The Things We Share

A Catholic's Case for Same-Sex Marriage





































































































Commenting Guidelines

I wonder how much money the Henry Luce Foundation would have given Jody Bottum to argue against gay marriage?

Thank you, Joseph Bottum, for advancing the discussion, and thank you to the Henry Luce Foundation.

A lengthy and far more sophisticated and nuanced argument than I am prepared to make. Nevertheless, I in fact do see this (gay marriage) as the latest attempt to drive a nail into the coffin of the dying "institution" (we Catholics still call it a sacrament) of marriage, understand as a covenanted relationship involving God and one man and one woman. Our Hebrew ancestors in the faith (think Abraham, for example) were polygamists. In fact, aren't there more theological precedents therefore for polygamy as a form of marriage than for claiming that persons of the same sex can "marry?" Biologically, we all start out ultimately the same way, by the union of a male sperm and a female egg. Now it is true that that can be accomplished artificially these days, and indeed embryos from such unions can be "selected" and the others destroyed. All of that, of course, is condemned by Catholic theology. God did made us male and female, and the fact that some of us much prefer ( I say "much prefer," because as a physician and observer of human behavior I think that many of us are not  100% hetero-or homosexual in our preferences) those of our own gender does not alter the fact that heterosexual union is in fact the biological foundation of all of us. As Christians and, in fact, as observers of what seems best to work in the real world, we believe that a committed relationship of the man and the woman makes the best home for children. Of course we are all too aware of the sad failures, the divorces, the abusive relationships, etc. Puzzling to some of us, given that biologically and historically (I am unaware of any advanced, certainly any monotheistic culture accepting homosexual marriage), is why civil unions, recognized by the state as such, with legal rights guaranteed) are not acceptable to those of the same gender. I do agree that the advocates of "gay marriage," as it is now called, are on a roll, having captured the imagination of all of the theologically naive, the admirers of Hollywood and pop lifestyles, and having cloaked themselves in the role of advocates of civil rights, arguing that they have the same heritage in that way as those who demonstrated at Selma and died as the result of racist brutality. Interestingly the majority of the black church in this country and of Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, in most developing countries, aren't buying this argument, so chic in the Western world. I also agree that the Catholic bishops in the U.S. and Europe, after the horrible and ongoing sex scandals involving so many priests, are in a very untenable position to speak forcefully to society at large about this issue. They can try to inform the faithful about Catholic positions on marriage, but to invest church funds and come out politically in a manner which in fact gives the opposition further fuel for Church-bashing, which indeed it is doing, is an error. We must, on this issue, assert what we are for and defend it, without attacking those who do not agree and without condemning those whose sexual preference is to a very large extent one with which they are born, plus or minus the effects of the particular environment of their family and community. We all have much to learn about this issue and in general need to lower the speaking tone and increase our listening. Thank you for providing us a thoughtful article to ponder and to discuss. 

If that is the best Catholic case for same-sex marriage that exists, the Luce Foundation wasted its money.

I have never understood why the Catholic church or any other religious group can claim the right to weigh in on what constitutes CIVIL marriage, other than in the most generalized First Amendment sense. The institution of civil marriage is parallel but quite different from that of a marriage recognized by the these groups, appropriately so. They are perfectly free to recognize marriages according to their own dictates, but have no right to then claim that they should also use their particular precepts to define what should be defined as a civil marriage, with legal rights flowing therefrom.

One can use all of the talking points (convoluted and otherwise) one wishes to say that the religious groups are the victims in this regard, but I do not agree. The issue was simply whether lesbians and gays can have their unions recognized by the state, and obtain the same legal rights that straights do. I don't see any way to claim to affirm gays’ and lesbians’ dignity when they are told that their unions are not worthy of state recognition, and that they are not entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

Sickening article.  This guy calls himself a "Catholic," yet he's happy to encourage people to place their eternal souls at risk by celebrating mortal sin.  I'm supposed to believe he loves people whom he doesn't care if he encourages them to select hell for themselves?

And what kind of "Catholic" magazine publishes trash like this?


A meandering, confused, and ultimately meaningless essay that proves little more than Bottom's superficiality as a thinker. 

Apparently Bottum regarded it as necessary to write something to publicly rationalize his surrender to a corrupted zeitgeist, so he threw together a heap of disconnected and vague observations that he hoped would stick. And to boot, he conned the Luce Foundation into paying him for it, and Commonweal into publishing it, a cooperation that does not speak well of either institution.

Marriage of two consenting, committed adults (a person-person relationship), whatever their sexual orientation, is not a problem.  The problem is treating the other as an object.  Let us, let the church focus on this -- and then later maybe focus on the issue of same-sex marriage. Why should the church concern itself with marriages that are not between Catholics, are not in the church? 

I-Thou relationships are person-person, as in any marriage.  I-It relationships are abusive, as in an authority figure taking advantage of, treating as an object, one of lesser stature, especially a child. 

I can't help thinking that the recent concern about same-sex marriage is a way of avoiding or deflecting the focus on the church's sexual abuse scandal.  We should all read or re-read Martin Buber's "I-Thou."  Once (if ever) we learn to treat all others as persons, then we can concern ourselves about secondary matters such as who marries whom.      

Bottum's attempts fail. I will not describe "attempts at what" for it would take as many words, perhaps more, to disinter the many phantoms of complete notions as this essay contains.

Mostly I am saddened by the recurring sense of diminishment that his lament provokes. I couldn't bring myself to go back an count the number of single sentence claims which were just bluntly and provacatively offensive of decency.

Were I to take his argument for acceptance as genuinely from civil fairness and equality then this essay would have wrapped itself to a close shortly after this:

"I'm growing uneasy with the petulant and aggrieved way it is presenting the idea that anti-Catholicism was one of the purposes of, or at least one of the bonuses for, the cultural elites who tuook up the cause of same-sex marriage."

Of course it did not.

