Sobran: "Is the Pope Square?" (for opposing gay "marriage")?

sobran.com ^ | Aug 19, 03 | Joe Sobran

[churchillbuff]

Is the Pope Square?

August 5, 2003 Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Vatican would say nothing about same-sex “marriage.” It’s beneath its dignity to enter into debate with a sick joke, and when it does so it only allows progressive-minded fools to change the subject.

Such fools, some of them nominal Catholics, argue that the Church is a bunch of hypocritical old men nervously obsessed with sex and Jesus told us to be nice to each other and refusing to let homosexuals marry isn’t very nice because they don’t bother anyone and anyway what about all those pedophile priests so let the Pope mind his own business and look to his own house. You get the idea. Like, if the Church doesn’t enforce its own rules, those rules must be invalid.

Some people have the ineradicable impression that Catholics regard the Pope as an absolute dictator who can change the moral rules at his own whim. On this view, he could approve of abortion, contraception, and sodomy if he wanted to. Unfortunately, he won’t change his rigid opinions because he is out of touch with the modern world. Not only is the Pope a religious tyrant; worse yet, he is hopelessly square.

Even some Catholics hold this view. They are always eager to let you know they are Catholics, albeit nicer than the Pope and, of course, more in touch with the modern world. Unfortunately, these Catholics aren’t in touch with their own Church. They appear to have been dozing off during catechism.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Pope can change God’s moral law. On the contrary, it teaches that he can’t, because that law is eternal.

For example, the Pope can’t declare that murder is good. God has made man in his own image, and it is evil to kill human beings. It may sometimes be justified, but only in rare circumstances. The act itself is intrinsically evil. It would remain so even if all priests and bishops were exposed as murderers; in fact, that would only increase its horror.

Those who are in touch with the modern world may take a more flexible view. They usually do. Advanced modern thinking keeps finding more and more reasons in favor of things that used to be considered murder, such as abortion, mercy killing, and preemptive war.

In the same way, the Pope can’t change the nature of marriage. It existed, by necessity of human nature, long before Jesus or even Abraham. Every society has had some version of it, but none has ever seen fit to establish marriage between members of the same sex — or more precisely, to call homosexual unions “marriages.”

This has nothing to do with mere disapproval of sodomy. Even societies that were indifferent to sodomy saw no reason to treat same-sex domestic partnerships as marriages. Why not? Because such unions don’t produce children.

Imagine a society in which homosexuality was considered normal and healthy, while heterosexuals were considered perverted. It would still be necessary to have heterosexual marriage as an institution, even if it was a sort of penal institution, for the sake of taking care of the children these “perverts” produced. Marriage might have no sanctity, but it would still have the same reason. To put it as unromantically as possible, people who have children should be stuck with each other, sharing the responsibility.

Again, what society has ever seen any point in “married” homosexuals? Set Jews, Christians, and Muslims aside. The Chinese? The Japanese? The Aztecs? The Vikings? The Apaches? The ancient Greeks and Romans? The list could be lengthened indefinitely, and the answer would always be the same. Marriage might be regarded as a mere necessity, even a regrettable necessity, but it was always for men and women.

If same-sex “marriage” were anything but a sudden modern fad, we’d surely have heard of it before. But it was never even a fad; it was merely a contradiction in terms, not worth considering. So even homosexuals never considered it.

Christianity took a more elevated and uncompromising view of marriage than the businesslike pagans did, raising it to the level of a sacrament; later the West mixed marriage with the charming but extraneous idea of romantic love. But it was always assumed to make sense only as a relation between men and women.

Today the contradiction in terms has become the latest thing. And as always, the most absurdly provincial idea is being accepted as the most advanced thinking, as long as it can be passed off as “modern.”

[onyx]

Homosexual marriage is not worth consideration. Not now, not in the past, not ever.

[xzins]

Imagine a society in which homosexuality was considered normal and healthy, while heterosexuals were considered perverted. It would still be necessary to have heterosexual marriage as an institution, even if it was a sort of penal institution, for the sake of taking care of the children these “perverts” produced. Marriage might have no sanctity, but it would still have the same reason. To put it as unromantically as possible, people who have children should be stuck with each other, sharing the responsibility.

