Step
1: The Dignity of the Human Person
The first step is a preliminary
one, not dealing with the characteristics of marriage per se. It is the starting
point of any kind of moral discourse, be it in the realm of social ethics,
bioethics, or sexual ethics. Pope John Paul II has drawn attention to this
starting point by virtue of his own philosophical/theological method that focuses
on "personalism."
This
first step can be called the "personalist principle" and
can be stated simply: Each individual human person
is a person of inviolable dignity. Put in more technical
and philosophical terminology: A person should always
be treated as an end, rather than a means. In other
words, no one should be "used" or turned into a mere
object for someone else's utilitarian purposes.
The
typical way to establish this principle is by appealing
to divine revelation, three truths in particular:
a) The Bible says each of us is made in God's image
and likeness; b) The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches
that we are each individually called to participate
in the divine life and we are each called by God
to an eternal home and reward; and c) According to
Christianity, Christ's salvific work is for each
one of us individually, allowing us to participate
in the divine life and be safe and happy for eternity
in heaven.
Imagine
the response you'd get, however, if you used such
an argument to defend, for example, the dignity of
the unborn child about to be aborted or the handicapped
or elderly about to be euthanized. A typical response
from an opponent would be that your arguments are "based
on your religion." Your position would be dismissed
as being incompatible with our political order, and
you'd be branded as someone trying to "force your
religion on others." The defender of abortion will
retort bluntly, "If you don't believe abortion is
right, don't have one."
In
the same vein, those who agitate in favor of legalizing
homosexual "marriages" often dismiss their critics
by saying, "If you don't believe in homosexual marriage,
don't marry a homosexual."
As
you can see, these are lame arguments - they don't
prove a thing - but they do often buffalo Catholics.
That's why, in conversations with those who favor
or promote homosexual marriages, it's very important
to establish the truth about human dignity on the
basis of reason alone, rather than by appealing to
divine revelation. You can do this by appealing to
the "natural moral law," a law that's inscribed in
our very being, and one people can easily recognize
as true, regardless of their religious views.
So,
how do we build a "natural law" argument for the
dignity of the human person, upon which we'll build
an argument for the objective nature of marriage?
Imagine
someone arguing that human dignity is not absolute,
but merely relative. There are two replies to such
relativism, one theoretical and the other practical.
First, a relativist actually makes an absolute claim
in stating that "everything is relative." The next
time someone tells you that everything is relative,
just ask, "Do you insist on that absolutely?"
Second,
not only do relativists theoretically contradict
themselves with their own first premise, they contradict
themselves in practice. As Peter Kreeft notes, "The
relativist lets the cat out of the bag when you practice
what he preaches, when you act toward him as if his
own philosophy of relativism were true. He may preach
relativism, but he expects you to practice absolutism."2 Kreeft gives the example of telling his relativist students
that all women in the class will flunk. Given their
relativist premises, the students have no argument
to make against so blatantly unfair a practice. Who
are they, after all, to impose their beliefs on him?
Now
apply this reasoning to the dignity of all human
life. Many today wish to apply relativism to the
value of human life, arguing that personhood is not
absolutely, but only relatively, applicable to all
human beings. But the lines drawn in such application,
based on convenience, are completely arbitrary. If
someone tells you that life is complex and demands
such arbitrariness, you could ask him, "So does that
mean that you wouldn't mind if a thief, faced with
the 'complexity' of his own existence, decides to
draw some arbitrary lines and steal your wallet?"
No
one in his right mind stands for the relativistic
view of human dignity when it comes to his or her
own human dignity. Each of us - even the hardened
secularist who preaches relativism - instinctively
recognizes that our dignity as persons implies certain
moral absolutes of behavior.
Now
that you have established the fundamental principle
of the objective dignity of each human person, you
can build additional arguments about the nature of
marriage. We have done this with simple rational
argumentation that cuts across divergent religious
beliefs.
Step
2: The Nature of the Conjugal Act
If it is true that each individual
person has inviolable dignity, then it only stands to reason that the act through
which such human beings are brought about ought to be treated in a particular
way, in a way commensurate with that dignity. Simply put, if a couple wishes
to engage in the conjugal act, they must be aware of the enormous potential
of such an act. It will affect them in a particular way, and one of the central
reasons why it will affect them so powerfully is that it has procreative possibilities,
it is the kind of act that brings about new life. Given this, the couple ought
to treat the conjugal act in a way that measures up to this awesome potentiality.