What supposed Catholic intellectuals still don't get, if Bottum is any example, is that the world of enchantment they aspire to doesn't end in their lifetime - it doesn't reach clever certainty. It muddles, messily, with or without sexual liberty, from one moment to the next; each is an opportunity to employ grace or leave it unclaimed.

Gender orientation of sexual desire is a footnote in that reality - it was before and remains sense the Enlightenment. This is not to trivialiaze the found diversity of sexual attraction; nor to diminish the search for a just path in relationship equity - it is to remind that sexuality is not at the center of devotion - to any creed or any vow.

The enchantment one can spin around a profound commitment to marriage is in the mystery of living it; the ubiquity of such person-to-person commitment is sufficient testimony to its human importance - particularly since the mechanics of reproduction bear no original contribution from our species. Relationship rules - natural law is context, variously certain and  often opaque to individual knowing.

By contrast, the world of ideas is a graced reward; it is not the Summa - the sheltered enclave of Aquinas did indeed produce a delicate thing. Far too delicate a thing to be other than the thinnest row of molecules on a keel of faith cast of much more mundane substance.

If enchantment be the goal, then we do well to look elsewhere than this labored and quasi-apocalyptic defense of the male, celibate hierarchy's right to go on distorting the Faith in Christ to whatever preverse worldly purposes serves them. Don't get mad at the non-Catholics - increasingly they simply stand around shaking their heads at the determined cluelessness of essays such as this one.




Three things:

Marriage vs Holy Matrimony.

The purpose of marriage.

Bishop’s Tobin’s ultra right wing, politicized snit over his defeat on gay marriage legislation. Indicative of Catholic reaction

MARRIAGE vs HOLY MATRIMONY. ... Metaphysical foundation to marriage? Please, for most of the last 3,000 years marriage was a commercial transaction, a way of managing the rights, inheritance and transfer of property. What the church solemnized in the Middle Ages was the alliance of two big property owners, and the hierarchy ordained by God which called for obedience to God, the Pope, The Lords and bishops. And the lord and bishops needed their property to be protected and preserved form one generation to the next within god’s feudal hierarchy. Procreation indeed would be the chief marriage concern in a property and heir driven society. ... And, where, please is the metaphysics in islamic marriage, especially the one might marriages? They are about conformity to a legal code, about a man’s need to be righteous. Moralistic, transactional, commercial, not metaphysical. ... The requirement for a church wedding for Catholic peasants was started in France by the lower clergy in order to provide the paperwork to prove land ownership by the peasants as a defense against appropriation of their land by the lords (including bishops).  Admirable. Based on property issues.

Of course Holy Matrimony is a another marriage. Here the Sacramental Union performed by the two spouses (not the priest), in addition to ll the normal or “natural”: purposes of marriage, is deliberately meant to be a pledge that their union will reflect the love and respect of the union of Christ and His church. Definitely metaphysical.

Imagine if the hierarchy had said that same sex marriage is understandable and acceptable in a diverse society. But such a marriage could not be performed in a Catholic Church or by a Catholic priest because of church doctrine and the meaning off Holy Matrimony. And then proceeded to talk about the spiritual meaning of Holy matrimony and the pledge each makes to the other and God and the congregation in the presence of Christ, infused with the Holy Spirt.

THE PURPOSES OF MARRIAGE. ... In my Catholic grade school we were taught that the primary natural purpose, in our advanced society, of marriage would be companionable love. That would be followed procreation or generative love, an active nurturing concern for the next generation, even among childless couple. The next purpose would be community building. Then if the couple were getting married with the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, the pledge to live for each other and for the children as Christ and the church lived for each other. Something along these lines. At any rate the purpose of marriage was not reduced to the purpose of copulation among animals, procreation.

THE POLITICAL SNIIT BY BISHOP TOBIN. After his politicking against same sex marriage failed and the state allowed for same sex marriage, this angry man addressed the Republican Party in the state of Rhode Island, self-importantly announcing that he was now registered as a Republican. He also said he would welcome the triumph of the Republican doctrine that the federal government should do nothing to directly benefit the poor or the middle class, with only local charities offering assistance. A mean-spirited and silly statement, utterly imprudent. Local charities and parishes would go broke trying to help, especially if Republican policies prevail and wages sink and unemployment grows as a result. Of course he could give parishes and charities the option of being guided by the words of St. Ayn Rand rather than Christ. It is not just the sex scandal that has sunk the credibility of the hierarchy, it is their arrogance, politicking, and bitterness. By the way, out of grim duty, I made phone calls on behalf of legislation allowing for same sex marriage. Practicing Catholics were strongly supportive. Many I called were ex-Catholics because they chose the full acceptance and love for a child’s same sex marriage.

Remember the ridiculous slogan pushed by Catholics against same sex marriage: “Marriage has always and everywhere been between one man  and one woman. It may e that they don’t read the Bible, which would prove them wrong, but surely they are aware that there are Muslims in the world. For this reason many of concluded that they were deliberately lying, as they had throughout the priest sex cover-up disgrace.


This article is the largest pile of incoherence I have read in years. Good God! Your complete lack of understanding about law is risible.

If it is immoral, it can't be enchanted.

To say this article, and in Commonweal is a disappointment would be an understatement.  Look, I know Commonweal swings fairly left, but this is a new nadir. 

The one bright spot is that many who made comments feel like-wise.  That's encouraging being that I'm often one of the 2-3 lone rangers on this board.

I have no intentions to even debate this.  As someone already pointed out, it's rubish.  And, certainly not Catholic, and for that matter, not even Christian, save for the "man-made invented kind that disregards the revelations of Jesus Christ consequently marches to  a "whatever feels good and works for the given time,place, and agenda."

I suspect it's just a matter of time before the 'catholics' of which  you embrace Joseph split off to a Protestant "American Catholic." or something to keep feelilng good and holy while living in oppositon to the teachings of Christ.  

