Two opposing views on marriage have recently been given dramatically different voice, one by Episcopal Church U.S.A. (ECUSA); the other by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
A Blow Against the Sanctity of Marriage
In October, 2003, with surprisingly little fanfare given its consequences, the Episcopalian Church USA (ECUSA) marked a dismal moment in Christian history. Heedless to its impact on the institution of marriage, the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire consecrated a practicing homosexual to the rank of Bishop Coadjutor, electing Gene Robinson their next Bishop when the present prelate retires in March.
Lost in the political emphasis on “homosexual rights” is the fact that this priest abandoned his wife and marriage for a physical relationship with another man. As a dissenting Episcopal priest noted, “If Gene Robinson had left his wife for another woman, none of this would be happening.” Those of us in the ranks of the struggle to support marriage and family wonder what the Episcopal Church can possibly be thinking. Sadly, we know. Fearful of homosexual dissent, the church has pitted an ill-defined “inclusivity and tolerance” against the sanctity of marriage.
Putting aside for a moment the spiritual and theological implications, there remains the practical reality: successful attacks on marriage yield societal decay. Nevertheless, this mainstream church has lapped up the U. S. Supreme Court’s hooey, recently reaffirmed in Lawrence v. Texas, that: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” For a major Christian denomination to have bought into such a premise is to suggest that Christ died to proclaim: “Go and do as you see fit.” How many, both inside the Episcopal Church and without, are left confused and feel abandoned by this political/religious doublespeak?
In support of ECUSA’s decision, it has been lamented that other homosexual priests have been forced to remain in the closet, “living a lie,” as if that were their only choice. Yet the message to those homosexuals who struggle and maintain sexual abstinence speaks for itself: Why bother? Similarly confusing is the implication for marriage. Spouses who persevere through the difficult times that come to every marriage without succumbing to adultery are left bewildered. Also slighted by Bishop Robinson’s elevation are the countless young adult single church members who fight the constant societal lure to engage in sex outside of marriage. “Tolerance” cannot long be a successful theology precisely because it lacks substance. If Gene Robinson is right, the others who abstain are fools.
Yes, We Can Know Meaning, Purpose and Value
On November 13, 2003, less than a month after the elevation of Bishop Robinson, the USCCB released their document: Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers about Marriage and Same-Sex Unions. In contrast to ECUSA statements pertaining to its arbitrary sanctioning of a Bishop’s active homosexual lifestyle, the USCCB first addresses the core of the marital relationship. The Catholic Bishops begin by asserting a meaning, purpose and value to the institution of marriage. Further, they point out that one need not be Catholic, or even believe in God, to understand marital meaning, purpose and value for each is knowable through basic human reasoning.
In other words, it does not matter if you believe that God (whether called Jesus, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Sophia, etc.) made men and women. You need not be Jew or Christian to comprehend marital purpose. Nor does it matter if you believe in an evolutionary theory of the creation of men and women. Human reasoning tells us that men and women, though equal in humanity, are nonetheless “different from but made for each other.” Those very differences attract and complement men and women.
The Catholic Bishops point to this built-in complementarity that draws the sexes together “in mutual loving union.” Human reason therefore confirms, among other things, an obvious purpose of that physical complementarity. By virtue of the union of men and women, humankind reproduces itself and assures the continuation of the human species. Thus the union of men and woman is first of all real, not pretended. Second, it has at its core, among other things, a purpose for procreation that is innate and thus quite natural.
This purpose — known through human reasoning — is also confirmed through God’s revelation. Accordingly, the USCCB refers to various biblical texts from Hebrew and Christian scripture confirming “God's plan for marriage. It is an intimate union in which the spouses give themselves, as equal persons, completely and lovingly to one another. By their mutual gift of self, they cooperate with God in bringing children to life and in caring for them.”
This cooperation with God speaks to a dignity of the human person that both transcends and incorporates the natural law of persons as to procreation and the preservation of the species. Therefore, the dual natural and supernatural characteristics of marriage undergird the purpose, meaning, and value of this union between man and woman. On these two reasons alone, there can be no parallel to it in a homosexual relationship. Persons of the same sex by their nature cannot enter into a conjugal act. On a supernatural level, physical homosexual acts do not merely fail to cooperate with God’s plan, but in fact actively frustrate that plan.
Calling ECUSA to Account
Appealing as is the Catholic Bishop’s text, it is nonetheless unfortunate and confusing that the USCCB accommodates the common use of the term “union” when referring to the active homosexual lifestyle. References to a homosexual “union” erroneously convey a sense of legitimacy and possibility where neither is feasible. Nonetheless the Catholic Bishop’s message, unlike that of the ECUSA, takes an unequivocal stand: “It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so.”
However, the document is also quick to emphasize the innate dignity of every human person made in God’s image. While each deviation from nature and from divine law brings serious consequences, sin cannot destroy the dignity with which man is endowed as a child of God. Thus, the USCCB stresses that “Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.” In effect, hate the sin, but not the sinner.
It is sad that it took a crisis within the Catholic Church for the bishops to speak out clearly. It is sadder still that the Episcopalian Church in the United States lacks the will to do so even now. Sooner or later, ECUSA will have to risk rendering a judgment or time will render its own sentence on their church. The collective wisdom of Muslim, Jewish and Christian history stands in opposition to this Episcopalian consecration of an active homosexual. It is a consecration that not only strikes at the sanctity of marriage, but it wreaks havoc with an already overburdened system of civil family law practice. Has anyone begun to calculate the future societal cost to the judicial system when these newly sanctioned gay partnerships begun to unravel?
Episcopalians would do well to listen to the down-to-earth yet devout Protestant minister, A.W. Tozer, who noted the problem when human fellowship is given a higher priority than unity with God: “One hundred worshipers meeting together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be were they to become ‘unity’ conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.”
The world awaits a courageous word from the Archbishop of Canterbury. May the word be swift and certain.
As an author and attorney having spent nearly two decades in trial litigation, Mary Meade directs the Marriage and Family Recovery Programs, Inc., for wounded marriages, troubled teens, workplace disputes, and recovering clergy. For further information, log on to www.marriagerecovery.com. Mrs. Meade is also the Director of the Natural Law Study Center in the Diocese of Arlington.
