Ugly Christmas Trees

     It might be a demonstrable fact, if I had the time and discipline to do a real study, that the "cultures" with the most pervasive sexual disorder are those which have the weakest or most dysfunctional families.  In any case, I shall theorize that individuals are more prone to sexual disorder the fewer personal and intimate connections they have with other people.

     Vice and addiction can best be described not as a disease (you can't "catch" perversion) but as a disorder; things are not working properly.  One should be in control of his actions, he should understand the purpose of his actions, and most of his actions should be directed by conscious decision rather than emotional impulse.  Every conscious decision is a moral decision because it contributes to our moral formation:  Our actions define our character, and our character influences our actions.  Not all decisions are completely 'free', though.  A typical alcoholic is not free to choose just one drink, a chain-smoker is not free to smoke just one cigarette, and a porn-addict is not free to browse Wikipedia until midnight when nobody else is around.  Freedom of choice is a state of habitual control over one's impulses and passions (consider that 'passion' is to 'passive' as 'action' is to 'active';  if you are overcome with passion, you are not the one acting, but are being acted upon.)  You cannot control impulse with impulse:  Something "above" your impulses needs to step in and take the reins, as it were.  This is where reason comes in:  Your mind, or intellect, needs to assess the intent and nature of your desire before acting on it in order for it to be considered fully 'free'.  When we can assess our desires, before choosing whether or not to act on them, we are in control.

     The ability to assess an action depends in part on one's understanding of it.  Say, for example, that my car breaks down; I check under the hood and realize that it's really hot and that it smells burnt, but I know nothing about mechanics.  Am I free to fix my car?  I might guess that it needs coolant, but because I do not understand what is in front of me, I might do more harm than good if I decide to try something (and from experience, I can say it would be a bad idea to add coolant in that instance).  So, if you do not properly understand the nature of an action, it is unlikely that you are free to do it well.  The better one understands something, however, the easier it will be to act on it freely:  A repressive alcoholic who thinks that he drinks because he is a bad person and therefore must punish himself will not be as free to change as one who has learned the psychology of addiction.

     This brings us to the topic at hand - sex.  I think most people do not understand it.  I am no longer talking about mechanics, mind you.  I am referring to its proper place in the family:  To put it plainly, you cannot understand sex outside of the family.  To adapt the words of Pope Paul VI, sex can be accurately described as "the free, total, and exclusive expression of love between spouses which is the renewal of their life-long vows and the human collaboration with God the Creator."  Anything else is perversion and depravity.  This probably seems like too strong and rigid a stance for the average person to accept, but consider it in a thoroughly human context.  Remove institutions, corporations, screens, machines, and fantasy.  Imagine society as it was before social engineering, before high-rises, and before automobiles (bear in mind that this is all of human history minus 200 years).  Human beings, being social animals, do not move far away from their family and friends unless pressured by lack of freedom.  Without a pretended need to limit the amount of children a couple creates, children abound.  After just a few generations of blessed fecundity (let's say an average 4 or 5 children per generation), a married couple can expect to have about 20 grandchildren in their lifetime.  The children of the 3rd generation could have 10 uncles and aunts and 19 cousins. The uncles or aunts who married into the family have their own families which, if they are of similar size, have their own siblings who probably married into other families of like size.  A town with just a dozen family names could thus boast of over 600 citizens; citizens of varying ages, roles, occupations, and relationships.  One living in a relatively new town (of just 3 generations or roughly 100 years) could walk from one side of it to another and know everyone he sees on the way; his name, what he does, where he lives, and how he is related.

     There is no internet or television or magazines in that town.  The only people you could see were people you knew and who knew you.  Now consider sex.  Would fornication be common in such a village?  How many people could one “sleep around” with before they need to leave town by the sheer amount of relationships they have damaged on the way?  Now consider a bigger and older town, one more than a few centuries old:  There are thousands of inhabitants, which still might only have a dozen or so family names, but the inhabitants are very distantly related, albeit steeped in their heritage and family tradition.  Even if one does not know everyone in town very well, they might guess a few things about him merely upon learning his name.  Even in such a place, every person one meets is a face, a name, a story, and a relationship.