So much for the fact that Jesus taught his followers that folliowing HIm would involve radical and countercultrual love.  I've written plenty on this "false love" in previous posts.  Authentic love doesn't embrace others in their sin, at any cost. 

If only those who feel otherwise could recognize apostacy when it's in front of them.




Joseph Bottum has spent his professional life in the more conservative circles of politics and religion and these values are evident throughout his article despite his final conclusion to support gay marriage.

Mr. Bottum ignores the totality of the Church's teaching on sexuality that is based not on spiritual or holistic human values but on a lingering Zoroastrian world view and a biological interpretation of "natural law". \there is a whole history since the early Church of teaching a Gnostic dualism regarding the body (matter, evil,darkness, female, mosit, earth) as evil, imprisoning th esoul (spirit, good, light, male, dry, sky. Evil is a syndrome associated with matter, body (hence sex), female and earth. God is a sky god somewhyere in the heavens associaed with light, male and spirit.

A brief History: the "Nicolaitans" denied the Incarnation because they denied the goodness of the physical world; Docetic, Valentinus, the Montanists, Cathals, Paulicans, Bogomils, Albigensians and later the Jansenists and nuns of port Royal. These movements were supressed by the civil or Church only when they appeared to threaten the civil authority of the government and unity of the Church.

The Church in my day has caused great damage to children in declaring masturbation a mortal sin punishable by hellfire. In this century the Church has been insistent on condemning contraception: Pius XI, Paul VI (despite a 30-5 vote by the Papal Commission on Birth Control to loosen restrictions on contractption) and John Paul II. Most American Catholics ignore this teaching.

IN the 1950's Catholic theologians taught that sex in marriage had two objectives, the strenthening of the partaners spiritual union in love and seconcly, the begetting of children. They taught that sex was permissible to achieve the strenthening of the marriage bond even though procteation was not contemplated. The Church silenced these theologians.

Local Bishops (Phoenix) and national conferences of Bishops have determined that aboration to save a mother's life is not allowed, even though both child and mother would die. Ireland rebelled against this notion and is changing the law to allow abortion in certain circumstances. Although claiming a "seemless" respect for lilfe, the Church has not marshalled its forces in any meaningful way (only writing mild teaching letters) against capital punishment and the many wars fought in the last years. Compare this to the diengenuous marshalling of its considerable forces to  oppose life-affirming Obamacare, a political not moral stance.

The Church's teaching against gay sexuality (God created persons to have a gay orientation) and the insistence on an exclusively celibate clergy (contrary to the married status of all but one of the Apostles and contrary to the practice of the Eastern Churches) resulted in an immature and repressed priesthood who preyed on young women and men, protected by the hierarchy's cover-ups.

The attitude of the Church toward sexuality, toward human relationships, and (let's be honest) against women shows how the modern forms of gnosticism are deeply embedded in the insitution and its hierarchs. The Church has forfeited its credibility as a teacher of morals.


Geezzzz.....if only I could think this well and then, miracle of miracles, write this well.  By golly, I'd be writing all the time and everywhere!

As for the detractors of this post, I am reminded of the question I have often asked myself.  How does one deal effectively with a person unable or unwilling to differentiate between divine inspiration and divine knowledge.  The former is very much a state of grace.  A place where one is a seemingly boundless source of joy.  The latter a place where one is a seemingly boundless source of self righteousness.  In other words, boring.  The words so often now tossed around by pseudo-intellectuals ignore the fact acient Hebrew and Greek simply did not have the words now used to damn LBGT folks or had altogether different definitions.  It seems the word of God has a bit of flexibity after all.  Perhaps God was clever enough to recognize our limitations.

As to the word of God, only God knows that.  Only God.  I do believe ole' Fran is making that very point and with a utterly engaging smile.  Like most I have only glimpes of the man but I have yet see him not remind us, and himself, of his humility.  A wise move when dealing with God.

No, the problem between you and your friend IS NOT that you're Catholic and he's gay.   Nice try.  The real problem is that (at least until recently) you didn't believe that gay americans are entitled to equality.   When the GOVERNMENT issues a CIVIL marriage license, it has NOTHING to do with YOUR religion.  You (until recently) were trying to push YOUR religious prejudices onto someone who doesn't share them.  Why can't you fundamentalis types get it, that the secular government is not in business to promote YOUR religion??   The fact that your friend got cool to you was that you were espousing views that made him LESS THAN EQUAL, so don't try to blame it on YOUR Catholocism.  The fact is, American Catholics support marriage equality at a level greater than the American mean.  Your friend wasn't reacting to your Catholocism so much as to your bigotry.

The problem, our conversations had made pretty clear along the way, was that I am a Catholic, and Jim is gay. - See more at:



Well, he certainly scraped the "bottum" of the barrel for these arguments, didn't he?

Seriously, Bottum's answers are so ludicrous it's hard to take them seriously.  Instead of standing up for truth, we should try to "re-enchant the world" (whatever that means) by:

(a) more charitable giving

(b) going to China

(c) getting martyred in the Middle East, and

(d) having better hymns.

Now we already do (a), (b), and Lord knows, Benedict tried (d).  As for martyrdom, why don't we stay where we are and suffer the martyrdom that is obviously coming from gay-marriage psychopatths like Bottum's bud Jim?

Doesn't everyone see that Bottum's bud Jim is plainly a nutball and his totalitarian opinions should not be driving a Catholic's view of the issue?

I got a kick out of Bill Carson's comment yesterday at 5:23.  He must be an absolute riot at dinner parties.

I find it fascinating that such a nuanced, thoughtful article could be met with such ignorance.  But then again, I'd not thought myself capable of such nonchalance but here we are.

Shine On You Crazy Diamond. 


Thank you for this thoughful essay.  Since,in a few months, I'll be witnessing a young (twenties+) family member's wedding, because of the wide acceptance of same sex marriage, I need to deeply examine all that seems appropriate to say.  All Sacrmental celebrations are "teachable moments."

