Marriage, Natural Institution at the Foundation of the Family

IF SOCIETY IS VISUALIZED AS A BODY, then the family is its vital cell. It is the first natural society, the smallest indivisible unit of society, and is at the center of all social life. It is a marvelous society, one formed by the communion of two human persons in the bond of marriage. Marriage is a permanent union between a man and a woman, persons equal in dignity, yet each with a personhood distinct and complementary. Indeed, it is this complementarity that yields the great fruit of procreation, an office "which makes [the spouses] co-workers with the Creator." (Compendium, No. 209)

Though the family is a natural society, and though it is established through the "free choice of the spouses to unite themselves in marriage," the basic form of the family is not one that can be redefined by man. This is because marriage which is the family's foundation is an "institution that does not depend upon man but on God himself." (Compendium, No. 215) "For God himself is the author of marriage and has endowed it with various benefits and purposes." (Compendium, No.215) (quoting VII, Gaudium et spes, 48) What God has written, no man ought to unwrite or rewrite.

The institution of marriage might be defined as an "intimate partnership of life and love . . . established by the Creator and endowed with him with its own proper laws." (Compendium, No.215) (quoting VII, Gaudium et spes, 48) The institution of marriage, its form, and its laws, are therefore not something that is the result of "human conventions or legislative prescriptions." We therefore tamper with it at our peril. It is a gift given, not a gift we make for ourselves.

"Marriage is in fact endowed with its own proper, innate, and permanent characteristics." (Compendium, No. 216) While culture and societies may color marriage with different customs, at its center, marriage, which has a dignity of its own, remains unchanged. This intrinsic dignity of marriage must be respected and safeguarded. In fact, society is not at liberty "freely [to] legislate with regard to the marriage bond by which the two spouses promise each other fidelity,assistance, and acceptance of children." Rather, society is "authorized [only] to regulate its civil effects." (Compendium, No.216)



The characteristic traits of marriage are four: totality, unity, indissolubility and fidelity, and fruitfulness, but they are all interrelated.

• totality: nothing is held back in the mutual spousal self-giving.
  
• unity: the result of the spousal self-giving, which, in biblical language is expressed as the spouses become "one flesh." (Gen. 2:24)
  
• indissolubility and fidelity: this characteristic comes from the total, permanent, and unique bond of marriage.
• fruitfulness: the spouses are open to new life, as it is at the heart of their self-giving as expressed in the self-giving conjugal act. "In its 'objective' truth, marriage is ordered to the procreation and education of children." "Nonetheless, marriage was not instituted for the sole reason of procreation." It therefore retains its other characteristics even if "children, although greatly desired, do not arrive to complete conjugal life." (Compendium, No 218-19)
  

Any custom or law that does not respect these characteristics is unjust. Though we take them for granted, laws allowing for divorce and remarriage are therefore intrinsically unjust. They violate the dignity of marriage, its nature of indissolubility, and are a blemish and a scourge on the society which lives under them. A fortiori, laws that allow for polygamy or same-sex marriage or civil unions are even more execrable, as they make a mockery out of true marriage. Adultery is obviously a practice that is offensive to the characteristic of fidelity, and it represents a great act of injustice against the other spouse. Similarly, the use of artificial contraception violates the fundamental characteristic of marriage of fruitfulness.

Though of divine institution, marriage is something that is intimately human. Indeed, at its heart, marriage requires two reciprocal human acts. The spouses are the dispensers of their own marriage. Marriage arises "from the human act by which the partners mutually surrender themselves to each other," not for a time, but for all their lives.

This mutual giving of self-to-other self which is at the heart of conjugal love is what gives marriage its unchangeable nature. This mutual giving of self-to-other self is a "total and exclusive gift of a person to a person," a "definitive commitment expressed by mutual, irrevocable, and public consent." (Compendium, No. 215) It is not a commitment for a time, for a utilitarian purpose, for convenience. In this mutual giving self-to-other self, nothing is held back. Nothing is reserved. Because of this, marriage by its very nature has permanency.