     This is almost unimaginable in the developed world today.  We are accustomed to seeing droves of people without even caring about who they are or what they are up to.  We are trained not to make eye contact with people in real life, but to follow the intimate details of lives we have nothing to do with.  If one gets married and has children, it is not unlikely that he lives more than 20 miles from his nearest relative, and he can expect to watch  his children move far away from him as soon as they are able.  Homes typically contain two permanent residents per generation.  When one travels to his job every day, he works beside people he sees only at work.  When one goes to the store, he is greeted by strangers.  If he, for some reason, decided to walk down the street from his home, he might pass by several people he might have noticed in passing but whose names he does not know.

     Sex is one dimension of a unique relationship, a relationship which is at the heart of society and which is related to every other family relationship.  Today, intimate relationships are rare (especially true friendship), so it should be no surprise that sex is commonly misunderstood.  It is still possible, however, to come to a better understanding by deepening the relationships one has.  Spend less time watching TV and more time with your family (not watching TV).  Call up your sisters or brothers, if you have any.  Get in touch with your cousins; send a message to your uncle or your grandmother who you might not have seen since last Christmas.  You probably have known these people for your whole life, so there is probably a deep-seated inclination to treat them in a unique way:  For example, there are probably things you would only say to your brother or things you would only do for your grandmother.  These are key to understanding any basic relationship:  Brotherly love is not motherly love, your affection for your mother is not the same as for your sister, you do not treat your uncle like you treat your wife, etc.

     Now consider something disordered; fornication.  When one decides to have “relations” with someone who is not his wife, with whom he has made no vows, for whom he has no responsibility, with whom he has no real relationship (besides, perhaps, a facsimile of friendship), he is pretending at something for the sake of his passions.  It is not truly free and so it is not true love.  With whom has he decided to copulate?  It is not his wife and I would hope it is not his sister, his aunt, or his cousin.  It might be a mere acquaintance, in which case there is a very thin relationship and one which would be damaging to more substantial relationships if they were at all associated.  When one asks himself, “why do I not seek sex in the context of marriage?” his answer will likely expose an anti-social and egotistical malformation.

     This all being said, it is Gaudete Sunday and Christmas is at hand.  We are preparing to celebrate the pinnacle of human history, the moment when humanity itself was elevated unto kinship with God, when God entered into the human family by becoming one of us.  Many of us have put up and decorated an evergreen, evocative of eternal life and the family tree that has Christ at its summit.  While we prepare to rejoice at the Word having become perfect man, we should keep in mind that the rest of humanity is imperfect, including our own family.  One reminder of this is Christ’s own genealogy, recorded in Matthew 1:1-16 and in Luke 3:23-38 (the apparent discrepancy between both Gospel genealogies is explained by Eusebius in his Church History, book I, chapter 7).  Another reminder is the unavoidable ugliness of family Christmas trees whose mismatched diversity of ornaments is directly proportional to the size of the family.  Living life near one’s family can be difficult precisely because of unique differences and imperfections.  But if the Creator of the universe can deign to mingle Himself with our fallen nature then perhaps there is something to gain from sharing His experience.  After all, He decided to re-enlighten our darkened existence, not by divine command from on high, but by joining us in our misery.  If it is not beneath the Almighty to form an intimate, complex, blood relationship with us, it is not beneath us to build relationships with others on the same principle, forgetting ourselves and cultivating society in the bond of family and true friendship.

Thoughts on Marriage

It is most likely that the ancient Athenian men, who made no qualms about enjoying sexual intimacy with their male companions, would have thought that the prospect of marriage between two men was not rude or immoral, but useless, impractical, and thus absurd.  Even in their comedies, the idea of exclusively male marriage was not even present as a joke:  It seems that the thought never entered one’s mind, let alone the public forum. 

Marriage, as far as its human origin is concerned, seemed chiefly to concern the establishment and transmission of property, i.e. the protection of one’s exclusive right to a woman (for the sake of children) and the protection of the children’s rights to their father’s property after his death.

