In contemporary America we find ourselves in the midst of a Culture War. At the forefront of this war is the debate over same-sex marriage, something we already find legal here in the state of Iowa. Oddly enough, however, many persons who would be opposed to same sex marriage would be surprised to find out that they are actually responsible for the advancement of its cause. How could this be so? The answer can be found in the controversy surrounding the recent Department of Health and Human Services mandate requiring all insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage free of charge (the religious freedom question is a separate issue). The reality is that both contraception and same-sex marriage are part of the larger understanding in modern Western Culture which both undercuts the traditional understanding of marriage and the sexual act while at the same time seeks increasingly to recognize new individual "rights" where none existed before. While we are still in the midst of the fight over the issue of same-sex marriage the question regarding the purpose of the sexual act has already been decided culturally and thus the widespread acceptance of artificial contraception and sterilization (and the flip side of the coin, in-vitro fertilization). The contemporary understanding of sexuality, which a majority of the culture now accepts as normative and without question, is due to the fact that we as a culture have divorced ourselves from the Natural Law understanding of sexuality. This is a serious moral and social issue with consequent ramifications.
At the same time many Western Christians have reduced Christian morality to a superficial niceness in which any transgression against this is seen as being not only mean and insensitive but discriminatory and even at odds with the Gospel itself. It must be pointed out, however, that both the Jewish and the Christian moral tradition has consistently taught that the sexual act is ordered toward children and, as a result, that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Artificial contraception and abortion did exist at the beginning of Christianity and both of these, along with homosexual acts, were opposed by the Church as incompatible with the Gospel. The very recent acceptance of these practices as being compatible with Christianity has no basis in nature and it is at odds with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Yet while many consider this to be a purely religious teaching, and thus not a relevant argument in the current debate, this position is in fact rooted in the Natural Law.
The Natural Law is in fact a Greek philosophical/scientific approach, something which was adopted by the Church and accepted by Western Culture until very recently. The Natural Law is derived by examining the natural workings of the world in order to determine the proper order of things. Simply put, the Natural Law is a logically reasoned scientific approach to how the world works, something which modern man should accept but strangely does not. While some may call the Natural Law the argument of God's design any non-believer can come to the same conclusions by the same approach. From the Natural Law one can see that man and woman are biologically made for each other and the procreation of children. As a result, man and woman are the natural partners for the institution of marriage and the rearing of children. While the Christian revelation of God's love may help us to understand the marital relationship better, that the intimate sexual act is a self-giving of oneself, reserved for one’s spouse and always open to life as a reflection of and a participation in God's self-giving love, nevertheless, it does not change the basic biology, and thus the purpose, of the sexual act, and by extension, the nature of marriage itself.
Therefore, from the Natural Law one can see how homosexual acts are at odds with both the nature and the Gospel. Homosexual acts are intrinsically inward looking, incapable of bringing forth life, something which is good in itself but also a sign of the self-giving of the sexual act. The problem of modern society is that we have lost this understanding by our immersion in a sexualized culture which views sex, and consequently persons, as a means of one's own pleasure divorced from the centrality of childrearing. As a result, many heterosexuals who support same sex-marriage do so because they view the sexual act in the same way. Ironically, many heterosexuals who oppose same-sex marriage have made it more acceptable by their own acceptance of the Contraceptive Culture. This Contraceptive Culture, which most Catholics have accepted, is often presented as a reasonable approach to parenting trying to balance the needs of the family, society and the environment. Yet while not dismissing the difficulties of childrearing and the desire to provide responsibly for one's family the Contraceptive Culture is in fact a Culture of Death, which justifies the rejection or limitation of children as reasonable.
In fact, the Contraceptive Culture represents a selfish cultural worldview which is destroying itself spiritually by viewing life as only worthy if it meets a certain materialistic criteria, views sex, and therefore persons, as a means of personal gratification, and is destroying our culture by below replacement birth levels. The fact that Western culture as a whole, including Catholics, have bought into this worldview, which divorces the sexual act from the Natural Law and the procreation of children, is demonstrated by the almost universal acceptance of contraception and sterilization as not only acceptable but as a positive good. This view has led to the prevalence of cohabitation, high divorce rates, high rates of out-of-wedlock births, a negative view toward large families and consequently low birth rates, the prevalence of abortion, the widespread acceptance of pornography and the acceptance of homosexuality. These realities were all predicted by Pope Paul VI in his widely rejected 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reiterated the Church’s prohibition of the use of artificial contraception.
It should be pointed that although artificial contraception, sterilization and abortion are labeled as health care procedures they are in fact just the opposite. All practices are opposed to the natural workings of the human body. Artificial contraception frustrates the natural purpose of the sexual act. Sterilization goes one step further by mutilating a healthy human body. Abortion is especially egregious since it extinguishes life altogether. Apart from the psychological impact there is strong scientific evidence of the damage done to womens’ bodies by the abortion process and the hormones in artificial contraception. The longtime negative impact on womens’ productive abilities, made possible by inexpensive birth control during their fertile years, plus the prolongation of the decision to have children has resulted in the pervasive recourse to expensive in-vitro fertilization in order to conceive. All these practices do harm to the human person by turning them and the sexual act into a means to be used for one’s pleasure and they corrupt the family, the foundation of society.
Ultimately, if sex is simply a decision for consenting adults for one's own pleasure then there is no problem with any of these things and there is no difference between homosexual acts and relationships and heterosexual ones. However, if one accepts the Christian tradition of sexual morality as rooted in the Natural Law and informed by the Gospel then one understands the support of the traditional sexual ethic as both biologically and spiritually sound. Thus, it is not unjust or discriminatory to say that homosexual relationships are not valid, which would include the issue of such couples rearing and/or adopting children. While man-made laws may make such things legal, the Natural Law--rooted in the biological order of the world--says otherwise.
The Gospel teaches us that we should love all persons and treat them with dignity and respect, this is a perspective that all Christians should fully embrace. Yet just because someone has a desire to engage in a given activity does not necessarily mean that they have a right to it. Consequently, just because someone cannot do something that they desire does not mean that they are being discriminated against and that they are not loved if they cannot have it. If that were the case then we would all have very unloving and discriminatory parents.
Rev. Christopher A. Pisut, pastor Sacred Heart Catholic Church
