By now, most of the Catholic internet world has heard about the minor blow up concerning Rev. James Martin, SJ and his tweet, which claimed that “Pete Buttigieg is married,” itself a response to a Catholic League article stating that “It is true that Buttigieg is legally married, but that is a legal fiction.”
The tweet having now been seen by over 10 million people (based on Twitter’s engagement counter), Fr. Martin claimed that he was surprised that the tweet received as much attention as it did, explaining later (with a much less popular tweet) that he merely meant Buttigieg was “legally married.”
He consequently wrote a follow-up article in Outreach entitled “Like it or not, Pete Buttigieg is legally married,” wherein he argued that the condemnatory responses aimed at him as a result of his statement expressed a kind of animus or even bigotry rooted in a denial of an obvious legal reality, like denying that there are 50 states. As he notes, “To me, it [stating that Buttigieg is married] was like saying the sun will rise tomorrow.”
On its face, the Catholic League article and Fr. Martin’s clarification seem to fundamentally align with one another, both claiming that “Buttigieg is legally married.” The Catholic League article, as noted, does go beyond this, of course, stating that this alleged legal reality is a “legal fiction.” It seems to be this addition that spurred Fr. Martin to respond, to defend Buttigieg’s apparent legal status. As he noted in his article: “That the statement was self-refuting didn’t seem to bother anyone, but to me, it seemed like another gratuitous attempt to denigrate LGBTQ people. Basically, it was saying that Pete Buttigieg’s marriage to his husband Chasten didn’t exist. In that way, it reminded me of Catholics who say that transgender people, in essence, don’t or shouldn’t exist. Frankly, I felt a sense of compassion for Secretary Buttigieg, who has endured endless homophobic comments in the past few years.”
(As an aside, The Catholic League article has its own issues, stating that natural law was “promulgated” by Aristotle and later “amended” by Aquinas, neither of which is true, of course, as the natural law is not something “promulgated” like positive law might be, certainly not by human beings, but is instead a recognition of the real ends built into our nature. I bring this up not necessarily to criticize the article, but because this positivist error is what runs through this whole issue.)
So, what’s the big deal? The underlying “gay marriage” debate is mostly dead today, with even self-identifying “conservatives” appearing to have moved on from the issue, or to even endorse it in some cases. The Church hasn’t moved on (and can’t), of course, which Fr. Martin himself recognizes, at least in part. And the Catholic League article wasn’t really even about the gay marriage debate itself. In fact, as noted, it accepts, like Fr. Martin, the idea of Buttigieg’s “legal marriage.”
So what is actually going on here? Namely, how are Catholics supposed to engage concepts like “legal gay marriage” or “husbands” of men? We normally treat this issue as a question of language, of labels, of propriety, of what to call things. But this is wrongheaded. The problem here is philosophical. That is, it’s a problem not merely with law or even language, but with the referent of the language, with the underlying reality to which language is pointed.
When the word “marriage” is used, whether in law or something else, it’s pointing to a reality beyond a merely positivist or conventional definition. It’s referencing a particular kind of actual, true bond between people. If marriage just is “the union of a man and a woman established between themselves for the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring,” then to make a statement like “Male 1 and Male 2 are married” is akin to making a statement like “That triangle is four-sided.” It wouldn’t matter if “legal” is added to “marriage” any more than it would to add “legal” to “triangle.” A triangle is a triangle, as a marriage is a marriage.
Even attempts to obfuscate the issue, by saying things like, “Well, marriage is just a legal contract, not some sort of naturally true thing, and the State is simply defining the parameters of that contract,” or even, “Well, we just mean marriage in a different kind of way than the Church,” run into the same problems. Take that statement about legal contracts. It relies entirely on the philosophical concept of “contract,” which is some sort of consensual agreement between people. A “contract” can’t somehow be defined as a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich. When you drive to work, you aren’t driving a “contract.” Contract has a meaning (whatever the word used), in the same way marriage has a meaning. Not in a merely linguistic sense, but in this philosophical sense. The real concept of a binding agreement is what ends up doing the legwork when one says “it’s just a legal contract.” But in the case of marriage, of a contract concerning sexual activity between people, you run into a problem with members of the same sex. Namely, “contract” is relying on its real foundation (binding agreement), while the true, the real meaning of “sexual” (that is, pertaining to the sexes, which derive their meaning based on their procreative ends) is being abandoned.