Excellent commentary ping

[BibChr]

On the essay as a whole, I'd have to disagree resprectfully on its excellence. Whatever his other good points, Sobran lost me when he said the pope isn't absolute dictator who can change things at his will. RC's will feel bound to disagree, to no avail, but Biblical Christians (and others) know that indeed the Pope can, and has. All he has to do is say "Ex cathedra!" Then RCs feel they have to scramble to explain how it isn't really a change. FR bears that out daily. Responses to this post are likely to do the same.

Dan

[xzins]

I meant the pro-family, anti-homosexual marriage parts....should have been more precise. (Although, for all that, the Catholic Church still has a solid view of marriage and the family.)

[Pyro7480]

The popes have only used "ex cathedra" twice since the pope was declared "infallible" by the First Vatican Council.

[BibChr]

Accepting your assertion for the sake of discussion, for what did they invoke it?

Dan

[Pyro7480]

You're going to love these. ;-) The two ex-cathedra pronouncements were on the Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

[BibChr]

(1) You're right! I do have to! (c;

(2) Q.E.D.

Dan

[Remole]

To be precise, the Bishop of Rome has declared a teaching free of error only ONCE since 1870: the declaration that Mary, after her natural death, was assumed body and soul into Heaven ("Munificentisimus Deus," by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950; the original Latin text is in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, 3900-3904).

[Conservative til I die]

Who cares what you have to say on the matter.

[BibChr]

You and Pyro need to work this out. Remember -- Marquis of Queensbury rules!

Only takes one time to make my point. (c8

Dan

[BibChr]

Why do you ask?

[Remole]

Here's a pleasant suggestion: we'll work out the historical claims and you read the document (your use of "Q.E.D." suggests that you should be able to read the Latin original).

[Porterville]

This is a good debate because it will bring the stray moral lambs back to the curch and lead those lost souls without morality to the depths of darkness seperating the dark from the light, there will be little gray. The Churches that remain moral will discover a new renisance of patrons, where the false dirivative churches, sub cultures, political movements, will wither from the vine. It is a good time to be alive because the choice between right and wrong have never been so strongly clear.

[BibChr]

I'm more than content with THE Document, but, really, thanks anyway.

A man doesn't have to examine every bit of criminal evidence to recognize a counterfeit. He just has to know the marks of the genuine item.

Dan

[.cnI redruM]

A taller and less intelligent version of Howard Dean used to painstakingly remind me that The Spartans promoted homosexuality as a form of maintaining military discipline. Particularly when he saw me in uniform for ROTC drill. This seemed to redeem his Mondays for him completely.

Other 'societies' that at least accepted homosexuality were 19th Century British boy's schools and prisons the world over. Like lower order primates, all of these groups use it as a way to sort out who the Alpha Male is. It involves nothing particularly romantic or mystical.

Sobran is correct that none of these groups even consider homosexual marraige. It would probably make them sick. In fact the Spartans rewarded soldiers that snuck out of the barracks late at night and 'got lucky' with women.

Our modern obsession with gay marraige is a grotesque perversion. A level of debased sickness that makes Osauma Bin Ladin look almost rational when he condemns our despicable morals. It won't kill the US as a nation, symptoms don't do that. However, the underlying perversion and apathy that make this 'movement' possible will ruin our nation in the longrun.

[Conservative til I die]

Because the thread and article was about Catholic teaching on homosexuality, and for whatever reason you felt this was the starting point to start discussing the Church's infallibility doctrine and mariolatry.

[BibChr]

I "discussed" neither.

You being such a poor reader, why should I care what you ask?

[Conservative til I die]

I "discussed" neither.

You didn't write this?: "Whatever his other good points, Sobran lost me when he said the pope isn't absolute dictator who can change things at his will. RC's will feel bound to disagree, to no avail, but Biblical Christians (and others) know that indeed the Pope can, and has. All he has to do is say "Ex cathedra!"

I'll grant you that you didn't discuss Mariolatry. The other guy brought it up. But talking about Pope's creating teachings through "ex cathedra" pronouncements sure sounds like bringing up infallibility arguments.