What is Marriage?

Given the historic Supreme Court case upon us, I thought it was a good time to post one of my Facebook debates on marriage.  People love to frame the debate as an "equality" issue, but "marriage equality" is nothing but a sentimental-sounding euphemism.  All adults "regardless of gender or race" already do have the right to marry, in so far as they are capable of it and are seeking a MARITAL relationship. I am not eligible to get married, because I am already married to someone else. Should I claim unjust discrimination if my "religion" held it was ok to marry multiple people? The traditional conjugal view of marriage has nothing to do with unjust discrimination. We already have marriage equality. The real question is, "WHAT IS MARRIAGE?"

Luke shared Barack Obama's photo.

October 8, 2014 · Edited ·

All should have this opportunity for growth and reflection. Marriage is a cultural norm. Marriage is bliss. I say let everyone marry. Mary can Marry Mary. Vic can marry Stan. Her and her. He and she. Church and state. American land of the free home of the brave. Our soldiers don't die for freedom for some. Long live the us of a.

• Luke and 15 others like this.
• Ryan What is the definition of marriage, Luke? (and no platitudes, please.)

  October 8, 2014 at 2:34pm · Like · 1
• Luke Great question. I am not the dude to ask. My definition may be different then yours. Ryan. I say pray about it and ask what Jesus would say about love and pope Fransisco. And the franscicano prayer.

  October 8, 2014 at 3:58pm · Like
• Ryan Yes, your definition obviously appears to be different than mine. That's why I asked you what exactly your definition is. I wasn't asking about Jesus, Pope Francis, or St. Francis, but why would we need to "ask them"? They've already given their definition (see Matt. 19 for example) clearly and emphatically (especially Pope Francis), and I agree with them. So the question remains, how do YOU define marriage?

  October 8, 2014 at 6:26pm · Edited · Like · 1
• Alan marriage takes place in many non-christian cultures - why the assumption that it's something inherently Christian? bizarre

  October 8, 2014 at 7:49pm · Like · 1
• Alan why would i care what Matthew 19 states unless i took the bible literally? and if i took the bible literally then i would have to accept and condone all the *#$% that's mentioned in the old testament? ever read that? genocide? slavery? stoning of women? pretty barbaric *#$% - no thanks

  October 8, 2014 at 7:50pm · Like · 1
• Gloria I believe that marriage is the commitment two people promise to each other based in pure love. I truly believe in marriage . My problem is where is that person lol

  October 8, 2014 at 8:02pm · Like · 1
• Ryan Alan, I didn't bring up Jesus and had no intention of doing so, Luke did. I never said marriage is "something inherently Christian". The Catholic definition (again, brought up by Luke, not me) is indisputable. I'm just asking for Luke's definition of marriage for secular society. Luke, are you agreeing with Gloria's stated definition?

  October 8, 2014 at 8:26pm · Edited · Like · 1
• Ryan Gloria, I admire your willingness to offer something more than nonsensical platitudes (see "loveislove" or peruse our friend Luke's wall for many more examples). Two questions about your definition: 1) Does that mean the state should recognize my relationship with my grandmother as a "marriage"? (After all, the commitment we've promised to each other is based on pure love.) 2) On what grounds do you limit your definition to 2 people?

  October 8, 2014 at 9:14pm · Like · 1
• Alan actually, i meant to apologize for my comments - not productive I'm sorry -

  October 8, 2014 at 9:22pm · Unlike · 2
• Alan is just wish all people could get along - naively  - and feel that marriage between two people who love each other should be ok - regardless of religion, sexual orientation, whatever

  October 8, 2014 at 9:22pm · Like · 1
• Ryan Alan, I'm just trying to bring the conversation back to an essential question: What is marriage? I think "two people who love each other" is lacking and I suspect you do too. Otherwise, I'm eligible to "marry" my son, my sister, my pastor, my grandmother, my best friend, or my 14-year-old goddaughter? All of these relationships fit your definition.