The congregation will be young.  The celebrating community is comprised of various shades of Catholic/Christian belief.

This essay touches much of the various beliefs surrounding a traditional Nuptial wedding.  Because of this recent social change in Christian beliefs about samesex marriage, there is a great need for celebrants of Catholic weddings to avoid being "condeming and intolerant" of others beliefs.

This essay is a thoughtful reflection and an attempt to honestly examine and respect the belief of others.  Again, because of this sea (tusnami) change in attitudes I'll not linger long at the reception.  Even though a family wedding, after a few drinks, people might try to involve me in either a pro or con position on same sex marriage.

Bernard can I suggest that you "deeply examine" your Christian Faith (assuming you are one, as I suspect that you are)? 

This quote of yours is simply shocking, if in fact you profess to be a Christian:


To believe that means to throw out the Divine Revelation of Christ, and renounce the First and most important commandment, making the tolarance of the culture the "new god."  Even more so, if you are Catholic, it's both Scriptual and two of the Spiritual Works of Mercy to  admonish sinners and instruct the ignorant.    

I suggest you "instruct and admonish" by not attending, being "condeming and intolerant" of all serious sins incompatible with the teachings of Christ.

Truly this is so sad to see the fall from Grace of some many, so easily.  I hope if this essay does anything, it brings the faithful to deeper prayer for you, JB, and all in agreement of SSM, especially Christians. 

But for the grace of God, go all of us!


Ichabod Bottum.

I think the words of the Academic Decathalon Judge in the classic film Billy Madison are apropos of Bottum's rambling essay:


Just kidding.  (Slightly.)



My comment above could have used PREVIEW and EDIT options as some other sites offer, for example, America and National Catholic Reporter.  Or it could have used better writing and self-editing. 

I must admit the article was too long for me to read every word.  Reading about his friend, though, this straight Catholic thought of two gay friends who, the last I heard, had headed out to San Francisco before the AIDS epidemic.  The media back then showed many examples of what appeared to be largely casual I-It relationships.  Now, when more gays are seeking legal marriages, the church is taking a stand against this. You'd think the church would  at least see this as a better life style than those San Francisco bath house days. 

Again, I-Thou, person-person relationships are to be valued and promoted.  I-It, person-object relationships (including pornography and child sexual abuse) are the problem that needs addressing, IMHO. 

Okay, here's my serious response:

Bottum and, he claims, our society at large find natural law arguments to fail.  But he doesn't argue or explain why.

So it's a missed opportunity: a vapid and nugatory essay.  Instead of crafting something with substance, a substantial argument against natural law or Church teaching or in favor of gay marriage, he just devolves into a Saruman-like drone: "give up, we've lost, we can't win this battle."

The essay is so pathetic that I'm genuinely embarrassed for Bottom and I think it's very clever on Commonweal's part to have published it.

Comments as to the meanderingly tortuous course taken by this essay have a point.  But attend to other comments here and it becomes clear that the writing is a bit tortuous because its author was reasonably tortured in writing it.

There are many conservative Catholic circles where henceforth Joseph Bottum will be persona non grata.  How quickly friends can turn, and how vicious that turning, is evident in the commentariat here.

This took guts.  Thank you.

Spectacular article, to me. YMMV.

To the disenchanted I ask consider the parable about the sin of the jealous whole day workers demanding that those hired later in the day not get an "equal" amount.

Thomas Mullin

Encouraging writing, if more than a bit tortured. So let me get this straight, you are now in favor of same gender marriage only because you identify now as the victim of anti catholicism created by your own hand as the perpetrator? You now support same gender marriage because the church is being tarnished by the hate it promotes? 

I was reared in the catholic church but long ago left as it abandoned the teachings of christ. Namely, to take care of the weak and disinfranchised, and to celebrate and promote the mystery of love as christ taught. 

Instead, the core of catholic teaching was replaced with Republican talking point memos. Support the rich at all costs. Support wars. Bash the gays at all costs. Hide and protect child rapists from within. Etc. The list is long. And ironically, the churches core is about 180 degrees off of what christ taught. Compassion for others and love is completely missing from the modern church. 

Gay people really could give a flip about the church, they simply want to be left alone and treated equally under civil law. 

In other words, it is not about you. 



Perhaps while getting his doctorate in philosophy Jody was neglectful of learning:


The basis of truth and goodness is being. REALITY.


Two men can get "married" as easily as pigs fly.





Hmmm, all it took me was a few dollars and a government issued ID to get my marriage license. Pretty easy I would say. 


Oh, you mean like Matthew Shepard suffered?

Or these folks .....

Until this kind of violence happens to you poor picked upon kristyuns, keep your unfounded self-serving paranoia to yourself.


Mr. Englert,

Delivering an unpopular message takes some courage, too.  It takes courage for a Catholic priest or bishop to stand up and proclaim what the Church teaches about human sexuality.  I don't recall Catholic priests or bishops who actually do this getting much praise around here for being courageous, though.

On the other hand, what did this essay earn Mr. Bottum?  He has already gotten money from the Luce Foundation and a laudatory article in the New York Times.  When was the last time someone arguing in favor of Church teaching got either?

The big news here isn't that a Commonweal commentator offered an argument for the Catholic acceptance of same-sex marriage under civil (not church) law, but that Joseph Bottum, a star in the conservative American Catholic firmament, has come out in favor of the acceptance of same-sex marriage.  Undoubtedly that means Bottum's name is now mud among Catholic conservaitves, but is his argument, such as it is, worth anybody's while?  I'd say the gist of it may be, although his (IMHO typically conservative) grand ideas --  references to  "thick natural law" and "re-enchantment" -- don't help a whole lot. 

