Friday, June 5, 2015



In a previous post the headline read: "Gravity, once a good idea, now ruled illegal."

I claimed that "gravity" and "marriage" were and are similarly defined by Natural Law. One reader took exception and said that "marriage" was an invention of man. I countered that the term "marriage" was indeed an invention of man, much like the term "gravity." But that the essence of both were scientifically defined by certain unalterable rules, which, if ignored, had undesirable consequences for the health and sustenance of the species.

In the previous post, I cited "unitive" and "procreative" as the two concepts enshrined in Catholic teaching that suggested where scientists should look for evidence of the natural law effect of a heterosexual couple's sexual union.
I wondered if there were any medical and psychological benefits to heterosexual couples that were naturally denied to homosexual couples, which were verifiable by experimental science. Was it possible that the "one flesh" concept mentioned in the Bible, had a natural definition restricted to heterosexual relationships? I discovered there was.
The first was the most obvious. Only heterosexual couples (or their biological essences) can be united in such a way as to create "one flesh" (a baby). Homosexual couples are denied that by nature.

Secondly, science has discovered that male semen plasma, apart from conveying and nourishing sperm on their way to the female's eggs, contains a host of vitamins and nutrients that benefit the female by providing to the female's blood stream (a) antidepressants, (b) several mood-elevating compounds, (c) antigens that can help prevent breast cancer, and (d) agents that lower blood pressure helping to prevent preeclampsia conditions. These benefits, which serve to make the species healthier and which sustain their lives, are denied homosexual couples by nature.


The next pieces of scientific evidence supporting the traditional concept of "marriage" as a Natural Law are the studies involving monogamy, polygamy and its derivations.

Medical research reveals that breaking the monogamous, unitive (and procreative) bond of marriage through adultery, fornication and homosexuality leads to sickness and perhaps death through the generation of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs). Repeated studies reveal that the less monogamous a society becomes, the greater the prevalence of syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis B and C, herpes, chlamydia, genital warts, vaginitis, cervicitis, lymphogranuloma venereum, trichomoniasis, hepatitis B, and HIV (the virus that causes AIDS).

But for the couple who has had no sexual contact with another person before marriage, and who are monogamous after their wedding, STDs are not a threat, except for the rare occasions of contaminated blood transfusions, or in the case of less than sexual but nonetheless intimate exposure to individuals with STDs. And those latter vulnerabilities are the consequence of the monogamous couple living in a promiscuous society. That is, STDs are the natural consequence of more than one sex partner, not monogamy. Nature has the last say.

Further, the statistical results of social science research of polygamous vs. monogamous families reveals that polygamous families are significantly more likely to experience destitute poverty, emotional distress, family unrest, and lower academic achievement of the children. The research suggests that these problems are the natural consequences of not fully respecting the dignity of a man and woman to care for each other exclusively without jealousies of others that impinge on the relationship. The research concludes that when the exclusivity of a male-female relationship is disrupted, self-identity is lost, dignity suffers, and bitterness and jealousies multiply.


Some claim that the Bible allows polygamy. Historians claim that Martin Luther (privately) allowed polygamy because he couldn't disapprove it with the Bible alone. But the Bible more than hints that monogamous marriage between one man and one woman has always been the ideal.

Is it possible that God tolerated polygamy the way he tolerated the Jewish kings? The Israelites begged God for a King so they could be like all the pagan nations around them.  Samuel, God's prophet, warned against such an arrangement and how a King would demand huge taxes, fields, livestock, and command them to go to war and take their daughters for perfumers and wives. But the people insisted, so God reluctantly accommodated.

As it turned out Kings contributed hugely to the Children of Israel's downfall. Not only did every one of Samuel's prophecies come true, but everyone of their Kings (Saul, David, Solomon and on) proved to be role models for repression, murder, adultery and idolatry.

When we examine the detail surrounding polygamous relations in Biblical accounts, they always end badly. To begin with, God creates Adam and Eve—one man for one woman. God does not create a harem for Adam. Later, with Abraham, Sarah becomes jealous of Hagar and demands Hagar and her son be exiled (resulting to this day in the enmity between Arabs and Jews.)  In the New Testament, St. Paul demands that deacons be the husband of only one wife. In the Old Testament we see the difficulty that multiple wives gave to David and Solomon, even leading them into idolatry and national strife.


In Nineveh's Crossing's DVD and Book program COMMON GROUND: What Catholics and Protestants Can Learn From Each Other, Fr. John Riccardo explains that the mystical essence of marriage helps us understand The Eucharist in our union with Jesus Christ. He states:

When a man and a woman love each other, when two people love each other, they give each other things, you know? I send you notes, I write you a card, send you flowers...bought you candy on Valentine’s Day. And a husband and a wife give themselves to each other in the act of marriage whereby two become one flesh. In the Catholic Church the mystics and the saints for centuries, almost from the beginning, have seen that that’s the best image to help you understand what’s going on in the Eucharist.

In consuming The Eucharist, Christ's body and blood literally become part of our body and blood. We literally have Christ in us. Christ becomes one flesh with us. The communion elements, as Christ tells us, are "real food". Food here is unitive in that it is sustains us both physically and spiritually. Food here is also procreative in that food allows our bodies to continue to live.

But turnabout is fair play. Just as marriage helps us understand The Eucharist, so it is partaking of The Eucharist that enhances understanding of the unitive and procreative aspect of marriage.

The conjugal act allows two to become one through the prima facie of intercourse, the passing of life-sustaining chemicals from the male to the female, and the similar passing of sperm for the creation of the one-flesh of a baby.


We also see the Natural Law necessity of this unitive and procreative stance in the story about Noah and the ark. God sends animals to Noah in pairs of male and female for each species. Two males together or two females together would have led to the death of the species. They could not procreate.

Noah's Ark also becomes a metaphor for the survival of humanity and all of creation. It is in the ark that there are equal pairs of male and female humans and animals, except for the extra animals that God directed Noah to take on for food. The ark represented both the unitive nature (bringing nature together) and it's procreative nature (saving nature from destruction.)


Thus, marriage when properly defined and observed, is naturally fruitful...not just in its fertility of babies, but also in mutual love and respect of the monogamous spouses toward one another, and the transmission of vitamins, antigens and who knows what other kinds of mysteries that sustain life. Kindness between spouses is a fruit of the Spirit just as babies are a fruit of the kindness.

As humans we can make any choice we want, but Natural Law will decide the consequence.

(SOURCES: Aside from the citations referenced in the text, this essay made liberal use of cited medical journal references found in Wikipedia's articles on Marriage, Semen and Polygamy.)

No comments:

Post a Comment