic human rights.” Yet, it does not specify which are the
values espoused and which are the rights affected. However, the paper, in a
weak effort to reinforce its position, relies on the Norwegian gender equality
minister’s interesting assertion that “Violence against women must be seen as a
human rights issue, and that has nothing to do with culture or religion.” The
first part of her statement before the comma seems to make sense, but I question
the second part in which it is contended that human rights have nothing to do
with culture or religion. If this is the case, I think the Times and the minister ought to familiarize themselves with the
major human rights instruments and declarations of public international law.
When they do, they will see that religion and culture have a great deal to do
with human rights because they are recognized as human rights; however, an
examination of these same declarations and juridical documents reveals nothing
about abortion being a human right. The reason for this is because it is not, nor
could abortion become one.
The Times is correct in expressing outrage about violence against girls
and women, but it does not acknowledge that the very first paragraph of the Holy
See’s intervention says the following:
“This year’s choice of this
important topic underlines the tragic reality of the continued victimization of
women and girls around the world by myriad forms of exploitation and violence,
in a shameful continuum, ranging from sex-selective abortions, female
infanticide, abandonment, trafficking, rape, domestic abuse, rape as a weapon
of war, forced prostitution, to misguided government policies unduly
restricting the number of children per family and other forms of violence. Many
women and girls, from the moment of conception until natural death, face an
array of immoral and dehumanizing acts of violence. In addition, degrading
practices, such as female genital mutilation, child marriage, forced
sterilization and forced abortions, characterize this continuum and constitute
heinous forms of oppression trampling upon the dignity of women and girls. This
reality demands that Governments as well as all societal institutions undertake
concerted and comprehensive efforts to address this grave problem.”
It is puzzling that the Times makes no effort to acknowledge the
two dozen places in the Church’s interventions where the Vatican text addresses
violence against women and girls. Moreover, unlike the Holy See, the Grey Lady
is less interested in the authentic dignity and worth of women and girls, but,
unlike the Holy See, it appears to be more interested in promoting the exaggerated
autonomy of some persons over the authentic human rights of everyone. If there
is an “unholy alliance” lurking somewhere in the meetings on the Commission of
the Status of Women, the Holy See is not a part of it. Interestingly, the Holy
See acknowledged that the commercialization of the human person has something
to do with reinforcing a culture in which violence against girls, women, and
everyone else is a part of the real problem. As her intervention stated:
“The advertising which proliferates
around the world is an example of how the human person is demeaned, commodified
and sexualized into an object for others’ perversion and lust. The woman is
thereby reduced to a body without a mind or a soul. In this context, it is most
urgent for us to discern solutions that are not merely limited to the short
term, or lowest common denominator, and which inevitably prolong the causes for
violence, but rather to pursue solutions which address the root causes of
violence versus women.”
The Times would not have to look too far to observe one venue in which
this commercialization that undermines rather than reinforces the dignity and
worth of the human person takes place.