Marriage is a natural right, a human right. For this reason, "[n]o power can abolish the natural right to marriage or modify its traits or purpose." (Compendium, No. 216)

Of course, the family, and the marital covenant which is at its heart, extends beyond procreation of children. It also includes the important function of the education of children. It is within the family, the "cradle of life and love" formed by a "communion of life and love," that children are "humanized." As children grow within the family, they are taught lessons of virtue, of wisdom, of truth and goodness, and of love as they "develop their potentialities, become aware of their dignity, and prepare to face their unique and individual destiny." (Compendium, No. 212)

The family is "the first natural society," one of divine institution. As the "first natural society" of divine institution, the family has "underived rights that are proper to it" given to it by God. (Compendium, No. 211) "The family possesses inviolable rights and finds its legitimization in human nature and not in being recognized by the State. The family, then, does not exist for society or the State, but society and the State exist for the family." (Compendium, No. 214)

In a country such as ours, where we nourish an unhealthy individualism, the family and hence society tend to suffer. There is a certain danger in this overemphasis on individualism. It is important to nourish health families because they constitute a bulwark against the danger of collectivism, of an overweening State. "A society built on a family scale is the best guarantee against drifting off course into individualism or collectivism, because within the family the person is always at the center of attention as an end and never a means." (Compendium, No. 213)

The conjugal bond and family life ought therefore to be protected and promoted by society and the State. "In their relationship to the family, society and the State are seriously obligated to observe the principle of subsidiarity." (Compendium, No. 214) Of course, this means that the society and the State must not impede, frustrate, or needlessly interfere with the conjugal bond or family life. Therefore, ways of life, customs, laws, and institutions that do not support the permanency of the conjugal bond or the health of family life are to be condemned.

Duns Scotus: On Divorce

SCOTUS ADDRESSES THE TOPIC OF DIVORCE and the Mosaic law in Ordinatio IV, dist. 33, q. 3. The specific proposition that he engages is whether under the Mosaic law it was licit for a man to repudiate his wife. In support of the proposition that it was licit, Scotus cites Deuteronomy 24:1 and Malachi 2:16:

When a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and therefore he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house.

When you shall hate your wife, put her away, says the Lord God of Israel.*

Scotus also advances as authority that divorce is licit a canonical maxim found in Gratian's Decretum: "Everything which is born of certain causes, can be dissolved by certain causes." Dec. Grat. II, causa 27, c. 2. Since marriage is born of free consent, it follows under this principle that marriage can also be dissolved by free consent. This suggests that the Mosaic permission allowing divorce is legitimate.

Similarly, Scotus cites to the Decretum Gratiani, I, canon 11, dist. 34, which provides: "If it be established of a married cleric that the wife has committed adultery, she ought to be given a bill of divorce and sent away." This canon establishes not only the legitimacy of divorce under Mosaic law, but also under the law of the Gospel.

Moses with his Two Tables of the Decalogue

As contrary authority to the proposition of the licitness of Mosaic divorce, Scotus adverts to the natural law, specifically, the notion that is expressed by Adam's words: "A man shall cleave to his wife," which suggests a permanent natural union. The sexual union which is part of the conjugal union suggests a permanency, a one-fleshness which resists being separate. It was this natural union to which Christ referred when he taught that what God joined together, "let no man put asunder." Matt. 19:6.

The nature of marriage, further, suggests that it is an "irrevocable gift of the power of one's body to another for that of the other." Any condition or term to this giving of self is, by definition, not marriage. If divorce is allowed, the conveyance of self is, from a practical perspective, never irrevocable, but limited by one's will, and that negates the essential nature of marriage.

A final argument against the liciety of divorce under Mosaic law is that a woman had not rights to divorce her husband; parity or equality would suggest, then, that the man likewise had no power, since "so far as they are marriage partners," the man and wife "may be judged equal." Ordinatio IV, dist. 33, q. 3 (Wolter, 213)

This question is a difficult one for Scotus, and he wrestles with it without a clear resolution. Essentially, he advances two arguments, both of which are probable, and neither of which is definitive. First, he advances as a plausible position that divorce was never licit under the law of Moses. Second, he advances as a plausible position that God through Moses dispensed the Israelites from the natural law of marriage in order to avoid a greater evil: uxoricide.

