One of the Strategies for Making War on the Sacrament of Marriage

One of the Strategies for Making War on the Sacrament of Marriage July 2, 2015

…is to weirdly contradictory three pronged attack of:

a) claiming that the Church has always hated gays and denied them the right to marry even though Jesus “said nothing” against gay marriage. This depends on what I call the Semi-Permeable Membrane of Sola Scriptura. It works as follows:

If a thing is condemned by the Church, but permitted by the Protestant (say, gay marriage) the demand is for an explicit text forbidding it (“Show me where Jesus said one word about not allowing gay marriage! That’s just the Church imposing its purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.”).

Conversely, if a thing is allowed by the Church but condemned by the Protestant, the demand is for an explicit text commanding it. So, for instance, we get demands like, “Where in the Bible do you find anyone asking us to pray to dead people? That’s just the Church imposing it’s purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.”

In fact, of course, Jesus is not silent about marriage:

He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, ¶ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Mt 19:4–6).

Jesus’ theology of marriage is rooted in Genesis and the complementarity of the sexes. He is not silent about that.

b) the claim that the Church, so far from opposing gay “marriage” used to celebrate gay “marriage”. This is rooted in John Boswell’s exploded piece of advocacy scholarship Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. As the link suggests, this line of argument is now being disinterred by theological illiterates attempting to make the case that the Church has strayed from its theological foundation under the influence of Dark Joy-Hating Forces in the Vatican, etc.

Problem is, it just ain’t so. The characteristically lucid Jimmy Akin explains why:

c) the claim, rooted in Reformation polemics, that marriage didn’t even exist as a sacrament till about a thousand years ago, so it’s basically just a manmade tradition we can alter at will. Thanks, Calvin. Bet you didn’t anticipate this outcome to your innovation.

This is like the argument that because the Church did not formulate the doctrine of Transubstantiation until about a thousand years ago, therefore it had no doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. It’s like saying that until vitamins were discovered, nobody believed food was nutritious.

The reality is that marriage and the complimentarity of the sexes completely suffuses the NT and informs the sacramental thought of its writers. Jesus is the Bridegroom and his bride the Church. Nuptial imagery fills the thought of John and Paul especially. Ephesians 5 is a document that can find no daylight between the marriage of man and woman and the marriage of Christ and the Church. The whole NT consummates in the Marriage Feast of the Lamb.

Of course, none of this matters to the “say anything to win” strategy of gay “Marriage” apologists. But it’s good to know if you are actually interested in accuracy and truth.

"Hey Mark! You got $250 mil laying around?https://www.foxnews.com/us/..."

The Feast of the Holy Child ..."
"I have had a question for quite a while, and since your comment is quite ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Mark, in charity, perhaps you should try. It's clear how frustrated you are. And it ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The whole course of Christianity from the first ... is but one series of troubles ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mary B

    “It’s like saying that until vitamins were discovered, nobody believed food was nutritious.” Brilliant.

  • Sandro Palmyra

    Interpretation of the scriptures changes over time. It’s happening today on many fronts. Most of the people that believe as you do on this issue, live in Nigeria. I do not believe however that this is where your future necessarily lies. They do not believe as you do, in clerical celibacy nor do they differentiate between consensual and non consensual sex within marriage or at all, really. This was the teaching of the church until relatively recently. I do not believe that you hold these views.

    • antigon

      ‘Most of the people that believe as you do on this issue, live in Nigeria.”
      *
      Dear Silly Sandro:
      *
      Plus one or two in Russia it’s rumored.

      • Alma Peregrina

        And even one or two south-americans.

        Or one or two chinese.

        Or even one or two north-americans/europeans… ah, but wait. Those think like nigerians. Americans or europeans don’t think like that… because only nigerians think like that and every american/european that thinks like that thinks like a nigerian.

        Or, in other words, americans and europeans don’t think like that *if* we exclude every single american or european that thinks like that. Can’t argue with that.

    • Alma Peregrina

      “Interpretation of the scriptures changes over time.”

      That’s why we have an arbiter of which interpretations are legitimate and which are not. It’s called the Church.
      ******************************************
      “Most of the people that believe as you do on this issue, live in Nigeria.”

      No, they don’t. There are many people outside of Nigeria that believe as we do. But I guess you were trying an ad hominem, in which case you used a logical fallacy, while simultaneously being racist and western-supremacist. Well done.
      ******************************************
      “They do not believe as you do, in clerical celibacy nor do they differentiate between consensual and non consensual sex within marriage or at all, really.”

      I thought you said that nigerians believed as we do. Oh well. Does that mean that clerical celibacy is OK then, since nigerians don’t believe it?
      ******************************************
      “This was the teaching of the church until relatively recently. I do not believe that you hold these views.”

      You don’t seem to know the teachings of the church, either past or present, I’m afraid.
      ******************************************
      “I do not believe however that this is where your future necessarily lies.”

      The near future lies in people that write comments such as yours on the Internet being the majority in western countries and christians having to endure such nonsense. The middle future lies in western countries sinking into demographic collapse and being superseded by those *awful* nigerians. The ultimate future lies on the victory of the Truth, as proclaimed by the Church, on the day of Last Judgment.

      But you’re allowed to believe what you want. As long as you allow me to do the same.

    • Cool argument bro.

    • Jamesthelast

      lol, you think Nigerian Catholics don’t believe in clerical celibacy? Learn some basic facts before you post nonsense.

    • ManyMoreSpices

      I leave as exercise for the reader pondering what the left’s reaction would be if my argument against a position involved pointing out that the position is held by a lot of sub-saharan Africans.

      “Raise taxes on the rich? That’s an argument straight out of Harlem.”

    • Joseph

      Wow. Wasn’t there a claim of attachment to the plight of the black people by the *gay marriage* propaganda artists? Now we find out what they really think of black people when the history of their suffering is no longer needed. Awesome. Racist jerk. You could have saved yourself naming a country and just used the ‘N’ word.

      • Heather

        Well, just add an extra “g” and you’re there. I will choose to charitably assume that the choice of this specific name out of the 50+ countries in Africa is entirely coincidental.

        • Joseph

          Um… the country had nothing to do with it, it was the selection of a primarily black country in Africa. He could have chosen any of the black countries in Africa and it would have been racist… because he’s a racist.

          • Heather

            Oh I’m totally in agreement with you there. I was just pondering as you said “You could have saved yourself naming a country and just used the ‘N’ word” and noticing that the country name itself very nearly is that – all you’d have to do is double the G. The only country name closer to it is Niger.

    • Chris W

      You are wrong, I do believe the future of the Church is going to come out of Africa.

    • Artevelde

      Most of the people who believe as you do on the topic of mixing crude forms of racism and light comedy .. where do they live?

  • elizacoop
    • ManyMoreSpices

      I am shocked, shocked that a Christian community founded on redefining marriage has redefined marriage!

  • Rebecca Fuentes

    Don’t forget the, “St. Paul was just wrong about this,” argument.