What
specifically does this entail? First and foremost,
a willingness to treat the potential new life as
a welcome guest. It may well be that this new guest
will not arrive at all, but he might arrive. The
couple ought not bet that he will not arrive and
treat the conjugal act frivolously. Such would be
an irrational bet, like investing one's entire monthly
salary in the lottery: One should only gamble if
that which he might lose is of contingent, rather
than absolute, value.
As
an aside, it is noteworthy that this irrational gamble "drives" legalized
abortion. According to the Supreme Court, abortion
must be made available to a generation that has grown
up with the assumption that it is perfectly moral
to separate sex from babies. Hence, to be pro-life
is to simultaneously make a particular claim about
the nature of the conjugal act, and hence to be against
contraception.3
It
is clear that the use of artificial contraception
makes it impossible to treat the potential child
as a welcome guest. True enough, a contracepting
couple may well claim that they are open to new life
should it "sneak in." But note that, first, the vast
majority are not open in this way - legal abortion
lurks right around the corner. And second, even if
they say that they are still open to the new life,
they are engaging in an act that is incompatible
with that supposed openness. The conjugal act has
been turned into a different kind of act, an act
that is rendered incapable of new life, and even
an act incapable of fully uniting the two people
involved because they are now withholding a substantial
part of who they are.
It
is at this point that the homosexual act can be assessed.
Based on the personalist principle, we have said
that the generative faculties carry an enormous potentiality.
As with contraception, a homosexual act renders the
potentiality null and void. Hence, the full meaning
of the generative faculties - or in more technical
language, the proper "ends" or the telos of those
faculties - is severely diluted. An act is being
performed which is "against nature" in the sense
that the generative faculties naturally have such
potentiality that is depleted by homosexual and contraceptive
acts.
The
result is that the couple give but a portion of themselves
to each other - they are incapable of giving that
fullness of the self that includes the capacity to
procreate. The generative faculties must be used
in such a way that the unitive and procreative dimensions
are inextricably united, yielding a truly conjugal
act. As Humanae Vitae teaches:
"There
is an unbreakable connection between the unitive
meaning and the procreative meaning, and both are
inherent in the conjugal act. And if both essential
meanings are preserved, that of union and procreation,
the conjugal act fully maintains its capacity for
true mutual love and its ordination to the highest
mission of parenthood, to which man is called" (art.
12).
The
text then notes that this teaching "is in accord
with human reason." In other words, apart from the
truth revealed to us in the Catholic Faith, such
truths of the natural law are capable of being grasped
by anyone willing to make careful use of reason.
Step
3: Permanence
So far, we have shown the
inviolable dignity of the person, and the way in which that dignity informs
the meaning of the conjugal act. Now we can take an additional step: It only
stands to reason that those engaging in the conjugal act must provide a context
within which the potential child can be nurtured, and this context above all
else entails a permanent commitment between those using their generative faculties
in the conjugal act. Without this permanence, the dignity of the child is violated.
The
child, first of all, is given a tremendous security
by the permanent commitment of his parents. He knows
that they will always be there, giving unconditional
love, unless death causes the absence of one or both
parents. Second, he learns a great deal from seeing
this permanent commitment at work day in and day
out. He learns the value of commitment.
One
of the reasons so very many homosexual relationships
do not have the character of permanence is because
this particular reason or end for permanence is missing.
True enough, permanence is a value in and of itself,
irrespective of whether a child is present or not.
But such inherent value of permanence is infused
with deeper meaning when the child is present or
potentially present: "Part of why we as a couple
have a permanent commitment is precisely so that
we can provide the best context for the nurturing
of a new life."
Couples
who struggle with infertility are poignantly aware
of how intrinsic this procreative dimension is for
their own commitment. And couples whose marriages
tragically have failed often remain together precisely
because of this dimension.
Step
4: Nonsubstitutability of the Spouse
In the previous step, we
noted that because the child has inherent dignity, only a permanent union of
father and mother is commensurate with that dignity. The dignity of every person
simultaneously indicates that, distinct from the interest of the child, only
a permanent as well as exclusive union befits or is commensurate with the dignity
of each spouse. A permanent and exclusive union states boldly that the other
is not an object that can be replaced or substituted, but a person of inviolable
worth. When a couple makes the commitment of marriage, they say to one another, "You
are irreplaceable to me" and "Only to you will I give my whole self."
Divorce
or adultery or serial polygamy then stand as statements
that the partner isn't irreplaceable after all. And
in so saying, the inviolable dignity of the other
is violated.
Now
it seems entirely true that this particular step
of the argument can be accomplished by two committed
homosexuals. Their arguments in favor of homosexual
marriage are often based precisely on such points.
