A Brief History of Same-Sex Marriage and Why Catholics Are Losing the War Against It

Surveying history for anything resembling same-sex marriage in any culture, clime, or era is a fruitless search. It has never been proposed, not even in ancient Greece, as some would like to argue. So why does this enigma of history seem like just the next progressive step in our own culture?

The answer, oddly enough, seems to be locked up in the birth control pill. Let me explain.

Healthy cultures and civilizations all have one thing in common. There is a deep understanding (even if not always acted upon or articulated) that my life has meaning because of the sacrifices I make for those who come after me, through loyalty to a clan, tribe or wider society. This simple "our lives for theirs" approach is what has animated history for centuries. Think of the building of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, which the early masons knew would never be finished in their lifetimes. "Our lives for theirs" is an easy barometer to see if a civilization is on the rise or on decline. When that order becomes inverted, like ancient Rome or late Renaissance Venice, where each man and woman lives just for himself, the civilization will decay and cease to exist.

The sexual revolution of the 1960s is a marked example of this inversion in the West with the arrival of the pill. Never in the history of the world had the fundamental link between human sexuality and reproduction been so decidedly unhinged, ushering in a new conception of sexuality. Sex became about many things: self-expression, self-gratification, exploration, desire, etc.…but not about its main reason for existence: to propagate the species. The general "our life for theirs" attitude lived out by parents for centuries suddenly became suspect as self-gratification came into vogue. "Why would anyone voluntarily put themselves through all that hard work to raise more than two children?" became the new model under which we live today.

While contraception of various sorts was nothing new, the wholesale use of it was. Without the "baby bonus," concepts of self-control, self-mastery, self-donation have not only became outdated, but an object of mockery. Denuding sex of its natural procreative character made sex simply about "me," not my spouse, my children, my family, or my community. Porn, "twerking," and the over-sexualization of young children are only the latest additions in the "sex is about me" trajectory.

Aristotle (384 -322 BC) was the first to argue for the link between what we find pleasurable and what is needed for a healthy polis, or more generally, society. An act was pleasurable to ensure that it would take place, but was not the most important reason for the action. Food tastes good so we will eat. The connection between sexual pleasure and procreation is why same-sex marriage has never been accepted in the history of the world before. It was always generally understood that such a "marriage" is not fruitful no matter what the feelings may be of those involved.

Generations of couples coupling without conceiving have led to the misperception that sexuality is, in fact, merely another contact sport, or whatever else you may want it to be, without a fixed meaning other than pleasure. Sex in the minds of most no longer has any natural link with making babies. And if the link dares to happen biologically when nature asserts herself, it is a failure, a mistake, an accident – not the natural course of things.

How, then, one asks, could Catholics be so cruel to want to deny same-sex marriage to those who just have a different idea about sex? Why limit ourselves to heterosexual activity within marriage? Can't pleasure and satisfaction be found elsewhere? Well, clearly they can, to a degree. But babies cannot. And the stable families necessary to raise healthy children, study after study has shown, cannot be reformulated into any shape of laissez-faire family. Statistics show that 95 percent of Catholics are using contraception to limit family size. Clearly there has been a dramatic failure to educate ourselves about what the Church teaches on love and sexuality in the pews, in classrooms, and in Catholic media. But at the heart of it, the Christian ethos, embodied in Christ's own sacrifice of himself for all of us, needs to be revived. Ultimately, are our actions life-giving or sterile? To this question, our answer should always be "our lives for theirs."

Statistics show that 95 percent of Catholics are using contraception to limit family size. Clearly there has been a dramatic failure to educate ourselves about what the Church teaches on love and sexuality in the pews, in classrooms, and in Catholic media. But at the heart of it, the Christian ethos, embodied in Christ's own sacrifice of himself for all of us, needs to be revived. Ultimately, are our actions life-giving or sterile? To this question, our answer should always be "our lives for theirs."

“And this is where you are wrong and metmom is correct. Individual Catholics are not to blame. The heirarchy is to blame. 100%. They are the ones,...”

Ones. Yes, INDIVIDUALS. All of the members of the hierarchy are INDIVIDUALS. They have more influence and more authority, but they are still INDIVIDUALS. The failing is theirs alone because the Church - as Christ’s Body - cannot fail.