Illicit nature of Mosaic divorce. The argument here is that it remained unlawful to divorce one's wife under the Mosaic law, and that marrying someone who was divorced was a mortal sin. However, the punishment against the woman or the man guilty of divorce and remarriage was remitted or suspended for the reason that it was necessary to prevent uxoricide. Scriptural support for this position is found in Christ's teaching that a person who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery (Matt. 19:9). If Christ is the fulfillment of the Mosaic law, his teaching would suggest that, under the Mosaic law, divorce remained adultery. Similarly, there is a natural-law basis for this. Christ adverted to the beginning of creation and man and woman, and that the natural, conjugal union between them was one rendered by God, and over which man had no authority--"what God has joined together, let no man put asunder." So under the natural law and God's plan, divorce could not be licit under the Mosaic law. Only the punishment under these circumstances was suspended to avoid the greater evil of uxoricide. One last argument is to point out that while Moses allowed for divorce "by reason of the hardness of your heart," i.e., as a result of the Jewish obduracy, this did not receive divine ratification. The marginal gloss on this issue states succinctly: "Moses permitted this, not God." Seizing on this gloss, Peter Lombard concludes that divorce was "permitted by Moses, not to concede divorce, but to prevent homicide." The obduracy of the Israelites prevented the full implementation of God's will as it related to marriage. Divorce was a matter of Mosaic permission and divine tolerance for the purpose of avoiding a greater evil.

Liciety of Mosaic divorce. The other view is that divorce was licit under the Mosaic dispensation. Moses's authority to articulate the divine law means that his permission has to be considered as part of God's law with God's ratification behind it. Accordingly, because Moses promulgated the law permitting divorce: "God himself joined, and those whom he separated, God separated, because God could not divorce those who were married." This seems to accord to Scripture--which allows for divorce--its face value. To suggest that divorce was not licit under the Mosaic law is difficult to reconcile with Scripture. Moreover, it cannot be said that the Mosaic law permitting divorce is unjust: God would not have allowed an unjust law. If the permission was not unjust, then there can be no mortal sin in following a just law. This would suggest that the Mosaic divorce was licit. This would suggest some sort of divine dispensation which is possible given that, in Scotus's view, the marital laws are not natural laws in the strict sense. God as supreme legislator could ratify marriage for a time, and, if the Mosaic divorce is exercised, dispense from that divine ratification.

Complete justice does not pertain to this matrimonial contract except by divine ratification . . . [and] it is reasonable that God should ratify it. . . . To avoid an evil which outweighs the good of wedlock's indissolubility, God can dispense from [the law of indissolubility] so that the marriage holds good until such a time as the woman may come to displease her husband. And in such a contract justice is preserved to some extent. For not only to obtain a greater good, but also to avoid a greater evil, the parties marrying may want to give themselves to each other in this fashion. Now, uxoricide is a greater evil than indissolubility is a good, because it includes not only the serious evil suffered by the woman killed but also the grave evil of the guilty killer. Uxoricide would also be a serious evil for the whole country, because it would be an occasion of continual discord and fighting by reason of the ire of the wife's parents towards her murderer; and this would tend to break down the family, because if the man were killed by his adversaries or by the law, it would destroy his family and the education of his child.

Ordinatio IV, dist. 33, q. 3 (Wolter, 215-16)

This, of course, implies that the entire Mosaic marital law involved less-than-perfect unions. Under "Mosaic law, when divorce was allowed and one man could have several wives, neither requirement was characteristic of marriage, because neither was it a one-to-one relationship, nor was the union simply indissoluble." The imperfection in the Mosaic marital law was supported by a divine dispensation which, in Christ, was abrogated.