There's just no honest way to deny -- and nothing cowardly or morally reprehensible about admitting the truth -- that the civil rights case for same-sex marriage makes sense and will inevitably gain ground given American constitutional law. That doesn't mean the Catholic Church has to change its doctrine regarding marriage anymore than legalizing civil divorce meant the Church had to change its teaching on marriage and divorce.  What it does mean is that churchmen had better find ways to deal with the coming reality of same-sex civil marriage, and that simply railing against the idea, or worse, threatening to throw up one legal roadblock after another in an attempt deny a segment of society what they and others believe is their civil right, will do the Church itself more harm than good. 

That part of Bottum's argument makes complete sense to me.  True religious liberty in a democratic society means tolerating the rights of others, regardless of our own beliefs.  Conservatives may argue against tolerance, but it's the American way, and a proven boon to religion itself.  Most Christians -- including the Catholic hierarchy at Vatican II --  gave up fighting the idea some time ago.

The prospect of re-evangelizing the modern world, and via that evangelization persuading moderns of the correctness of traditional Christian teachings on marriage and other issues -- what Bottum apparently means by "re-enchantment" -- is the great challenge our Church undertook at Vatican II.  The immensity of that challenge has become even more clear as time goes on.  Little wonder so many want to ditch the whole plan and retreat behind barricades, hurling threats of eternal damnation on the way.  To say that won't work merely calls attention to the challenge ahead, a necessary, hardly cowardly, attempt at admonition.


Delivering Christ's good news to the secular world takes courage, of course, but simply stating that same-sex marriage is a sin hardly does justice to the bigger message or persuades anybody who doesn't already believe.  It's a priest's duty to admonish the faithful, not unbelievers.  Can you imagine the apostles converting the ancient world by, say, preaching that divorce is a sin and divorced people who remarry go to hell?  Once converted, the ancients were presumably ready for the rest of the story, but nobody could, or can, expect the non-converted to adopt rules churchmen say they should live by. 


Meaning Absolutely to Bill Carson's comment.

Ms. Bailey,

Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments about evangelizing the modern world.  I also agree with you that saying that same sex marriage is sinful hardly conveys all the Church should be saying. 

I think that Mr. Bottums' argument against the Manhattan Declaration is elitist and somewhat disloyal. I further believe that he is indulging in over-intellectualization of the issue. Be that as it may, his inevitability argument does not seem good if for no other reason than that it is immoral to give up the poltical fight, even though the culture and the shared concept of morality that underpins it, and  that made this country great and blessed, is likely fractured beyond repair, barring a spritual revival.

The article in the NY Times that is based on this Commonweal article emphasizes and focuses on 4 things: 1) Mr. Bottums is a religious man; 2) Mr. Bottums is a conservative; 3) Mr Bottums has changed his position from opposing gay marriage to favoring gay marriage and 4) Mr. Bottums will support the Republican Party. Presumably, Mr. Bottums want's all conservatives to stay within the Republican fold and go ahead and support gay marriage.

Mr. Bottums is right when he suggests, as I have, that the ship has sailed from this country and that we likely won't be ever again that great nation we once were. And, yes, of hope is that 300 million in China are Christians. But, our duty it seems to me is to stand here and fight the good fight and remain true to principle.

Chastity is not remaining a virgin. It is living one's sex live according to one's station.  If the Church accepts gay marriage, will homosexuals be adbvised to save themselves for marriage? If so, why? It makes no sense for a gay person to "save himself" because no pregnancy is possible. If chastity for gay people means sex outside of marriage, why do gay people need marriage? If gay people can be "chaste" and have extra-marital sex, then why cannot "straight" people have chaste  extra-marital sex? It seems to me, that if the Church accepts gay marriage, then the Church must abolish the idea of chastity.  The problem is that throwing away chastity means throwing out marriage, because only adherance to chastiry will keep husband and wife faithful to each other. Marriage is the opposite of sexual license or "Enlightenment."

A nation that accepts the "Sexual Enlightenment" is a nation with 40% of its children in broken homes. A nation with 40% of its children in broken homes is a nation with no future.

Society has a choice: Sexual licence and social chaos, or,  Strict sexual norms and social order.

Jesus never looked at a woman as a "hot chick." But most American men do. Re-enchantment of society will end this mode of thought. 

Question for Mr. Bottum: Define "marriage."



Although you clearly do not realize it, Jesus come not only to to save “the Catholics”; He came to save all mankind. If you actually realized that point you wouldn’t have been questioning the Church’s focus on marriages that are not between Catholics. 


But if you are a Catholic (and quite frankly, you don’t sound very Catholic), it is somewhat understandable that you know so little about your faith. Since Vatican II (1960’s), the new modern Church has all but abandoned teaching what was taught by the  Church fathers for almost 2000 years–that there is such a thing as mortal sin, and that those who embrace such sins without repenting will be damned to hell. 


Consequently, many “Catholics” (including the writer of this shallow tome) believe that if society believes there is nothing wrong with a particular act, such as practicing homosexuality, then it is not sinful. But they are very much in error who believe this way, and although they are being misled by many of the blind bishops and priests of our day, they will not be excused for their error and both will “fall into the pit”.


For those who might want to know what is going on in our Church today, they should take a look at a couple of very worthwhile publications that regularly discuss all of these issues juxtaposing the “modernist” view of the bishops since Vatican II, with the immutable dogma of the catholic Church that was handed down by Jesus Christ though Saint Peter and the first apostles. It is actually quite frightening.



As long as you are going to let the Luce Foundation fill your pages, You might ask them to pay for an editor.  Wading through this was brutal.  It proves that an incoherent idea can only generate incoherent arguments.  What does this mean: "Is sex the place in which that project of re-enchantment ought to begin?.".  I don't think he even knows what the virtue of chastity is. He seems to think its some sort of Puritan abstinence.  Finally, I would like to point out that his friend's actions are those of an intoleranr bigot, in their parlance a "hater".  I bet if you asked the guy he would agree with my assesment although with the qualification that he only hates those he perceives to be haters and are therefore deserving.