  October 8, 2014 at 9:34pm · Edited · Like · 1
• Alan good points - i guess id say: two consenting adults - not biologically related (as in, relatives - not as in, australopithicus)

  October 8, 2014 at 9:42pm · Like · 1
• Ryan On what grounds do you exclude relatives? In other words, how is this discrimination justified? Also, on what ground do you limit it to 2? Why not polygamy or polyamory?  ...Read more
  
  

On the Capacity to Marry

And we're back.  It's been a busy spring.

While we've been doing online marriage prep instruction for over three years now, this month we're teaching our first live class.  Last week we went through the real meaning of the marital vows and the topic of physical impediments to marriage was covered.  As usual, the fact that impotence (Note:  not the same thing as sterility.) renders one incapable of marriage comes as a surprise to many people, especially when hearing it for the first time.  When some in the class struggled to wrap their minds around whether it was just for the Church to "deny marriage to a couple" on these grounds, I didn't do a very good job of explaining it.  So I wrote up a clarification email to our students and thought I'd post it here.

After thinking about the questions raised last week regarding physical impediments to marriage (i.e., impotence), we wanted to offer a more accurate answer.

When asked to confirm that "the Church really won't allow the paralyzed, for example, to marry," our response was essentially, "yes, that is correct."  However, a more accurate answer is "actually, the Church denies marriage to nobody."...

Death with Dignity?

Now that the Culture of Death has found its poster child (Brittany Maynard, who moved to Oregon where it is legal to hire an assassin disguised as a "doctor" to help her kill herself), the big push for more states to adopt Oregon's so-called "Death with Dignity" law has begun in earnest.

The following video from Chris Stefanick is the best response I've seen.  It needs to be spread far and wide.  The Culture of Life has its own poster child.

Who is truly dying with dignity?  Brittany or Lizz?  You decide.

Would Jesus eat at Chick-fil-A?

Two years ago today Christians came out in droves to eat at Chick-fil-A in support of owner Dan Cathy.  After Cathy told a magazine interviewer that he believed in the biblical definition of marriage, the homofascists came after him, even proclaiming that Chick-fil-A was not welcome in certain cities.  (So much for "tolerance".)  I was glad to support Chick-fil-A, and it's the only fast food restaurant we frequent to this day.

Anyway, that set the stage for one my Facebook debates...

Jenny

August 3, 2012

I did not go to Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday, and I haven’t been since 2004. To be quite honest, I’m not sure what my stance is on gay marriage. I don’t think that gay marriage is the SAME as heterosexual marriage, but at the same time I do not think that it’s fair if two people are in a committed and loving relationship to not be granted the same rights as married couples. I am not someone to judge whether it’s right or not, I love people regardless of sexual orientation, and I think the Chick-Fil-A “event” was blown out of proportion. I do think it is sad that as “Christians”, those who were demonstrating their stance have hurt so many wonderful people, and I don’t think that Jesus would have gone to Chick-Fil-A to order a chicken sandwich on Wednesday either. God calls us to love one another and that’s exactly what I plan on doing.

25 others like this

• Monica I agree, this Chick Fila thing was CRAZY! Way to spread even more hostile/ unfavorable opinions against Christianity, now that we are seen as fast food endorsing publicly anti-gay people. Geez. Christ certainly would not have eaten there with that crowd. He would have sought out and eaten with the shunned "gays" that day, WITHOUT condemnation in His Heart.
• 
  Annie Jenny your comments were well thought out! Thank you for reminding us all that we are called to live our lives as Jesus would- not judging or condemning bug LOVING!
• 
  Ryan Jenny, I appreciate your willingness to initiate a sensitive FB conversation with some substance. A few things, in response. First, Wednesday's Chick-fil-A event was to support not only the owner's biblical views on marriage, but also his First Amendment rights to express those views without being bullied by politicians threatening to deny his right to do business. The shocking admission of fascist philosophies by the mayors of Boston, Chicago, etc. should frighten and anger all Americans (regardless of their views on marriage), and hordes of supporters on Wednesday spoke loudly for religious freedom and freedom of speech.
• Second, why are you "not someone to judge whether [SSM] is right or not"? Are you consistent in your application of this theory of moral relativism?
  