But we must ask ourselves an important question.
Why is it that in heterosexual marriage, violations
of this fourth point are the exception rather than
the rule, while in homosexual partnerships, violations
of this fourth point are the rule rather than the
exception?
The
answer is that this fourth step is intricately bound
up with the preceding three steps. True enough, some
homosexual couples partake in a portion of the whole
picture, but it is only a portion. And that is precisely
why relatively few indeed so partake. The vast majority
of homosexual liaisons are not marked by permanence.
This
is not to say that heterosexual relationships are
immune from such fragmentation. Indeed, in our day,
numerous heterosexuals lead lives just as promiscuous
as do many homosexuals. But a central reason for
this is the severing of the procreative dimension
from the conjugal act (step 2), allowing contraception
and leading to abortion. The Natural Law argument
presented here is just as critical of contraception
as it is of homosexuality. In both cases, the conjugal
act is turned into a different kind of act; the generative
faculties are used in a way contrary to their natural
inextricably connected ends of unity/procreativity.
Step
5: Heterosexuality
In going through the previous
four steps, we have commented on why homosexual activity is inimical to each
point. The Natural Law argument for the objective nature of marriage concludes
by looking at homosexuality directly, and drawing earlier comments together
with the firm conclusion that marriage must be heterosexual in order for the
dignity of the human person to remain fully in place.
A)
Why not use the generative faculties in a different
way that admittedly cannot bring forth a child? On
a purely biological level, the human generative faculties
are not built to handle homosexual types of acts,
acts which cause serious disease, physical damage,
or both.4 It is against
the purely physical nature of the human person to
engage in homosexual activities.
B)
On the purely physical level, we find that the generative
faculties are made to unite male and female, and
that this union naturally carries with it a procreative
capacity. This procreative capacity - given the inviolable
dignity of the person as developed in step 1 - is
not just an extrinsic "add-on" to human sexuality,
but is integral to it. It is a potentiality that
cannot be treated capriciously, precisely because
it is a potentiality for a person, not a dispensable
object. Hence, we showed in step 2 that the use of
the generative faculties must be truly conjugal -
unitive and procreative - and hence heterosexual.
C)
Moving from the biological dimension, on an ontological
level we find that in homosexual acts (as well as
contraceptive acts), the generative faculties are
being used in a way that denies their unitive power
precisely because the procreative power is denied.
You cannot give the whole self to the other - a prerequisite
for human dignity as show in steps 3 and 4 - if you
intentionally withhold your fertility.
This
presupposes what we can term an integralist view
of the person as opposed to a separatist view. The
integralist view sees the person as a unity of body
and spirit, whereas the separatist view sees the
person as standing over and against the body, the
body representing raw material that can be manipulated
according to the dictates of merely individual decision.
According to the separatist view, I can treat the
body just as I see fit - in accord with homosexual
desire, in accord with adulterous or fornicative
desires, and the list goes on.
But
such a view, separating body and person, is taking
nature herself and manipulating her. Nature dictates
a harmony between body and person, and the natural
law written on our hearts and accessible to reason
depicts this harmony for us and shows us how to act
accordingly.
Conclusion
The above five steps represent one
way in which a natural law argument, using reason
rather than revelation, can be made in regard to
homosexuality. The argument is an example of a Natural
Law argument; it is not the only way such an argument
could be constructed. The reader may well see places
in the argument that could be assisted by one or
another addition or deletion. Of most importance
is that all the points be made in a logically discursive
way.
One
hallmark of the Catholic tradition is that it prizes
such arguments that take place on the level of reason
alone. The reason the Church can hold such methodology
in high esteem lies in her famous principle, enunciated
best by St. Thomas Aquinas, that grace does not cancel
out nature, but presupposes and perfects it. Applied
here, this means that the argument based in human
nature as derived by reason alone is fully affirmed
by the Church.
She
then perfects the argument by adding the data of
revelation, which both reaffirms the natural argument
and adds additional data to the argument. That additional
data, derived from the twin sources of revelation
(Tradition and Scripture), is impressive and enriching
and fills in for Christians the full rationale for
the teaching against homosexual acts. But even without
that data, a good argument can be made based on the
Natural Law. It is that law to which we must turn
in our efforts to bring the truth about man to the
critical ethical questions of our day.
— Mark Lowery, Ph.D., is a professor
of moral theology at the University of Dallas, the
author of The
Good Life, and a long-time contributor of
articles on moral theology to Envoy Magazine. His
e-mail address is lowery@acad.udallas.edu.
