Category: Christian Anthropology

Posted on

How We Got Here

Well, the full reason is centuries old, but part of the reason is today’s change in our marriage laws. Two eminently qualified commentators laid this out more than 3 years ago.

They are:

Ryan T. Anderson , the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute. B.A Princeton, PhD Notre Dame.

Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Their 2020 opinion piece in USA Today was prescient.

In that article, Anderson and George presented an argument against the redefinition of marriage, particularly in relation to same-sex marriage and the implications it would have on societal norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence.

They argued that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage has led to a shift in societal understanding of marriage. Marriage is now seen as a flexible institution based on consenting adult relationships, rather than a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of childbearing and rearing.

This shift undermines the belief that children deserve a mother and a father.

In relation to monogamy, the authors questioned why marriage should be limited to two people if it is simply about romantic connection. Because there is nothing inherently special about the number two, the logic of ‘romantic connection’ inexorably leads to the mainstreaming of non-traditional relationships.

Specifically, they mentioned the emergence and acceptance of “throuples,” a term used to describe a three-person romantic relationship. They also mentioned the rise of “ethical nonmonogamy,” a term used to describe relationships where all parties consent to their partners having other romantic and sexual relationships.

On the topic of exclusivity, Anderson and George argued that if marriage is not a union uniting a man and a woman as one flesh, there is no reason it should involve or imply sexual exclusivity. They discussed the acceptance of “open relationships,” where partners are not exclusive and can have other relationships outside of their primary one.

Regarding permanence, they questioned why marriage should be pledged to permanence if it is not a comprehensive union inherently ordered to childbearing and rearing.

This erosion of the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence has had profound consequences on society, particularly for children, and it is a result of the cultural breakdown of marriage.

Also they argued that the redefinition of marriage has led to questioning the relevance of gender in marriage, contributing to the rise of discussions around transgender and nonbinary identities. For if gender doesn’t matter in marriage, it might not matter at all, leading to the idea of gender as a fluid concept existing along a spectrum of nonbinary options.

In a final flourish they say the redefinition of marriage was influenced by body-self dualism, the idea that we are essentially nonphysical entities inhabiting physical bodies. So these bodies are not who we REALLY are. This belief led to the idea that the physical aspects of sexual acts did not matter, and that what mattered was emotional union and the use of bodies to induce desirable sensations and feelings. This, they argue, contributed to the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex relationships.

In their view, these changes are not grassroots movements but are driven by those wielding political, economic, and cultural power to advance a sexual-liberationist ideology. These changes have been top-down, driven by ideologically friendly courts, federal agencies, and big corporations.

Finally, let me add something about legal arrangements for my gay and lesbian friends. Legal arrangements regarding inheritance rights, visitation rights, etc., for non-heterosexual relationships are supported by the vast majority of Americans.

There was no need to redefine marriage.

But here we are.

+++

The law shapes culture, culture shapes beliefs, and beliefs shape action.

Posted on

A Culture of Life and Civilization of Love

Notre Dame professor, O. Carter Snead, advocates for a “culture of life and civilization of love,” which he defines as a society that values every human life, born and unborn, and supports them with love, care, and legal protection. He emphasizes that being pro-life is not merely about being “anti-abortion,” but about recognizing the equal dignity and worth of every human being. This culture of life, he argues, is not about exclusion but about expanding the moral and legal community to include everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

He says we should ask a question about “hard limits” to those who support abortion rights. For example: should there be any restrictions on abortion at all, such as gestational stage or reasons like sex-selection or preventing the birth of a child with disabilities? He is pushing for a public debate that questions the absolute freedom of choice in the matter of abortion and urges the media to ask these hard questions as well.

Snead also advocates for “new political approaches” that involve creating partnerships across political divides and rethinking the role of government in supporting mothers, children, and families. He praises the efforts of “red” states that have expanded postpartum Medicaid coverage, increased tax credits for children, and funded programs for mothers and children. However, he also encourages reaching out to “blue” states, even those that have expanded access to abortion, to work on measures that support women and families who choose to parent or make adoption plans.

This is a call to action for a more inclusive and supportive society that values all life; a society that challenges the status quo, pushes for public debate, and encourages political cooperation for the benefit of mothers, children, and families.

Let us join with Snead and support a “culture of life and civilization of love” where everyone counts, everyone is cared for, body and soul, and everyone is protected, especially the weakest and most vulnerable.

Source: “Reflections on Dobbs, One Year Later” | The Hill

+++

Choose Life & Love

Posted on

Cardinal, Archbishop: Encyclical Condemning Gender Theory Is Necessary And Urgent

Willem Jacobus Eijk, Cardinal Archbishop of Utrecht writes the following:

Gender theory seriously contradicts the nature of man and has serious implications for the proclamation of the foundations of the Christian faith by undermining the role of the father, the mother, marriage, and the relationship between children and parents. Many believers and bishops feel that a document setting out the Catholic Church’s vision is urgently needed.

With the exception of his insistence on the male only priesthood, I largely agree with his statement. And fervently hope that the Roman Catholic Church produces that encyclical, posthaste!

The basic idea of gender theory, i.e. that the roles of men and women (gender) can be completely separated from biological sex, derives from the dominant view of man in our current society. It generally limits the human person to his or her consciousness (the mind), with its ability to think and make autonomous decisions, which was gradually made possible within the framework of evolution by the development of very complicated biochemical and neurophysiological processes in the brain. According to this view of man, the body would only be the means by which the person (restricted to consciousness) can express himself. This gives the human person a very broad right to dispose of their body, including their biological sexuality.

On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that, “though made of body and soul, man is one” (Gaudium et spes, No. 14). The body, including the reproductive and sexual organs, is not something secondary or accessory, but belongs to the essence of man and therefore, like man, is an end in itself and not merely a means that man can use for any purpose. John Paul II writes in his encyclical Veritatis splendor (No. 48) that the human body is not a raw material with which man can freely do as he pleases.

The papal magisterium rejects gender theory, but has so far only done so in a cursory manner. In his Christmas address to the curia on 21 December 2012, Benedict XVI noted that in the context of gender theory, man “denies his own nature and decides that it is not given to him as a pre-established fact, but that he himself creates it”. Pope Francis has also said several times that gender theory is incompatible with human nature and the Christian view of gender difference. In the encyclical Laudato si‘, he emphasises that a true ecology also requires respect for sexual gender difference: “Learning to accept one’s body, to care for it and to respect its meanings is essential for a true human ecology. Appreciating one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is also necessary in order to be able to recognise oneself in the encounter with the other who is different from oneself. In this way, it is possible to joyfully accept the specific gift of the other, the work of God the creator, and be mutually enriched. Therefore, an attitude that claims to erase sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it is unhealthy” (No. 155). See also Amoris laetitia, No. 56.

In an address to the participants of the plenary session of the Pontifical Academy for Life on 6 October 2017, he warned the audience against the risks of the ideology of gender. “The biological and psychic manipulation of sexual difference, which biomedical technology lets us glimpse as being completely available as free choice – whereas it is not! – thus risks dismantling the source of energy that nourishes the covenant of man and woman and makes it creative and fruitful”.

You can read his full statement here.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:14, ESV

+++