Although Scotus struggles with these issues without a clear resolution, his doctrine of the natural law--which states that only the first two, and part of the third, commandments are natural law, strictly-so-called, but that the seven later commandments, the second table, are not natural law, but constitute divine positive law admitting of dispensation, allows for much easier resolution of the difficulties arising from Mosaic divorce:

I say it is not against the law of nature [to allow for divorce, as Moses did] in the strict sense, because it is not against any self-evident principles that pertain to the law of nature nor against any conclusion that follows immediately from such principles that a contract hold for only a time, according to this second view, nor does it run contrary to the education of the children, for God could have arranged another plan for the education of children [other than marriage], but one not as convenient as this, and even though one of the goods of marriage is in harmony with the law of nature, namely, indissolubility, God could have dispensed with this in order to avoid a greater evil.

Ordinatio IV, dist. 33, q.3 (Wolter, 218)

It is apparent from Scotus's treatment of this issue that we are dealing with a very thorny problem, one that perhaps may not be fully resolvable. We may never know the exact situation as it pertains to the Mosaic law allowing divorce. We do, however, have Christ's clear teaching on this matter, who brought us to the original teaching and original understanding of marriage.

_________________________________________
*The translation of Malachi 2:16 is from Wolter, 213. I do not have the Latin text in front of me, but I presume Scotus quotes the Vulgate. The Vulgate is: Cum odio habueris dimitte dicit Dominus Deus Israhel operiet autem iniquitas vestimentum eius dicit Dominus exercituum custodite spiritum vestrum et nolite despicere. The Douay Rheims which is pretty slavish to the Vulgate states: "When thou shalt hate her put her away, saith the Lord the God of Israel: but iniquity shall cover his garment, saith the Lord of hosts, keep your spirit, and despise not." The New American Bible translates: "For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, And covering one's garment with injustice, says the LORD of hosts; You must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith." The difference in translation stems from the difficult syntax in this section of Malachi. A discussion of the problem may be obtained by reviewing C. John Collins article "Malachi 2:16 Again." Depending on how one translates the difficult Hebrew text, Malachi 2:16, then, can be read as a sign of God's displeasure with divorce, or a more or less indication of its liciety.

Nature's Complaint: Alan of Lille's The Plaint of Nature, Part 12

MODERATION, MODERATION, MODERATION. This is Nature's advice on avoiding the vices. This is the wisdom of the ancients. "Nothing too much!" Ne quid nimis. Mηδὲν ἄγαν (meden agan). Know yourself! Scito te ipsum. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (gnothi seauton). These sayings were inscribed upon Temple of Apollo at Delphi. It is as if Alan of Lille put these sayings, along with the wisdom of Ecclesiastes (Eccl. 6:40: "In all they works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin") in poetic form in Nature's poem in Alcaic meter. As Nature recites the poem, the virtues gather around her.

Oracle at Delphi, Sistine Chapel

To prevent Scylla with her greedy whirlpool From plunging you into the deep night of lust, Apply the restraint of moderation to your palate. Pay a more modest tribute to your stomach. Let your gullet moderate its taste for the liquid of Lyaeus, the cups of Bacchus. Drink sparingly that your lips may be thought to kiss, so to speak, the cups of Bacchus. Let water break Lyaeus' pride and An abundance of it temper Bacchus' rage. Let Thetis offer herself in marriage to Lyaeus And let her, once married to him, restrain her husband's tyrannical sway. Let a meal of food, that is ordinary, plain and rarely taken, Grind down the proud complaining flesh, So that the tyrant, ever arrogantly reigning in that flesh, may exercise a more moderated pressure on you. Thus tenacious Cupid will take a rest. Let the reins on Cupid within you be tightened And the sting of the flesh will grow faint and dull: The flesh will thus become the handmaiden of the spirit. Add bolts to the door of your sight to Keep your eyes in check, lest your eager eye hunt abroad with too little shame and bring back to your mind a report of game. If the desire of possession intoxicates some, Let them compel money to quit their minds. Let ambition feel the mind's triumph over it. Let greed be overcome and its neck be put beneath the yoke. Let not money itself tarry in closed purses and indulge in a sluggard's sleep, devoting itself to no one: Rather let it rise from its bed to be the guardian of right and to be of use to the rich man. If the opportunity offers, if the occasion demands it, let the mass of buried treasure arise, Let the purses completely disgorge their cash. Let every gift be a soldier in the army of the right. If you wish to trample on pride's neck, on the winds of vanity, on the powers that destroy the spirit, consider the burden of being born destined to die, the toils of life, death that cuts you off at the end.