Did Mr. Bottum and his donors consider the ways this article would be perceived and referenced in the media and particularly the New York Times?  For, according to the Times (trumpeted under a headline that erases all the nuance and contemplation offered here), what Mr. Bottum has done is go towards the light against the darkness of the Catholic Church.  Full stop.    

Furthermore, as Mr. Bottum apparently granted an interview that produced this Times story, I wonder if he will  now discuss the hijacking of his essay in the service of using the gay marriage debate to club Catholic belief?  He dismissed concerns over this, painstakenly, here.  But reading the Times piece makes his dismissial ironic.

Also, having read both the Times article and this essay, I am left confused by the Times reporter's interpretation of Bottum's position on the post-sexual revolution world.  By claiming that Bottum is saying the following, the Times seems to be pushing him to conclusions not expressed here.  Will there be any response to that, too?  

"[I]f the enchantment is gone, the law becomes a pointless artifact of a defunct Christian culture" - Bottum qua the NYTimes.




The essay somewhat self-indulgently meanders hither and yon until arriving at its stated purpose. Still, it helped me clarify my own thinking about the subject. I was especially intrigued by the implicit suggestion that, if we are truly concerned about the institution of marriage, we may need to drop our opposition to gay marriage and become be more vocal about our opposition to divorce.

Whether one sides with the gay activists/allies who are working for marriage equality or the religious conservatives who oppose it, most of us can benefit from forgiveness and reconciliation. All of us want to be happy, no one wants to suffer.


Humans fall in love, 

gay people are human, 

gay people fall in love.

It's interesting to see what creatures crawl out when one of their own turns over a few rocks that they didn't want overturned.

I never heard of Joseph Bottom before, I only came here because the Gays are tweeting the heck out of this, so here I am.

Bottom makes a good point that you Catholics with blinders on refuse to see. You hang out with each other, visit together on your conservative and Catholic websites and you do not interact with people who are gay. In fact I was never anti Catholic before sometime in 2010, much like Bottom's friend Jim Watson who slowly distanced himself from Catholic Bottom. When I was young and slept over at my friends house on Saturday night if they were Catholic I went with them to their Catholic Church on Sunday morning with the little lace doily on my head. I didn't have anything against Catholics, I wasn't one but I respected this religion. That all changed after I read a mainstream news article about this trial that was starting in California, called the Prop 8 Trial. In the news article there was a link to some gay rights website, I don't even remember which one it was, and off I went, clicking away. It will be 4 years for me this January since I read my first gay website and in that four years I have turned strongly anti Catholic. Strongly.


You all act as if we are the United Catholic States of America. And not only that, your church is very active globally trying their best to deny Civil Rights to sexual minorities worldwide. We are NOT the United Christian States of America, and after reading and participating and studyng on this issue for almost four years now I am decidely on the side of the gays and strongly against Catholic Leadership and any Catholics who work to deny Civil Rights to people who are gay. I didn't hate you before but I hate you now. YOU did that. It was your activism and your underhanded dirty tactics. How many times do I read in comments just on this webpage "sodomites?" The reason you do that is to take their humanity away, to mark them as evil, that is why you deliberately choose the word "sodomite." It is terrible and mean. Mean Catholics. I no longer see your religion as loving and compassionate and charitable, because of YOUR actions. I see you all as a bunch of meanies.


This is what you should have done, preached in your churches and cathedrals that you consider homosexual sex to be a sin and that your faith is that only Holy Marriage is for a man and a woman. But you didn't do that. Oh no, you stepped out into the public square and called people "sodomites!" You told them that they don't get the same civil rights as every other American. You Catholics along with whatever Mormons you can capture and those Evangelicals, and you are hell bent on denying Equal Civil Rights to people who are gay because it offends your religion. What you should have done is if it bothers you that much, you should have withdrawn being a State Official for signing the State Marriage Licenses. Simply maintained your Holy Marriage Sacrament and that is all. You should have clung to your beliefs and said, "We can't go along with what the State is calling Marriage so we will withdraw" But you didn't withdraw, you stood and fought. The result of that is that there are now millions of people like me, who had no bone to pick with Catholics before, but now I hate your leadership and the people who follow those Catholic Leaders who aim to destroy the lives of sexual minorities. A State marriage License is a Civil Right and there is no good reason to deny them to people who are gay. They are not hurting anybody. When two lesbians in my neighborhood get married it doesn't hurt me, and it doesn't hurt you either. It may offend you, but it doesn't hurt you.


The gays will win their fight for Civil Rights and all that is going to happen is that there will be a whole generation of people who unlike me when I was young, who don't like the Catholic Church. Is that what you want? Are you trying to push people away from your faith? Because that is what you are doing. You are trying to make Civil Law mirror your church teachings and that is not right. It just isn't. Instead of withdrawing and maintaining the sanctity of Holy Marriage you chose to fight. Well now you made an enemy, or rather LOTS of enemies. You will NOT beat science. Every single medical and psychological association says that homosexuality is on the NORMAL scale of Human Sexuality. There is just many of them is all, they are a minority. It's the God's honest truth not everybody IS straight.  In these 4 years since I started following this and learning about it, I am shocked at how many people say that they are not 100% straight, it is like 23%. As a straight person that number astounds me.


We don't legislate morality in our country. We only legislate that which harms, like sexual assault. That is why there are no slut laws. We don't arrest women or men for being a slut. We believe in Liberty, the Liberty to live your life according to how you wish provided you are not causeing harm. What is immoral to YOU is not immoral to THEM. Instead of St. Thomas Aquinas read John Stuart Mill On Liberty

This is what I believe in. Liberty. Gay people have the same liberty rights as straight couples to find a life partner and be married. How dare you claim something for yourselves that you do not grant to others. I have never been a fan of Natural Law anyway it is simply a device/mechanism to spread/apply Catholic Doctrine forcibly onto non Catholics. Calling it natural law is a misnomer, it should be called "Catholic Thought"


Do you want to see how hated you are because you are pushing your religion into civil law? Here read. Don't just hang out with Catholics, read from the other side.

