Those who hoped the Catholic Church might be evolving on marriage equality recently got a rude slap. The Vatican not only decreed that the Church would not bless same-sex marriages, but labeled being gay itself as sinful — or, in Catholic jargon, “a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God.”
This might please traditionalists, who tend to see God’s plans as both sacred and immutable. But how these plans are revealed to religious leaders has, in fact, changed frequently over the centuries. There’s good reason to think more change is necessary now.
Consider, for example, the delicate problem described in Acts 15. Back in the first century, the early Christians had problems recruiting converts. A major obstacle was whether membership required obeying all the ceremonial laws handed down by Moses — including circumcision. Observing that this curbed adults’ enthusiasm for following Christ, his disciples simply took Mosaic Law down a notch: “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right.”
This was both welcoming and wise. But note how much the remaining “necessities” dealt with practical matters such as public health. The “revealed plans of God,” it seems, often involve prescriptions aimed at enhancing the survival chances of His followers and, therefore, growing His flock. And as conditions change, so might those prescriptions. Here, a medical procedure with only minor health benefits and some risks was dumped, while other orders relating to healthy food preparation in that pre-refrigeration age were left intact — for a while.
Then there’s the part that troubles us today — that “unlawful marriage” is not “right.” If the Holy Spirit didn’t nudge Christ’s disciples in the direction of same-sex marriage in A.D. 50, why change now? The simple answer — that times have changed — is unpersuasive to traditionalists. More correctly and completely, the conditions that made this traditional prescription useful and conducive to expanding the Christian flock have changed. If God’s plan is for Christianity to grow and flourish, it’s time for Christians to see same-sex marriage as lawful and right.
For millennia, life was, in the famous words of Hobbes, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Technology was static; producing more food or other output required more hands, which meant having lots of children. And if one beat the odds and survived into old age, one’s pension was one’s children. Societies and religious denominations thus made childbearing and -rearing a high priority; it was no surprise that artificial birth control or gay conduct was discouraged.
But those days are over. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution, financial institutions that enable us to grow and store our wealth, and amazing innovations that boost our productivity, most of us now make it to and through retirement without relying on our kids — and can avoid being a burden on society even if we don’t have any.
In short, the practical reasons for making procreation the central focus of adult life and of marriage — and, therefore, for focusing on the “one man, one woman” definition thereof — are no longer operative. Yes, we should protect all life and celebrate when more of it is created, but there’s no longer a real reason to insist that everyone’s highest calling is to do so. We will survive and thrive as a society when a heterosexual couple chooses to have two children instead of four — or none at all. Ditto when gay couples form families of whatever size.
Traditionalists argue that civil unions can secure for gay couples all the rights of marriage without radically redefining a venerable institution. But when couples enter into holy matrimony as part of a religious community, they make vows of fidelity, devotion “in sickness and in health,” and much else that is more truly binding. Such commitments make families and congregations stronger; they are today more important than expectations of procreation were in a bygone age, and should be encouraged and supported by all religious denominations.
When Christ’s disciples debated the wisdom of adherence to ancient principles, they worried that “some of our number … have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind.” Many Christian leaders face the same problem today with respect to same-sex marriage; their unwelcoming stance is shrinking their flock. We can only pray that, in time, they will come to see that as inconsistent with the “revealed plans of God,” properly understood.