“...since Vatican II, who have allowed Modernism/Protestantism/false ecumenism (whatever you want to call it) into the Church.”

They are not the only ones. And even if they were, they are still just individual men no matter what their influence or authority. I agree with you that they should all be better men in their vocations - as should we all be - but individuals fail, not the Church. By confusing the failings of individuals with an impossible failing of the Church you are buying into Modernism. That’s the irony of Modernism. Often those who rail against it as stemming from Vatican II or the decade before Vatican II actually are heavily infected by the Modernistic thought they condemn. The Church is indefectible. Men fail. The Church doesn’t.

“THEY are the reason why the Church is in disarray.”

They are not the only reason. It is a simplistic argument, tinged with Modernism, to claim it is only the hierarchy that is at fault.

“When THEY start acting like Catholics, then MAYBE lay folks will follow.”

Lay people could simply have stayed Catholic on their own. We have a responsibility to remain faithful even if we have shepherds who fail to do so. The simple fact is just about all Catholics failed. You included. Me included. Just blaming the hierarchy is the Modernists’ way of not taking responsibility for their own actions while discounting the mystical strength of the Church Christ founded. Don’t fall into that trap.

The Roman Catholic church IS failing or the the laity would not be endorsing and living lifestyles forbidden by the CCC.

Those same clergy who like to take credit for how wonderful the church is when everything is going well, need to own up and take responsibility for the same church when it’s off track.

It’s part of being a leader.

The Catholic laity is off track because the Catholic hierarchy is not teaching or enforcing its doctrines as it should.

And even if the blame is to be laid at the feet of the laity, then they are at fault not only for letting it happen but embracing it.

If the church had the integrity it claims, then it doesn’t matter whether if its living in the same kind of cesspool as Sodom and Gomorrah. It wouldn’t be tainted if it didn’t let itself be tainted.

Nothing from the outside can make the heart corrupt if the heart intends to remain pure.

Jesus did it and taught on it. It’s not what goes into a man that corrupts him, it’s what comes out. Out of the heart come the issues of life. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

The problems within the Catholic church are coming from within. If they’re not, the Catholic church is weak because it’s caving to outside influences.

And human beings fail. The Church doesn’t.

Your Church defines itself as the community of believers, the assembly (ekklesia) of all who believe in Jesus Christ; or the fellowship (koinonia) of all who are bound together by their common love for the Savior. As the kingdom (basileia), it is the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies about the reign of the Messiah. And as the Mystical Body it is the communion of all those made holy by the grace of Christ. He is their invisible head and they are his visible members. These include the faithful on earth, those in purgatory who are not yet fully purified, and the saints in heaven.

As the community of unsaved believers your Church can not help but fail...Its own corrupt history and the long list of forged writings/documents that apparently make up your religious dogma are ample proof of that...

“And what happened after those 40 years??”

Catholics became more Protestant - and Modernism therefore spread.

“Stop blaming Protestantism.”

No. I will only blame those people or things responsible. Protestantism and Modernism are linked to say the least: “Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.” Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 39.

“The blame falls on the hierarchy.”

Only some. Some of it falls on us. No matter what the hierarchy does we - the faithful - can remain faithful. Have we? And what viewpoint made us less faithful? Protestantism. Modernism.

“THEY allowed it to infect the Church. Full stop.”

No. It infected the Church because it infected the faithful. To say the hierarchy “allowed it” in such a way is actually not an explanation. That is overly simplistic and can only be believed by someone tainted by Modernism itself.

“And they aren’t doing anything to reverse the trend.”

Really? I know a bishop who is replacing Modernistic priests with new priests who are less tainted by Modernism (all the faithful are tainted by these days so no one is completely free of it). All are tainted by Modernism - which means its existence in the Church simply cannot be blamed on the hierarchy. Modernism did not start with the hierarchy. Loisy and Tyrell were not bishops. Western culture became Modernistic. There was no way to entirely stop it from infecting the faithful then.

