It's because of this that the recent Vatican document condemning homosexual unions is heroic. At this juncture in history, anyone who questions the right of homosexuals to marry is likely to be derided as backwards or a hater. But the Vatican document, which contains some lovely passages, reiterates what Western (and Eastern) civilization has always understood about marriage: it is a union between a man and a woman. In the Christian tradition, this union is sanctioned by the Creator. "Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings," the Vatican warns.
Proponents of gay marriage believe the word "marriage" can mean whatever you want it to mean. This, says the Vatican, is not the case. Though there are numerous loving, longstanding, and arguably beneficial quasi-marriages between members of the same sex (this is me speaking, not the Vatican), these relationships are not marriages. Wishful thinking and the thoroughly modern notion that reality is malleable will not change this. "No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman," the document states, "who by mutual personal gifts, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons."
Most of us know homosexual couples whose company we enjoy and whom we admire. But this doesn't mean that the Church or the secular legal system should redefine the most basic of human relationships. "[R]espect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions," the Vatican document states.
So we don't know for sure. But there is also no reason to believe that traditional marriages would not be affected in ways we have yet to imagine by the sudden notion that marriage is anything you want it to be. If the meaning of marriage is changed, marriage will change. Even some advocates of gay marriage have suggested that allowing homosexual unions will introduce more latitude about extramarital sex. Gee, that should help make floundering marriages more stable.
One of the most unpopular passages in the Vatican document is the contention that homosexual adoption is wrong. "How can two loving adults who voluntarily take a child into their home be condemned?" say indignant liberals. Adding to the problem is the current moral status of the Catholic Church. Just when society might most benefit from listening to the Church's historic teachings on sexuality and the nature of marriage, the Church herself is so compromised by sexual sin within her ranks that many sneer at the notion that she has anything to say, especially about protecting children. Our mitered shepherds are to blame for this. Morally speaking, it's a perfect storm. But just because individual bishops have despicably failed to protect children doesn't mean the Church as a whole has nothing valuable to say about children's wellbeing.
Undoubtedly, there are children being raised by two homosexuals who are far better off than they would be elsewhere. There are single-sex families that mirror the traditional family more than some two-paycheck families today, with one gay partner quitting his job to be a stay-at-home mother.
My feeling on gay adoption is that it would be nice if we could just look the other way-that is, tacitly allow it without making it legal. Of course, this is impossible. Adoption is a legal act.
Not surprisingly, Holy Mother Church is not quite as namby-pamby as I am on the subject of gay adoption. In what is sure to be an oft-reviled passage, the document states that gay adoption does "violence" to the children. This doesn't mean that Rome believes homosexuals are prone to beat their children. But, if same-sex marriages are inherently disordered, as the Church teaches, children brought up in such environments live in a morally disordered universe. We do not really know what the future will bring for these children or for a society that permits widespread gay adoption. Of course, from a Catholic point of view, we don't need to know the far-reaching consequences to know if something is morally wrong. Not a very modern idea, is it?