Moreover, such individuals don’t want gay something-that-isn’t-marriage. That’s not what the debate is over. They want a gay marriage, participation in the human reality, in the natural end of sexual relations, but without the elements that make the reality what it is. If, after all, people felt gay marriage had nothing to do with this natural reality, but was some other thing, why would anyone care if it’s not “marriage” or even called “marriage?” But people do care, quite a bit, because they reject the natural reality, the truth identified by the Church. Which is why claims that it’s simply not marriage will often be met with stern objections and even accusations of bigotry and the like, as with Fr. Martin.
Underlying Fr. Martin’s approach to this question is a serious, though common, error about the role of the Church’s teaching office as well. When the Church teaches, it is not teaching for itself or for only its members. It is making claims about the reality of the world. When it teaches things like “marriage is X,” it is making claims about what marriage is as such, and anything that does not align with that X is not marriage. It is not even saying “X is the ideal form of marriage, but there are other kinds too.” Its claims are universal. Take Pope Francis’ very recent address to the Roman Rota concerning marriage. In no sense is he speaking of a particular kind of marriage, as if there were many kinds. He is simply speaking of the fundamentals of marriage qua marriage:
Today I would like to share with you some reflections on marriage, because in the Church and in the world, there is a strong need to rediscover the meaning and value of the conjugal union between man and woman on which the family is based. …
Marriage according to Christian Revelation is not a ceremony or a social event, no; it is neither a formality nor an abstract ideal: it is a reality with its own precise consistency, not “a form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium, 24 November 2013, 66). …
All this leads us to recognize that every true marriage, even non-sacramental, is a gift of God to the spouses. Matrimony is always a gift! Conjugal fidelity rests on divine fidelity; conjugal fruitfulness is based on divine fruitfulness. Man and woman are called to accept this gift and freely correspond to it with the reciprocal gift of self.
This same sort of language carries throughout all of Church teaching. The Church is not merely proposing hypothetical or idealized views of marriage; it is not suggesting what it thinks marriage is for itself, leaving space for other potential definitions for other groups. It is explaining simply what marriage, all marriage, is or isn’t.
What Fr. Martin is attempting to do here, the needle he’s trying to thread (or perhaps the motte-and-bailey he’s attempting to engage in), is fairly common. It’s an attempt to both/and a controversial moral issue. The seeming purpose is something akin to what might be called ecumenical (he even cites Buttigieg’s religion as also believing that he is married). It allows Fr. Martin to engage with secular society on its terms, which denies categorically what the Church universally recognizes as marriage, while maintaining a status within the Church, as he states he isn’t “challenging the Church’s teaching.” But as I’ve noted, that is precisely what he is doing, even if not intentionally, since to accept or propose any definition of marriage that is not what the Church has defined is to challenge Church teaching about marriage itself.
To put a finer point on it, it is not a “legal fiction” that Pete Buttigieg is legally married (as the Catholic League article claims). It’s simply not an accurate representation of reality, as marriage just is the union of a man and a woman, and no legal definition can modify this reality. In fact, the Catholic League’s statement about a “legal fiction” is a misuse of the term “legal fiction.” A legal fiction is something the courts know is not true but treats as true for the sake of some other end. But that’s not what the courts have done with gay marriage. They aren’t saying gay marriage is not true like real marriage, but that they’ll treat it as true. On the contrary, they are saying it is as true, which is why there’s a constitutional right to it. The law fundamentally denies any distinction between the types of marriage, stating simply that they’re all marriage.
As to how to approach the actual issue, though: one needn’t pretend that the State isn’t attempting to do something by elevating same-sex arrangements. But what can’t be accepted is that the attempt accomplishes any true change. In the same way, faced with a law that states that the unborn or some minority group do not “legally count” as human beings, it would be incoherent (and wrong) for anyone, especially a Catholic priest, to state, “That child is legally not a human being; of course the Church teaches he is a human being, but legally he’s not a human being.” This would be particularly scandalous if the Catholic priest started the conversation by stating, “That child is not a human being” by itself. Human being has a meaning, a referent that transcends any positive law. Positive laws can of course arrange the circumstances that affect all human beings, but it can never actually redefine what a human being is. Attempts to do so would be attempts to contravene reality.
This is what is actually meant by the “natural law.” It is not some other legal system promulgated or defined by a particular group of people or society. It is an acknowledgement of the underlying reality of being. This is precisely why the Catechism calls it “immutable”: “The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid.” This is partly what the Catholic League’s article was trying to get at, but misunderstands. Aristotle did not “promulgate” the natural law. Aquinas didn’t “amend” it. To do so would be to “amend” nature itself. They both simply expressed the truths of it, which is built into existence.