Even as women gained value and distinction in the public sphere, their rights eventually equaling those of men (at least in the western world), marriage persisted as the assurance of the security of the family, being a social and legal safeguard for both the exclusive relationship between the spouses and the custody and property rights parents held with their children.

Marriage has a natural definition because it is naturally practical.  This is clear considering the physical dispositions of men and women and the process of child-bearing. 

Marriage has a social definition because it is socially practical.  Women’s rights are proportionate to men’s responsibilities.  If a man has no responsibility to care for his children or the mother of his children, the woman assumes the double (and near impossible) task of bearing and rearing her children as well as supporting herself.  Without loyalty to a spouse, however, the man’s responsibilities are moot:  A woman’s promiscuity diminishes a man’s obligation insofar as they are uncertain of his fatherhood.  Also, even if both parents are present and responsible to their children, their property is prone to loss or theft (by neighbor or by ruler) when there is no clear heir by virtue of some socially recognized bond.

Many movements throughout recent history gradually diminished the definition of the family, which in turn diminished the apparent need for marriage.  Industry grew bigger and more complex, decreasing the natural practicalities of marriage. Man’s role changed from household steward to travelling money-maker.  The most damaging effect on the social understanding of marriage was the gradual cultural displacement of family provider with family money-maker.  Woman’s role has changed as well, from nurturer, housekeeper, and teacher, to secondary money-maker.  Public institutions provide education in lieu of prudential child-rearing.  Commerce thrives on replacing the creativity of wife-and-mothers with affordable household necessities.  Women have been made “free” from their household duties so that they can join men in leaving their homes and earning money to pay for the replacements of their household duties.  If a woman has children without a husband to provide, publicly funded institutions will take his place until the children themselves are absorbed by institutions and the woman becomes provider.

Marriage is today, in its natural form, unnecessary and often even impractical.  This is the reason why marriage has been socially and legally redefined to include unions between two men or two women.  There is no longer a clear definition (or even a need for a definition) of a family.  What remains are social and legal utilities (like property rights and taxes) which, for the present, adhere to two people only in official record; a record which can be dashed and rewritten at whim.  Eventually, even the need to define heirs and co-owners will fade as social structures evolve.  Yet, long before this happens, it will inevitably occur to the public at large that there is no reason why private property can only be shared with one other individual or that, if any two people can be arbitrarily granted custody over a child, there is no reason why any three or four people cannot be granted custody over a child.

Perhaps it be Marxist of me to see such a linear evolution of societal customs (and to evolve does not mean to get better), but the trend is apparent.  The old form of marriage is quickly becoming a thing that is not so much dependent on political bias or economic class as it is on a desired way of life; one which is so far removed from conventional culture that it has an almost isolating effect on those who live it.  It is not inconceivable to think that a day will come when the more conspicuous members of our society will regard marriage as something unthinkable; something useless, impractical, and absurd.

Hello, My Name is Ian and I Am Heterosexual (or) Don't Tell Me What to Teach My Kids

     Why would people not be allowed to love each other? This question is often the spearhead to any debate over the legalization of gay marriage, or “marriage equality” as it’s been dubbed. The notion of having a couple’s love recognized by the public eye, i.e. the government, and thus enjoying the benefits which go along with this recognition, has as its supporting foundation this simple idea: We are allowed to love each other. How could those who oppose a love so strong and fast, so undeniably true and vivid in the hearts of lovers, woman and man and other alike, be seen as anything other than monstrous? Indeed, as we learn from the most ancient of poets, the value and force of love and the tie it binds between those involved is nothing short of divine. Who are we to lay constraints on a love which is looked down upon simply because we are not used to it? We, who are not accustomed to the public cry for social acceptance of diverse nuclear families since the invention of in vitro fertilization and AI must learn to cope with, nay, to embrace the diverse character of the human eros. Right?