Ne te gulosae Scylla voraginis Mergat profunda nocte libidinum Praebe palato frena modestiae, Ventri tributum solve modestius, Imbrem Lyaei semita gutturis Libet modeste Bacchica pocula: Pota parumper, ut quasi poculis Bacchi putetur os dare basia. Frangat Lyaei lympha superbiam, Bacchi furorem flumina temperent: Nuptam Lyaeo se Thetis offerat, Frenet mariti nupta tyrannidem. Plebaea, simplex, rara comestio Carnis superbae murmura conterat. Ut te tyrannus parcius urgeat, Semper in ista carne superbiens, Lentus Cupido sic aget otia, Frenentur in te frena libidinis, Languens stupescat carnis aculeus, Ancilla fiet sic caro spiritus: Largire visus pessula januae, Frenes ocellos, ne nimis improbe Venentur extra luminis impetus, Praedamque menti nuntius offerat. Si quos habendi fervor inebriat, Exire cogant, mente pecuniam, Mentis triumphum sentiat ambitus, Victi premantur colla Cupidinis. Non in crumenis ipsa pecunia Clausis moretur, pigraque dormiat, Nulli vacando, sed magis excubet, Custos honoris divitis usibus: Si tempus adsit, si locus exigat, Surgat sepultae massa pecuniae, Nummos crumenae funditus evomant. Quaevis honori munera militent. Calcare si vis colla superbiae, Flatus tumoris, fulmina spiritus, Pensa caducae pondus originis, Vitae labores mortis et apocham.

Titian's "Allegory of Marriage"

As Nature recites her poem, Hymenaeus, Venus's husband and the god of marriage, appears, displaying both the resiliency of youth, and the wisdom of age. He is the golden mean personified. Hymenaeus had a robe similar to Nature's robe, one which displayed stories that exalted the state of marriage. (For a description of Nature's robe in Alan de Lille's De Planctu Naturae, see Nature's Compliant: Alan of Lille's The Plaint of Nature, Part 2) But the "black paint of age," had almost covered up the images. Yet the images could still, however faintly, be seen.

Yet the picture's message kept insisting that there had been woven there the faithfulness proceeding from the sacrament of matrimony, the peaceful unity of married life, the inseparable bond of marriage, the indissoluble union of the wedded parties. For in the book of the picture there could be read in faint outline what solemn joy gives approval to marriage at its beginning, what sweet melody gives a festive, religious tone to the nuptials, what special gathering of guests shows their approbation of the marriage, what general joy rounds of the Cytherean's ceremonies.

Ibi tabulam sacramentalem testimonii, finem matrimonii, connubii pacificam unitatem, nuptiarum inseparabile jugum, nubentium indissolubile vinculum, lingua picturae fatebatur intextum. In picturae etenim libro umbratiliter legebatur, quae nuptiarum exsultationis applaudit solemnitas, quae in nuptiis melodiae solemnizet suavitas, quae connubiis convivarum arrideat generalitas specialis, quae matrimonia citharae concludat jucunditas generalis.

Nature places Hymenaeus on her right, the place of honor, and offers him her right hand, a sign of deep affection and affinity. Soon, chastity, a maiden of great beauty wearing resplendent white garments, and a turtle dove on her left hand, followed. She was followed by a group of virgins.

Chastity's clothes also showed pictures as if they were tableaux vivant, all in a variety of colors, of chastity's great victories, great martyrs, and her great traitors. Hipppolytus, resisting Phaedra, his stepmother. Daphne, who resisted the desires of Apollo, and was turned into the laurel. Lucretia, the wife of Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, who, to redeem her rape and the involuntary violation of her chastity by Sextus Tarquinius. Penelope, the wife of Odysseus, who was faithful to her husband over the clamor of myriad suitors. Nature greeted Chastity with much joy.