“Instead they continue to hold up Vatican II as the best thing since sliced bread. Oh “the enormous fruits” says Francis!! Please.”:

Again we see that your problem is understanding Modernism as being somehow a product of Vatican II or its era. It existed before Vatican II - way before Vatican II. And it will exist long after Vatican II. Even if all of Vatican II were abrogated tomorrow, the old Mass (which I attend) fully restored tomorrow, every Modernist priest and bishop and theologian and school teacher somehow magically replaced the faithful would still be seriously infected with Modernism. Western culture is Modernistic. There is no escaping that fact. Protestantism gave us Modernism. As long as we have Protestantism we will have Modernism. That’s just a fact.

Whatever happened to *free will*? All of a sudden, there's no free will any more?

It didn't happen to them against their will.

They ALLOWED it.

They CHOSE it.

It's like AA. You have to admit that the problem is yours if you're going to fix it. As long as it is blame shifted away, it will NEVER be resolved but only get worse..

Admit it, otherwise the problem will continue because nobody will be held accountable for it because it's not their fault.....(insert whining here)

Poor babies.......

Iscool:Your Church defines itself as the community of believers, the assembly (ekklesia) of all who believe in Jesus Christ; or the fellowship (koinonia) of all who are bound together by their common love for the Savior. As the kingdom (basileia), it is the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies about the reign of the Messiah. And as the Mystical Body it is the communion of all those made holy by the grace of Christ. He is their invisible head and they are his visible members. These include the faithful on earth, those in purgatory who are not yet fully purified, and the saints in heaven.

The definition iscool gave isn't so different than what your CCC gives.

And if it is, then is the person giving it wrong?

And is he speaking under the authority of or invested with the authority of the Catholic church?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P27.HTM

751 The word "Church" (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to "call out of") means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself "Church," the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is "calling together" his people from all the ends of the earth. the equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means "what belongs to the Lord."

752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 These three meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ's Body.

“The definition iscool gave isn’t so different than what your CCC gives.”

So because it “isn’t so different” that means it’s the Church own definition of herself rather than Fr. Hardon’s? So, from now on, when you post something, we can all take your comments, change a few words and you’ll still claim it’s your comment?

“And if it is, then is the person giving it wrong?”

Is the person giving it the Catholic Church as Iscool claimed or not?

“And is he speaking under the authority of or invested with the authority of the Catholic church?”

In any case Iscool is not. Thus, Iscool is not to be trusted when discussing the Catholic Church.

“Those Bible-only protestants on this board who take issue with the Catholic Church nowadays have good reason to.”

It’s time to come home Pius. The Papist religion will not return to its former “glory,” which itself was only a fiction at that. Papism will give way to Charismatic/Pentecostal forms of Christianity, which your Pope has already praised as a legitimate move of the Holy Spirit. This they will do because Papism, as it stands now in all its wishy-washiness, cannot compete, and therefore must turn to the emotions and to the irrational in order to excite the hearers and scratch itching ears. Meanwhile, in Europe, Papism will continue to disintegrate, and your Popes will make further and further concessions. As it is, your Popes and your leaders are already functional Universalists. It’s because they don’t have a spine. They’re cowards. And they’re damned themselves. But that’s the lesson you should have learned a long time ago. One I learned a long time ago. And that is this:

Men will always fail you. And men are always claiming to be more than what they actually are. But only one thing is sure, and that is God.

Come home Pius, you will like it here much better.

Cyril of Jerusalem on Sola Scriptura:

Not even his own teachings, he teaches, if it cannot be shown out of the holy scriptures, should be accepted:

“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)

Tradition is the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testament, not that which is invented by man, transmitted by word of mouth to the illiterate:

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14 should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema. Galatians 1:8-9 So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.” (Ibid, Lecture 5, Ch. 12)

Well, Scripture gives a different cause for immorality and homosexuality, and it isn't the pill.

Catholics have a great tendency to confuse the sin with the cause, to put the horse before the cart.

The resultant rise in abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc isn't the cause of the breakdown of morals, they are the SYMPTOM of the breakdown of morals.

The pill didn't cause the moral breakdown. That was already happening otherwise the pill would NEVER have gained the traction it did.

Homosexuality can only be *blamed* on man's propensity towards evil and rejecting God.

It's NOT the result of the pill.

Romans 1:18-32 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.