FIRST look at them


It is your own actions that have made these people hate you. You had another choice and you chose not to take it. You chose to give yourself Civil Rights and deny those same Rights to them. One thing I learned in life, the oppressed will allways fight against their oppressor. And that is what you are, oppressors. You are not God's gentle people, you are militent oppressors. Read the gay blogs see what you are seen as.




This article must have been very difficult to write, and I believe there are a lot of things to react to, but I am struck by how unanalytical the reaction in the comments as been.  My take is that it tries to provide three different but interrelated answers to the question: should the church use its resources, goodwill, moral authority to oppose the acceptance of same sex marriage in the political sphere?

The first answer is the easiest to follow: opposition in the political sphere is unfair as a matter of legal interpretation (singles gays out in ways that are no longer possible for other groups) and it is alienating to those whose good will we would like to cultivate, believer or no.  I would add that in its current form, this campaign is successful only because it appeals to existing cultural bias against gay men and women and not because of any acceptance generally of the church's views on marriage.  For instance, Prop 8 would not have succeeded if it had sought to prohibit gay marriage, remarriage and the use of contraception.  In that respect, the church is making common cause with bigots and is not really gaining any fundamental appreciation for its position on marriage.

The second is, the application of natural law as it has been understood is inherently problematic even in an updated form when the cultural cohesion around the subject of marriage -- its purpose, its virtuous attributes, its core personal requirements -- has fragmented as badly as it has.  I would add that marriage is in crisis among heterosexuals under the age of 30 and there is no church organized effort that I can discern to study or even begin to address this problem, a problem that is as likely to threaten our future as any other I can think of.  Contra so much that is inherent in the pronouncements opposing same sex marriage, the goodness of marriage is no longer self-evident to many people.  In that sense, the opposition to same sex marriage is not much more than a giant diversion from the actual problems that our culture does face.

The third is, not only is politics not a shortcut to evangelization, but that evangelization and honest discourse on the subject of marriage might lead to a different answer from the one that the church currently offers.  It might even result in a natural acceptance of same sex marriage. 

You Catholics are NOT just about "preserving traditional marriage." You are simply anti gays. People who are gay are trying to get employment protections, to make a law that says, "You can't legally fire someone (or refuse to hire them) just because they are gay." 

In 27 States THIS is perfectly legal,

"You can pick up your check at the end of the day,I just found out you are a Dyke."

"You have the best qualifications of any applicant, but now that you are here in peron I can see you are a faggot. We don't hire fags here."

THAT is legal in 27 States. P-E-R-F-E-C-T-L-Y legal. The gays have been trying for the longest time to get employment protection. So what does your Conference of Catholic Bishops do? They send in a Letter to the US Senate and tell the Senators that the Caholic Church Opposes the proposed law for workplace protections for sexual minorities. Here read the letter yourself. This is your own Catholic Bishops working their angle to deny workplace protections for sexual minorities, on the flimsiest of excuses. It's shameful it really is.


And here is your ally in your anti gay war,  Gays should not be able to have a job becuse they are immoral.


The gays report on every single anti gay words spoken form the lips of Catholic Leaders. Nothing slips by them. The Catholic Bishops are just the WORST! If a State is having hearings on Civil Unions the Catholic Bishops and Preists we be vorifiously against Civil Unions. However in States that have Civil Unions and the gays are trying for marriage, the Catholic Bishops and Priests will with no shame at all, say that Civil Unions are enough that they support Civil Unions not marriage. Here is one memoriable Bishop. It doesn't have to do with Civil Marriage, but his anti Obama militancy is simply astounding. Again I got this from Gay Websites. Talk about militant! This proves to ME that You Catholics are trying to run the country, take over. You don't respect the seperation of Church and State. You do not believe that gay people are Equal Under the Law. To you they are less than, second class, becaue they are gay. Not deserving of the same rights as you.


This is who you are in bed with. The Vice President of the Family Research Council saying that this divide may lead to ARMED RESISTANCE against our government.

Do you see why I am for the gays and against you? You people are terrible.  Look who you align yourself with. Look who you march shoulder to shoulder with. These are your anti gay allies. 


Here more of your Evangelical best buddies. Re-Crimialize and ARREST sexual minorities. ARREST THEM.

LOOK at what is happening in Russia to Gay People, and the movement in Russia is the Orthodox Church. And by the way, in a later article we learn that the boy in the main picture killed himself. Do young people killing themselves make Jesus happy?


TBILISI, May 17 (RIA Novosti) - Some 30 people were injured when an angry mob led by clergymen broke through police cordons and clashed with gay rights activists in the Georgian capital Tbilisi on Friday, the country's health minister said.

Gay rights activists from the Identoba (Identity) group planned to hold a rally outside the former parliament building on the city’s central Rustaveli Avenue on Friday afternoon, to mark the International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia. Tbilisi authorities had authorized the event.

However, thousands of anti-gay protestors, mostly Christian activists, priests and members of conservative non-governmental organizations, gathered in the designated location before the rally began, forcing gay activists to change the venue. Several dozen gay rights activists who came to take part moved to a small area adjacent to Freedom Square, about two hundred meters away from the initial site.

(Watch the video about in the middle of the article in the right)

A number of protesters carrying bunches of stinging nettles threatened to use them on gay activists. They insist that homosexuality runs against Georgia's traditional Orthodox Christian values.

Father David, a priest who was one of the organizers of Friday's anti-gay rally, said the parade "insults people's traditions and national sentiments."



Just LOOK at the world wide persecution of gay people lead by Churches. Look! Now with the internet you can watch the videos. You people are terrible, just terrible. Awful. It is NOT about Civil Marriage for you, it is simply Gay HATE. IT IS!! I monitor French Sites also, I didn't even bring those to you. Just about an hour ago I read a Tweet from a Catholic Bishop in France encouraging the Catholic Haters there to keep on protesting.

