Ask and Ye Shall Receive

A few days ago I wrote about democracy and the Catholic Church. Lo and behold, my prayers were answered: they're going to poll their congregations about social issues. They're not exactly taking a vote, but it shows the Vatican might be paying attention to reality:

[...] Pope Francis, who has already shaken up the Vatican, is asking the world’s one billion Catholics for their opinions on a questionnaire covering social issues like same-sex marriage, cohabitation by unwed couples, contraception, and the place of divorced and remarried people in the church.

That last part is interesting. Under canon law, you cannot receive communion if you remarry without receiving a Decree of Nullity. But, like birth control, millions of remarried Catholics regularly ignore Church dogma and receive communion.

The usual argument against gay marriage is that it goes against "natural law." What most people don't know is that the Catholic catechism teaches that divorce is wrong because it goes against "the natural law":

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.

This entire argument boils down to "no backsies." If two people freely consenting to enter a contract is acceptable under natural law, why isn't freely consenting to cancel that same contract acceptable under natural law? Clearly, most Protestant churches think it's fine, and clearly, so does the Catholic Church because they have an entirely unnatural process to dance around it: they just want the Church to call all the shots when they issue a Decree of Nullity.

The natural law argument against gay marriage can somewhat reasonably be made because of reproductive biology (but see below). You can also argue that polygamy is not natural because males and females are born in equal numbers. Allowing one man to have many wives would inevitably cause inbreeding when his closely related descendants unwittingly married. There are serious issues of child support involved with polygamy. And what do poor men do when rich men hog all the women?

Although lifelong commitment to a single mate may be a Christian ideal, it is not the natural order of things: nothing about humans is permanent or universal. Lifelong monogamy is certainly not the case in the Bible: the Old Testament is riddled with men who had dozens and even hundreds of wives and concubines, and stories of men who steal other men's wives. It's certainly not the case in nature, in which many species are polygynous, polyandrous or promiscuous. Lifelong monogamy is merely a social practice in certain human cultures. It is common, but by no means universal. It can't be classified it as "natural" in the same sense that heterosexuality is natural, because it is required at some level for reproduction. (A weak case for lifelong monogamy can be made under natural law on the grounds that it reduces the chances of inbreeding.)

And then there's the question of "natural life expectancy." Is it reasonable to expect people to stay married for 50 or 60 years, considering that is double or triple the life expectancy when these dogmas were cast in stone? Life expectancy has ranged from 20 in the Neolithic to almost 80 in some countries today, though historically if you survived to marry your life expectancy would be 45 or 50. Unless, of course, you were a woman, in which case death in childbirth was appallingly common.

The real problem with the natural law argument is that it cuts both ways: it could eventually be used to justify gay marriage. There's a great deal of evidence that links biology to sexual orientation, the "born that way" hypothesis. If your brain structure makes you gay, and promiscuity is bad, isn't gay marriage inevitable under natural law?

That future Vatican III Council composed of a majority of gay bishops could well take everything we know about nature into account when they make their decisions, rather than limit their understanding of nature and science to beliefs held by theologians born millennia before the invention of the internal combustion engine.