On today’s Laura Ingraham show she interviewed Newsweek Religion Editor Lisa Miller about her recent article making the religious case for homosexual marriage. Miller’s defense was quite laughable. At one point when asked by Laura Ingraham about St. Paul’s references to homosexuality, Lisa Miller replied that the same scripture also condemned drunkenness, adultery, and divorce.

Now I thought that was a rather odd reply, especially when she said drunks can get married (though they might actually be psychological impaired to be able to actually give consent). Laura Ingraham pressed her on drunkenness, adultery, and divorce and weren’t they all bad things? The answer was lots of people get divorced. With that kind of logic we might as well get rid of laws since lots of people break them.

Now this might seem an incoherent argument, but this understanding has natural consequences. It is really only the Catholic Church that defends marriage and properly sees what marriage actually is. Protestant denominations for the most part have quite accepted divorce in a way reminiscent of Moses who allowed it because of their “hardness of heart” as Jesus said. We really should be having state constitutional changes on banning no fault divorce which is one of the most destructive things in human history. With rampant fornication, adultery, divorce and “remarriage” in a hook-up culture we can’t be surprised that the definition of marriage has fallen on hard times. The sacred character of marriage is that it is an indissoluble union. A a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children demands total fidelity. Turn on the TV or look at the culture and it would be really hard to extrapolate the meaning of marriage.

With the culture having such an improper understanding of marriage it is no wonder that so many can see no problem with same-sex marriage. Contraception and abortion are making heterosexual sex just as sterile as homosexual sex. When children as one of the two purposes of marriage are excluded it is easy to see how same-sex marriage can seem valid. Sex gets reduced to just mutual pleasure with no meaning beyond gratification.

The natural law can certainly lead us to an understanding of the two aims of marriage. Though the Newsweek article said it was making the “religious” case for it. Though actually they were making a progressive Christian argument for it since they did not address other religions or in fact provide arguments from those opposed to their conclusion. They were using scripture from both Testaments, yet somehow never got around the commandment to be fruitful which is impossible with same-sex sexual acts. No doubt homosexual apologists will point to heterosexual couples who are sterile, but this misses the fact that in their case something biological is not working properly. It is a defect which in some cases can be remedied. Whereas homosexual acts can never lead to children by its very nature.

There are so many things I love about the Catholic Church, and one of them is the consistency of her teachings. She can condemn homosexually, contraception, IVF, divorce, masturbation, fornication, etc; based on the actual meaning of marriage as taught by Jesus. Sex within marriage is the only valid context for sex and the sexual act must never be formally separated from the possibility of procreation. The last sentence provides the basis for all of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. When you separate sex from procreation (or vice versa) and/or allow sex outside of marriage all of the other errors necessarily follow.

Lisa Miller also referenced during the interview Psalm 139 which she called a “beautiful psalm” as evidence for support of homosexuality. This was from the reference to Fr. James Martin, S.J. she made in the original article. Fr. Martin commented on my blog about this reference. Though his comment was actually a reply to something Diogenes asked about whether he thought Jesus was still alive and clarified by saying Jesus if he was walking the Earth in physical form “would likewise reach out to the marginalized today, a group that would include gays and lesbians.” Jesus reaches out to all of us and part of that reaching out is calling us to repentance and saying “Go and sin no more.” Though I would add part of that marginalized group would be those who defend the Church teaching on sexual ethics. It is much more likely that someone objecting to homosexuality will be persecuted and even sued than someone with same-sex attraction. We can easily look to the Proposition 8 witch hunt being used against those who supported it in California as am example.

I would like to see some further clarification from Fr. Martin. Father linked to the Newsweek article on the America Magazine blog and gave no caveats as to what was quoted of him. My simple questions is does he believe that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered as the Church has always taught? For the most part I really enjoyed his book “Life with the Saints” and some of the articles he has written, it just annoys me when someone seems to skirt an issue instead of providing clarity.

Fr. Philip Powell, OP has the same reaction that I did to the Newsweek story.