In Fr. Martin’s defense, it’s not clear he actually understands the problem with his approach, though some might accuse him of being intentionally obtuse on the issue in order furtively to promote a particular view. He appears to be trying to engage with secular society while not explicitly contradicting Church teaching. But of course there are ways of doing this without subscribing to inherently incoherent ideas. While it’s obviously laudable to reach out to all people, not to refuse engagement with those you believe are doing something wrong (otherwise, how could you evangelize anyone?), there is a significant difference between charitable engagement and adoption of beliefs that the Church cannot entertain in order to humor those you’re trying to evangelize.
For one, it’s wrong to adopt or express untrue beliefs, and in some cases this can amount to denial of Church teaching. And two, it doesn’t work, as once the contrary belief is held, the Church’s positions become undesirable to the potential convert. That is, if marriage actually can bethe union of any two (or more?) people for any reason and is not necessarily built into men and women’s sexual faculties, and this is what a person believes, why on earth would he or she accept the Church’s teaching that one shouldn’t engage in same-sex sexual activity or even same-sex marriage? It comes across as arbitrary or even cruel.
In the case of abortion, for example, we try to understand the causes of abortion, to engage in a non-combative and charitable way those who may erroneously support such an action, or we even might reach out to individuals who have had abortions without unnecessary condemnation. But we never accept or say that, “Yes, of course a fetus is not a human being.” We don’t accept a falsehood to evangelize, regardless of the current state of some country’s law.
Fr. Martin’s failure to grasp fully the underlying philosophical problem is why this portion of his Outreach article is particularly problematic, and why he fumbles to reach an answer. He writes:
One question is why other marriages that are not Catholic sacramental marriages, but nonetheless civilly recognized, are accepted by Catholics as marriages. When a Jewish couple is married by a rabbi in a synagogue, most Catholic guests will say, “Mazel tov!” not “You’re going to burn in hell!” When an atheist couple ties the knot before a justice of the peace, most Catholic acquaintances will say “Congratulations!” not “You’re Satanic!” When a Universal Life minister presides over a friend’s wedding, most Catholic co-workers will say, “How was the wedding?” not “Repent!”
Usually, in the case of non-Catholic weddings, most Catholics say to themselves, “Even though it’s not a marriage in my religious tradition, they’re legally married, so I will respect their marriage and be happy for them.”
Of course, the difference is obvious: the idea of two people of the same sex getting married repulses some people. And again, I’m not challenging the church’s teaching against same-sex marriage, but pointing out the vast difference in the reactions for marriages outside the church. In one case, tolerance or acceptance; in the other case, outrage or hysteria.
There is something about same-sex marriage, and same-sex relations, that unhinges some people, that infuriates them, that drives them to hysteria, enough to threaten death to people who say that it even exists.
While obviously there are people who respond irrationally or even hatefully when faced with something with which they disagree, that’s not actually the reason why all respond to Jewish weddings and same-sex weddings in different ways. They respond how they do because they believe the former is properly marriage, while the latter is not. It has nothing to do with whether they are “legally married” or not. The concern isn’t “tolerance” or a lack thereof. It’s because the individual is stating that one is true and the other is not. Which is surely why Fr. Martin and same-sex couples no doubt take so much offense: because they believe both aretrue.
This problem may seem small, but it speaks to a much greater breakdown in society. “The law is a teacher” is thrown around a lot today. And it is a teacher. But it’s rarely explained why. Part of the reason is because we naturally presume that law aligns with reality, aligns with the nature of the way things really are. Even if a law is contrary to reality, people will still assume it aligns, and then they will be led into error. What’s most interesting about the whole conflict is that, because of the state of the world, those who subscribe to the natural law (which is focused specifically on the real nature of things) are treated and accused of being the ones denying reality. There’s a special irony in this.
While it’s charitable to give Fr. Martin the benefit of the doubt with this sort of thing (I don’t find it particularly valuable to assume nefarious motives), he and others who minister similarly should sincerely reevaluate how they participate in these debates. And we all ought to be charitable. It is difficult to engage a society that rejects both your own personal beliefs but, more importantly, rejects the Church’s fundamental claims about the world itself. It is neither easy to navigate, nor pleasant, especially when people’s emotions and lives are so intertwined with beliefs. We should all be mindful of this, whether in this circumstance or any other.