     Well, let us step back for a moment and see why the angry cry to “love and let love” has not been met with satisfaction. What the heck is love? Well, obviously love means sex, right? When a same-sex couple says that they love each other, that is, after all, what they ultimately mean. I have a few good friends (male like me) whom I can say I “love”, but I am certainly not engaging in sexual activity with them. So by “love”, in this context, it is inferred that sex is the definitive factor in the relationship. There, however, seems to be a problem with this. It appears that sex, in today’s (secular) society, has virtually no relation to the institution of marriage. So what is the issue, precisely? It appears that the issue is not at all precise! In fact, it is so imprecise that I fear I can only speak for myself and my own worldview, lest I get mixed up in the political thicket of liberal and conservative ideals. Again, I fear I cannot stress enough that I am not speaking on behalf of either political faction (I mean… party).

     So back we go to finding the issue. If love means sex but sex does not mean marriage, what is the issue? There is an issue, we cannot doubt, so there must be a problem with these definitions. Supposing love has little to do with sex (for it would be monstrous to divorce the two completely), what kind of love are we speaking of when we say that people who love each other should have the right to be married? Perhaps it is not only a love that thrives on reduced income tax liability, but one which bears to the married couple the right to raise children. Ah, children, the third part and full completion of love, follow only naturally from the culmination of personal intimacy. Well, usually...
But the fact that life does not naturally flow from the intimate union of a particular pair of lovers does not matter when they can have someone else’s child, right? After all, just as sex has little to do with marriage, neither does it have much to do with children these days. But this is at the core of the desire for marriage – to have the relationship recognized by society so that children may be raised under the stability of two parents. Observations suggest that I may have this wrong also, but I will leave that alone for now. To be honest, I find that the more I try to understand the underlying principles which support the case for “marriage equality”, the more confused I become. I will, therefore, stop trying to understand until someone kindly enlightens me.

     I feel, however, a great need to make clear the principles which underlie my own perspective as a Roman Catholic (vivat papa!). I have noticed a few jabs at my favorite old grey single man in a pointy hat whom I call the Holy Father. I have noticed that there seems to be a great deal of animosity toward him and the college of like-minded old grey single men in pointy hats whom I call Reverend Bishops. The feelings of hatred toward the faith I profess has been something the Church has had to deal with since we hid on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. It simply does not faze us. What does faze us is when we send our children to school and they are taught things which directly contradict our faith. And so, finally, I come to my purpose here: Somebody please think of the children.

     So, what exactly does my Faith have to say about all these “diverse” people who want to get married? Where else could I go but the Bible, right? Well, for the sake of all those not in the choir, I shall refrain from going there. For the Catholic Church, marriage is sacred. It is to join a man and a woman together for two reasons, love and babies. These two things are so essential to marriage that you just cannot have one without the others. Not only does this fly in the face of “marriage equality”, but also contraception, abortion, fornication, and divorce. Marriage is neither some narrow-minded provincial tradition nor a cold-hearted dictum forced upon the sheepish masses of the Christian faithful by an oppressive regime of castrated old men. Simply put, our bodies are so sacred that we cheat ourselves if the contract is not for life. There is no sex without marriage, but, believe it or not, there is no marriage without sex. Now here we come to something really controversial: Because there are no children without sex, there ought to be no sex without children. This is not to derive an “ought” from an “is”, this is to make certain that no person is used as an object for pleasure’s sake. This is, furthermore, not to say that God punishes the pleasure of the marital act by giving the couple babies (unless of course you’re gay). It merely means that any act of love, if it is really love, involves creation.  This is not the case because my Faith teaches it, my Faith teaches it because this is the case.

     Notice how emotions have not been mentioned. Sure, emotions can be good, helpful, and entertaining but they can be pretty messed up, too. Not many people would argue that emotions which involve destructive tendencies are not to be held in check: No matter how angry I get, it is not okay to punch someone in the face. There is a law which forbids it and for good reason. Emotions cannot be the only factor in deciding to marry. This I say as a Catholic. As an American, we each have a right to believe what we want (however incorrect that belief may be) and so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Yet, more often than not, beliefs clash: Catholics believe in a duty to teach their children the Faith while others believe in a duty to teach Catholic children other, contradictory things. It is our right to hold what we do; we can even talk about it and have grownup discussions. Just keep our kids out of it.