“The question I would love to ask the writer is: if your thesis is true, why in 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian religious history has there never been a single instance of a same-sex ‘marriage’ being celebrated as exemplary for Christians and Jews? You would think that if scripture is pressing the point that love and fidelity are more important that the sex of the couple, then one very powerful way of showing this would be to give us an example of a loving, faithful same-sex marriage. Yet, none exist. And we must be careful not to confuse same-sex friendships (Jonathan and David) with sexually active, religiously recognized, sacramental marriages celebrated in the Bible.”

He makes the point I was trying to make much better. While negative evidence doesn’t provide much of a proof, the total lack of reference to something that is suppose to be part of God’s will for human sexuality is rather odd. I guess in their view that God being the author of scripture needs an editor since he managed to leave out and positive reference to something normative.

Diogenes references another part of the article:

My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God’s knowledge of our most secret selves: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for “Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.” Let the priest’s prayer be our own.

And then replies:

“If Jesus were alive today …” The blunder invites the obvious response: Has Jesus died AGAIN? Why weren’t we told?

Miller does not put those words in quotation marks, and it’s a reasonable conjecture that they represent her own obtuseness rather than Fr. Martin’s. But there’s an important doctrinal point to be made. Jesus IS alive, and he speaks to us, today, through his Vicar, the successor of Peter. Such is the conviction of Catholics. And that Vicar has made it radiantly clear that sodomy is contrary to God’s will and that marriage is effected between, and only between, a man and a woman.

I would be interested to know if Fr. Martin feels that what was quoted is an accurate assessment of what he said. Diogenes makes some excellent points that Jesus is alive and acts through the Church. The Church is reaching out to those who suffer with same-sex attraction. Groups like Courage help those with same-sex attraction lead lives of holiness and to be chaste as we are all called to be chaste. But too many people equate reaching out with rubber-stamping approval of homosexual acts. Calling someone to repentance is a spiritual act of mercy and they do no favors by going along with the culture and denying that homosexual acts are sinful.

If someone actually did try to use Psalm 139 to relate to as a defense for homosexuality then if it proves anything it proves too much. You can just as well say those with a wandering eye and who commit lust in their hearts or even pursue their lusts are also wonderfully made. That all of us sinners are wonderfully made. We are truly “beautifully made” yet through the sin of Adam, sin came into the world. We all suffer with the concupiscence of the heart and can choose sin despite being made in the image and likeness of God. The Blessed Virgin Mary was Immaculately Conceived and as Fr. Pacwa jokingly points out “God doesn’t make that model anymore.”

When Newsweek does scriptural exegesis you know it is going to be a laugh riot. This time it is to lambaste religious conservatives for using scripture to defend marriage.

You can just about guess the approach they will take. Yes they went the polygamy route. As if the Old Testament had glowing support of polygamy, when in actuality scripture showed how it always lead to problems. Yes the stories of Jacob’s wives and how Solomon’s wives lead him to sin are endorsement of a scriptural view of polygamy.

They even go on to say that Jesus never defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Matthew 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?" 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 flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."

I guess referring to Adam and Eve as the original intent of marriage is too hard to grasp or that male and female are always the related terms. Funny how in all of salvation history there are zero examples of homosexual relationships portrayed positively. Rather strange if homosexual acts are part of God’s plan.

But Sola Scriptura used by secular reporters will go just as stray as when used by Protestants. They can cherry pick verses or just give different interpretations to verses harder to ignore and say such nonsense as:

… condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery.

This from a person they call a "progressive theologian." Of course a progressive theologian is one that explains away scripture instead of explaining it.

Though the whole article with their use of scripture and quoting only those who agree with their premise means zero to Catholics anyway. It is scripture and apostolic tradition as interpreted by the magisterium that is the key to Catholics anyway, or at least for Catholics that understand the nature of the Church. Opposition to homosexual acts and same-sex marriage is something that can be learned from the natural law without resorting to scripture.

But this type of article from Newsweek Religion Editor Lisa Miller is nothing new, just more of the same.