A Debate on Abortion

About once a month I consider closing my Facebook account.  It's so easy to get sucked into wasting a lot of time pretending to foster a connection with 400 "friends".  But every month (so far) I decide to stay because of social media's evangelization potential.  Even Pope Benedict urged Catholics to have a presence on the internet; the New Evangelization demands it.

With that in mind, I tend to shake things up a bit on Facebook.  I've been "unfriended" more than once for this, but so be it.  I'm not going to use it just to tell the world what shoes I decided to wear today and post pictures of the unique cloud formation I saw on my way to work.  If people are willing to engage on the things that matter (which is rare), count me in.

Here is a debate I recently had regarding abortion.  During serious discussions regarding religion or politics, I often find that people tend not to answer a point or counter-point, but rather just move on to another argument.  That's what I thought "Julieta" was doing in this case, but apparently she thought the same thing about me.  "You're not open to hearing anything I say," she said.  Am I missing something?

[IMPORTANT NOTE:  If you have been involved with an abortion, this is NOT a condemnation of you.  No sin is too big for God's ocean of mercy!  Please see a priest and/or visit Project Rachel.]

• Julieta If you are against abortion, the last thing you should be working for is making abortion illegal. Why? Because just like guns, drugs, and every other thing humans do, making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening. In fact, illegalizing abortion kills many, many full grown women, too. If you believe abortion is wrong, then it should your mission to work towards creating a world where no woman would ever make that decision. We currently do not live in that world.
• Ryan Legal abortions kill many adult women now, and the founder of NARAL has admitted to grossly inflating the actual numbers of women dying from illegal abortions pre-Roe. I strongly agree with you that we live in a very disordered world, and we should all work towards creating a culture "where no woman would ever make that decision" (I would add "or man or parent would pressure a woman to make that decision."). In fact, that's part of what I do for a living. It's also true that making abortion illegal would not eliminate 100% of abortions, but why does it follow that we should keep it legal? I think we should work towards creating a culture where no man would ever want to abuse his wife. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also want to make spousal abuse illegal, even if it "happens anyway." A culture-shift is needed for sure, but making it illegal would not only eliminate around one million abortions each year, it would also go a long way in re-forming the culture. Why can't it be both? Why can't we save babies by changing hearts and supporting pregnant women, as well as by passing laws that give ALL human beings, regardless of size, environment, or level of development, the legal right to life?
• Julieta I come from a country where abortion was illegal. I do not need statistics as I learned directly from doctors working in the emergency rooms who saw the results of those policies and worked to change them. And legal abortions do not kill many women now... or if you think they do then be prepared to quadruple those rates. Abortion needs to be legal because in the USA we have separation of church and state. And if you are a religious person then you know that those protections were put there specifically to protect you and your beliefs. And we do not currently have laws that give children the right to anything. They are "protected" only after they have been abused, humiliated... broken. Many of the children who are born to women or girls unprepared emotionally, physically and financially to bear children will suffer enormously. They will be abused and abandoned... the foster system and the prisons are full of children like this, and they have NO RIGHTS. They are the leftovers, and make no mistake, they are damaged. But this does not matter. What matters is that each woman has the RIGHT to make that decision for herself, because she is a fully functional human being, who by law has the right to make decisions governing her own body. Forcing a woman to carry a child against her will is the worst kind of cruelty.

Finding Meaning: An Intro to JP2's Theology of the Body

This is an intro talk I gave recently at a high school Theology of the Body retreat.  The audio quality isn't the best, so my working copy of the talk is below.


Finding Meaning: An Intro to JP2's Theology of the Body from Domestic Church Militant on Vimeo.

------------

I'm going to start with a video clip from an old sitcom called Everybody Loves Raymond.  In it, a young daughter in the family starts asking some very deep questions about life, and you'll see how the family reacts.

“Religious scholars spend their entire lives trying to answer this question.  You're not going to just flip open the Bible and find the meaning of life.”  Did you catch that?

So a little girl starts asking about the meaning of our existence and the family freaks out.  Do you think this family's reaction to this question is typical in today's society?  I'd say so.  People tend to think that this is an impossible question to answer.  But is it?