Defying the Logic of Same-Sex “Marriage”

Jamison-Tracy-2011As the country awaits the pivotal decision of the Supreme Court to recognize or not so-called gay marriage, our thoughts turn to the reasoning behind the Catholic Church’s age-old defense of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The following article by Deacon Tracy Jamison, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the Athenaeum of Ohio, is an excellent reminder of the logic under-girding the Church’s teaching on marriage. It was originally published in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review in response to the 2013 decision to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (see here).

It is not always easy to define the obvious. To define something requires us to specify its essence by indicating its form and matter. A definition must specify a form by indicating a specific difference within a genus. Thus, the endeavor is often considered to be scientific or philosophical. It generally requires some familiarity with basic logic. Definitions delineate the extensions of terms which signify the specific natures of things. A given description is a true definition if, and only if, it distinguishes, all and only, the members of a kind. If a particular proposition fails to distinguish, all and only, the things of a kind, then it may be an adequate description, but it is not a definition. Activities and relations can be defined as readily as substances can. To take an example from Plato’s Sophist, the activity of angling can be defined as the activity of attempting to catch fish by means of a line and a hook. Thus, the proximate genus of angling is the activity of attempting to catch fish. There are other ways, besides angling, to catch fish. The specific difference of angling is the use of a line and a hook. If we are not using a line and a hook, then we are not angling. And every instance of using a line and a hook, in the attempt to catch fish, is some form of angling.

A definition of an activity also indicates the intrinsic purpose of the activity in accord with its essential ends. The intrinsic purpose of the activity of angling, for example, is to catch fish. A good angler is someone who has ability and success in catching fish specifically with a line and a hook. Thus, the specific perfective good of angling is the capture of fish with a line and a hook. The delectable good of angling, by contrast, is the specific pleasure that attends the activity. This pleasure is greatly enhanced whenever the activity attains all of its essential ends. The delectable good of angling, however, is not what makes someone an angler. A person can be a good angler and experience no pleasure at all in the activity. And a person can experience part of the specific pleasure of angling without actually catching any fish. The perfective good, not the delectable good, is what makes an activity to be the kind of activity it is. Thus, a person is an angler only insofar as that person is engaging in an activity that is intrinsically ordered to catching fish with a line and a hook. This specific kind of activity is what makes a person an angler, even if the person unfortunately fails to catch any fish.

Continue reading “Defining the Obvious

Feature photo of hands in marriage courtesy of Creative Commons / Pixabay

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s