Africa is TERRIBLE. Just Terrible. Read, READ IT. Go ahead, I dare you.

This is simply a religious war against gay people. This is no way to treat our fellow human beings. It is not. And you all should be ashamed of yourself for perpetrating this. The biggest leader is the CATHOLIC CHURCH.



I agree with Barbara. I think the article is important and reveals the honesty and goodwill of Mr. Bottum. As well as his grounding in both medieval and modern thought. I majored in Thomistic philosophy at a Catholic college and during most of my long life, have been a seeker, and a long time in the Unitarian Universalist fold. I'd like to raise another issue that came to mind while reading his article. I would like to ask Joseph Bottum if he were a woman, would he so readily characterize pre-Enlightenment thought as framed in an enchanted world? A few years ago I picked up a history of the Masonic order which stated that it was Masons who made up the Royal Society when it formed in England, a society of scientists and engineers and philosophes striving to demonstrate things not take them on faith. As you know, it was pulled together by the restored King of England hoping to unite warring parties -- Cavaliers and Roundheads -- in order to make progress and make inventions that would help in war, among other things. One remarkable effect of this budding scientific effort, I read, was that within 20 years of its founding, they stopped burning 'witches' in England. Up to that time, the carnage was horrible and the belief in its necessity was a big part of the 'enchanted' world everyone lived in. What to do when one's (idealized) Enchantment was partly founded upon subjugation, hatred (and fear) of women? 

Despite Mr. Bottum's attempt to deploy Aquinas, does anyone really believe the Angelic Doctor appreciates his scholarship being used to justify sodomitic relationships?

Kids need a mom and a dad. Denying this ideal by making mothers and fathers optional does harm to our society. This isnt about the desires of adults, much less the "enchantment" of homosexual acts, this is about what marriage is (and isnt) and why it matters.

In his long and meandering essay, Bottum poses four questions which any Catholic should be able to answer clearly and without difficulty:

  1. By what authority do bishops pass moral judgments in political matters? By the infallible authority of Christ and His Church.
  2. Can atheism offer an intellectually coherent scheme for morality? No, it cannot.
  3. Can we know that an action or attitude is evil, a priori? Yes, we can.
  4. How can we ignore peoples desires? We shouldn't necessarily ignore them, but neither can we condone them when they contradict Church teaching.

That these simple Catholic answers elude Bottum is troubling, to say the least.




"In the context of the deserved contempt that followed [the scandals in the Church], what kind of loony, pie-eyed judgment could lead the bishops to engage in a sex-based public-policy debate they are doomed to lose—feeding mockery of the church while engaged in the expensive process of losing that fight?" (Bottum, The Things We Share)


Sadly, almost any kind of "loony, pie-eyed judgement" imaginable could lead the personally fallible bishops to engage in any number of activities; However, only the infallible judgement of the whole Church could, would, and should lead the bishops (and all Christians) to engage in responsible, intelligent and moral public-policy debate:




Q2: Can atheism offer an intellectually coherent scheme for morality? No, it cannot.


"if heterosexual monogamy so lacks the old, enchanted metaphysical foundation that it can end in quick and painless divorce, then what principle allows a refusal of marriage to gays on the grounds of a metaphysical notion like the difference between men and women?...If marriage is nothing more than a licensed sexual playground, without any sense of sin attached to oral sex and anal sex and almost any other act, then under what intellectually coherent scheme can one refuse to others the opportunity for the same behavior?" (Bottum, The Things We Share)


Clearly, whoever is not for the "old, enchanted metaphysical foundation of heterosexual monogamy" is against it. Each of us must take a stand, for or against marriage as a divinely instituted Sacrament as defined by Mother Church:


The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent. (CCC1625)


It is important for Catholics to remember that marriage is not a product of men, much less an invention of the state:




Q3: Can we know that an action or attitude is evil, a priori? Yes, we can.


"How faithful will [same-sex unions] prove? How much infected by the divorce culture of modern America? How spiritual? How mundane? How will they face up to the woe of the quotidian that, as Schopenhauer insisted, marriage forces us to see? How will such unions aid their participants to perceive the joy of creation?" (Bottum, The Things We Share)


God only knows. As a Catholic, Bottum must know that God can bring good out of every evil, including same-sex unions:


Where sin increases, grace increases all the more...What shall we say, then? Shall we encourage sin so that grace may increase? Of course not! (Romans 5:20-6:2)


We Catholics have a responsibility to oppose sin:






"…how can we not take same-sex marriage advocates at their word, accepting that they really seek the marriages they say they desire?" (Bottum, The Things We Share)


We can and must take them at their word, yes. They really want what they want. They seek power, freedom, security, health, love, acceptance--and what they seek is good. Bottum's role, as a Catholic, however, is to encourage these misguided advocates to seek what they seek--but not where they seek it. It's called tough love for a reason:


The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction. (CCC1829)


I'm afraid Bottum is getting swept up in the ever-shifting tide of public opinion. God help him.


God help us all.

 Went on Mr. Bottum's Facebook page; asked him repeatedly if he saw any Scripture to support his view in favor of homosexual "marriage?" He repeatedly ignored me. Then this exchange occurred after which he blocked me and, of course, never answered my question.

Me: Do you care what God says?

Bottum: Yes, Mr. Lofton, I care what God says. I was about to say that I don't much care for what the remnants of anti-Catholic Protestantism say, but it would be uncharitable--and that's why I'm cutting this off: My fault, not yours, but your multiple notes here are an inducement to my failure of charity.

John Lofton, Recovering Republican

Dir., The God And Government Project

Active Facebook Wall



About the Author

Joseph Bottum is an author whose latest book is An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America (forthcoming in February from Image/Random House). The former literary editor of the Weekly Standard and chief editor of First Things, he lives in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

Also by this author

Book Reviews