See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. - James 5:7

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

"Marriage is a high and noble vocation."



"It is not easily followed."

What can I say, a single guy, never a dad, about the importance of traditional marriage?  How?  Why?  Why am I so concerned about something like traditional marriage?  One important reason I can think of is because I come from a family wherein marriage was anything but 'high and noble'.  My parents were completely irresponsible, negligent, abusive alcoholics.  Yes, they did the best they could, but they had huge unresolved, unaddressed issues which affected how they parented.  The were indiscreet in their sins, acting them out in full view of the kids, not simply through drunkenness, open sexuality, physical and mental abuse of one another, but their extramarital exploits were not well disguised or unknown. 

Immorality is a horrible example to set for kids.  It is an abuse. 

In our day, single parents, unmarried parents, and kids of divorce are so common - in every economic strata - yet this fact can offer no justification to reorder, or redefine marriage between a man and a woman.   Likewise, same sex couples, pretending to be married, cannot present a moral alternative to the failure of marriage in our culture.  It is precisely because there is, and has been, such a crisis of marriage that same sex marriage is even considered as a viable and acceptable proposition.  It is not.

Anyway.  The Archbishops of Westminster & Southwark have issued a Pastoral letter on the redefinition of marriage to be read this weekend at all the Masses.  I wanted to share a part of that text:
The reasons given by our government for wanting to change the definition of marriage are those of equality and discrimination. But our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.
Changing the legal definition of marriage would be a profoundly radical step. Its consequences should be taken seriously now. The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children.
We have a duty to married people today, and to those who come after us, to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations.
Most Reverend V. Nichols
Most Reverend P. Smith

They might have added:  "Changing the legal definition of marriage will screw kids up." 

That said, I'm pretty sure nothing will stop it - it is on a trajectory of its own.  

H/T St. Mary Magdalen Blog, Fr. Blake

3 comments:

  1. I'm surprised to see Archbishop Nichols growing a pair.

    But, good for them.

    You are right - civil marriage for homosexuals is on its own trajectory. Polygamy is logically next. Society is overwhelmingly in favor of these things (the latter's legal acceptance will come as a direct result of the former, no matter if it's popular or not).

    The battle was lost long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  2. +JMJ+

    I was just doing some research about about the Seven Holy Founders of the Servite Order, and came across an essay from 1895 which includes this passage:

    There were many reasons why even those who sought after perfection should in Italy, and at that time, enter into the marriage state. The Cathari, a sect of heretics who had great success in Florence, made light of marriage, and under pretence of purity were grossly immoral. It was as necessary to uphold true purity by affording examples of holy married life, as of celibacy.

    It sounds all too familiar, doesn't it?

    You may be a never-married man, Terry, but your instinct about the importance of defending traditional marriage is correct. (Then again, what do I know? I'm just a never-married woman.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. "You may be a never-married man . . . I'm just a never-married woman.)"

    Hmm?! I propose an arranged marriage may perhaps be in order here to uphold true purity by affording an example of holy married life.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.