gp-church-stateThe Supreme Court’s bizarre decision to impose same-sex “marriage” on all the States is the making of history by the breaking of history. It is to make something that humanity has never sanctioned and has always shunned not only legal but compulsory. Until a few short years ago, the very thought that marriage was anything other than the union of a man and a woman would have been impossible because the very thought would have been unthinkable. The Supreme Court has, therefore, divorced itself from the collective experience of humanity as manifested in the continuum of moral norms that are the hallmark of civilization. Having done so, we can safely predict that, having crossed this egregious threshold, much worse is in store. It is only a matter of time before incestuous “marriage” between siblings, or between parents and children, is legalized and then made compulsory; it is only a matter of time before polygamy is legalized and made compulsory. It all follows as surely as night follows day, or, considering the darkness of the situation, as surely as night follows twilight.

And there are other things that follow as surely as night follows the abandonment of the light. This destruction of marriage will lead to a further fall in the birthrate, leading to an increasingly aging population becoming increasingly dependent on an increasingly fractured welfare system. It will lead to a shrinking workforce, necessitating a greater dependence on immigration. It will lead to an increase in the number of children raised in the absence of a father, with a corresponding increase in the many problems associated with this. Whichever way you look at it, the future does not look very rosy.  

So be it. We should not be too concerned or too surprised that the culture of death is hurtling towards the hell of its own collective suicide. What should concern us is that Christians find a way to abandon this ship of fools before it sinks. We need to take to the lifeboats, the largest of which is the Barque of Peter, before this titanic idiocy plunges to the depths of its own despair.

One of the things that needs to be salvaged is sacramental marriage, which should be severed as soon as possible from the savagery of its secular counterpart. In order to be sure that we understand the meaning of sacramental marriage, as distinct from the way that “marriage” is now being defined by the culture of death, let’s look at the way it is defined by the Catholic Church in Her Catechism:

The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament.… Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child.

What has any of this to do with “marriage” as defined by the Supreme Court? The answer, of course, is nothing whatsoever. The two views of “marriage” are as incompatible as chalk and cheese. This being so, the Church and State should seek an amicable divorce, as soon as possible, not least because the Church, as the Bride of Christ, already has a spouse and cannot serve two bridegrooms.

This divorce can be finalized with relative ease. All that is needed is for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to declare that the sacrament of matrimony is no longer to be considered binding in US law, thereby making it necessary for those getting married in the Catholic Church to also get “married” civilly. This makes absolute sense logically (and theologically) because the two things called “marriage” are clearly two entirely different things. This will prove inconvenient and may dissuade some couples from opting for a sacramental marriage, which is all to the good since such couples, in opting for the easier secular option, are thereby demonstrating that they have no understanding of the nature (and supernature) of the sacrament.

Needless to say, this same amicable divorce from the culture of death and its “marriage” should be sought by other Christian denominations who value the preservation of authentic Christian matrimony.

Church-and-StateThe happy divorce will not only protect the dignity of true marriage but will save the Church from legal challenges from those who will seek to impose the culture of death’s definition of “marriage” upon Her. If the Church insists on remaining “married” to the secular legal system it is only a matter of time before same-sex “couples” demand the right to be married in a Catholic church, and only a matter of time before renegade priests perform such “marriages.”

Although the declaration of this happy divorce is very easy in principle, it will require a degree of courage in practice. And this might be the problem. History shows that bishops are not generally known for their courage. One only has to recall what happened when Henry VIII established a state religion in England. Only one bishop, St. John Fisher, had the courage to defy the secular tyrant. He has his reward in heaven. God only knows what reward awaited the rest of England’s shepherds who had deserted their sheep to the wolves of secularism.

It remains to be seen whether America’s shepherds will have the courage to separate themselves and their sheep from the wolves of our contemporary hedonism. Either way, and regardless of the stormy seas that await Her, the Barque of Peter will sail on, reeling but erect, as the ship of state continues to sink beneath the weight of its own unsustainable folly.

Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore

All comments are moderated and must be civil, concise, and constructive to the conversation. Comments that are critical of an essay may be approved, but comments containing ad hominem criticism of the author will not be published. Also, comments containing web links or block quotations are unlikely to be approved. Keep in mind that essays represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Imaginative Conservative or its editor or publisher.

Leave a Comment
Print Friendly, PDF & Email