|
|
It Starts with the So-called “Sexual Revolution”by Archbishop Salvatore CordileoneThe State of Marriage in Society“Augustinian goods” of marriage – permanence (bonum sacramenti), fidelity (bonum fidei) and openness to offspring (bonum prolis). It is these three bona, goods of marriage, that distinguish marriage from any other type of relationship, and identify what it is in nature and define what it is in the law. Considered in this light, it becomes clear that the current crisis of marriage of which we are all painfully aware has really been going on in our society for a very long time. This latest debate about the very definition of marriage is simply the next logical – albeit thus far most radical – step in the redefinition of marriage in the social consciousness. That is, marriage has already been redefined in the culture, and the law is now beginning to reflect that. Looked at from the standpoint of the three goods of marriage, we can see how this banalization of the concept of marriage has been going on for at least the last fifty years, that is, since the so-call “sexual revolution” of the 1960’s. Just consider: The 3 Stages of the Destruction of Marriage Permanence:
There is no question that the widespread acceptance of no fault divorce
dealt an extremely severe blow to the concept of marriage as a
life-long commitment. This already redefined marriage as an
adult-centered institution based on what the adults look to get out of
it. To put it in the terminology that comes to us from the teaching of
St. John Paul II, this is the quintessential “utilitarian” norm: one
person becomes the means to another person’s end. When the needs of one
are no longer being met by the other, the basis of the relationship is
gone and the disappointed party can legally back out of it, even against
the wishes of the other spouse who wishes to keep the marriage
together. Perhaps you, as I, have known people who have been severely
harmed by this decision – they wanted to stay in the relationship and
keep it working while the person’s spouse simply backed out and filed
for divorce. Now, if we add to this the now almost universally accepted
practice of cohabitation outside of marriage, and recognize how easily
couples move in and out of relationship, whether it’s cohabitation or
marriage, we can see that there is not really that much difference the
popular mentality ascribes to those who are married and to couples who
are not.Fidelity: Certainly widespread promiscuity does violence to the idea of marriage as a commitment of exclusive fidelity. Commonplace cohabitation also contributes to the loss of the sense of fidelity as one of the defining goods of marriage, even if, of the three, this one does still have some resonance in the popular culture, at least as an ideal. The social changes that erupted fifty years ago also eventually saw such aberrant practices as so-called “open marriages” and “swinging.” Offspring: We are now witnessing the phenomenon, until recently inconceivable, of couples marrying with the intention of not have any children at all. Remember “DINKS”? With contraception and then – necessarily, given the mentality – abortion, sex has become redefined, no longer understood as procreative and unitive, but seen rather as a means for pleasure. Thus, we have here again the utilitarian norm: the other person becomes a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves. Because the concept of sex has now become disconnected from procreation and, in turn, from marriage, motherhood today is seen as a matter of choice and increasingly a lifestyle choice. We hear absurd things such as, “just because she chose to be a mother doesn’t mean I chose to be a father.” Or the woman who says, “I don’t know how I got pregnant, it wasn’t supposed to happen.” (I have actually heard this one myself!)
When the choice to have a child is simply a lifestyle choice . . .
When the choice to have a child is simply a lifestyle choice, then
increasingly it is seen as a means to fulfillment separated from
marriage, for the sake of the adult making the choice, with roles of
motherhood and fatherhood becoming interchangeable. Just last Sunday
the New York Times had a front-page article on surrogacy, “wombs for
hire,” whether the couples are same-sex or opposite sex. And what if
the couple decides later they do not want to have the child, but the
surrogate mother wants to keep the child and is willing to raise the
child herself? As you may know, this has happened, and the surrogate
mother was forced to abort the child against her will. What could be a
more blatant and outrageous example of a child being treated as an
object of desire, a means to an end, rather than a gift of equal value
and dignity to the adult and worthy of unconditional self-giving love –
what St. John Paul calls the “personalistic norm”?Sadly, this sort of thing isn’t new. When I was working in Rome – already this was in the late 1990’s – I remember walking past what was obviously a feminist bookstore. And this was just a few blocks from the Vatican, very close to the Dome of St. Peter’s Basilica. And there proudly displayed in the window was a book with the title, “Self-Insemination.” I thought to myself, “How ironic. When I was young and ‘women’s lib’ was in full force, the question that women who were with the spirit of the times would ask themselves was, ‘How can I do it without getting pregnant?’ Now the question they ask is, ‘How can I get pregnant without doing it?’”
When the two ends of marriage become not only separated from each other but irrelevant,
So, you can see how all of this has whittled away at the three
defining goods of marriage, and therefore at the very concept of
marriage itself. No fault divorce was, especially, the pivotal moment,
for that put into the law the idea that marriage is for the
gratification and benefits of adults and not about the needs and rights
of children. But ultimately it can all be traced back to the
contraceptive mentality, which is nothing more than the utilitarian norm
applied to sexual relations.it’s no-wonder that many people cannot make a distinction between heterosexual and same-sex relationships, or between marriage and cohabitation for that matter.
Discover More
 |