Death of Lucretia by Botticelli

It appears that a synod of virtues was assembling. Chastity is followed by Temperance, who is the epitome of the Golden Mean, and displayed it in her mien, her gait, her clothing, and her jewelry. Following Temperance was Generosity, with her hands open an eager to embrace the needs of others, and whose hair and clothing bespoke of a heavenly heritage. Behind Generosity came Humility, a woman of diminutive stature, her eyes downcast, but of great beauty. Temperance and Generosity and Humility were all welcomed by Nature. Generosity and Humility's clothing also showed pictures:

On the these garments [of Generosity] a picture, unreal but credible by reason of the sophistic delusion inherent in painting, damned with the disgrace of anathema men who are afflicted with the notorious crime of Avarice.

. . .

There [on Humility's garment], inscribed in invented stories, could be read how in the catalogue of virtues Humility shines forth with the standard of distinction, while Pride, suspended by the brand of excommunication from the sacred synod of virtues, is condemned to the exile of ultimate banishment.

(continued)

Mirabile Dictu: A Pagan Gets Marriage Right

The Roman Stoic philosopher, contempoary of Seneca and teacher of Epictetus, Gaius Musonius Rufus (1st century A.D.), was not a Christian, but his view on marriage came, as John Finnis expressed it, "particularly close to articulating" a view on marriage attuned to the natural law. Finnis, "Natural Law Theory and Limited Government," in Robert P. George, ed., Natural Law, Liberalism, and Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). An excerpt of his discourse on marriage was preserved by his student, a certain "Lucius," who also preserved in twenty other reasonably lengthy extracts (as far as extracts go), and which were included in Stobaeus (Floril. xxix. 78, lvi. 18).

Here is a translation of Discourse 13A by Cora E. Lutz, Musonius Rufus: The Roman Socrates. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942):

The husband and wife, he [Musonius] used to say, should come together for the purpose of making a life in common and of procreating children, and furthermore of regarding all things in common between them, and nothing peculiar or private to one or the other, not even their own bodies. The birth of a human being which results from such a union is to be sure something marvelous, but it is not yet enough for the relation of husband and wife, inasmuch as quite apart from marriage it could result from any other sexual union, just as in the case of animals. But in marriage there must be above all perfect companionship and mutual love of husband and wife, both in health and in sickness and under all conditions, since it was with desire for this as well as for having children that both entered upon marriage. Where, then, this love for each other is perfect and the two share it completely, each striving to outdo the other in devotion, the marriage is ideal and worthy of envy, for such a union is beautiful. But where each looks only to his own interests and neglects the other, or, what is worse, when one is so minded and lives in the same house but fixes his attention elsewhere and is not willing to pull together with his yoke-mate nor to agree, then the union is doomed to disaster and though they live together, yet their common interests fare badly; eventually they separate entirely or they remain together and suffer what is worse than loneliness.

Bully for Burke

On May 8, 2009, the Most Reverend Raymond Leo Burke, Archbishop-Emeritus of St. Louis, and the current Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, gave the Keynote Address at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. We must give thanks when our shepherds challenge those who wield the secular sword. Some of Archbishop Burke's comments bear repeating, and repeating, and repeating.

Under Obama's administration, the few hard-fought restrictions against abortion have unraveled. The Obama administration has exercised a moral choice, and it is against the Natural Law. It has according to Archbishop Burke chosen "a path which more completely denies any legal guarantee of the most fundamental human right, the right to life, to the innocent and defenseless unborn. Our nation, which had its beginning in the commitment to safeguard and promote the inalienable right to 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' for all, without boundary, is more and more setting arbitrary limits to her commitment .... Those in power now determine who will or will not be accorded the legal protection of the most fundamental right to life." The right to life, a fundamental natural right, is trumped by a fictitious "right" to privacy which is construed in such a manner as to prevent the state from interfering with a woman's right to kill a fetus. But recent events show an even more ominous turn. "With unparalleled arrogance," Archbishop Burke notes, "our nation is choosing to renounce its foundation upon the faithful, indissoluble, and inherently procreative love of a man and a woman in marriage, and, in violation of what nature itself teaches us, to replace it with a so-called marital relationship, according to the definition of those who exercise the greatest power in our society." It is the arrogance of believing that it can define fundamental human institutions that pre-date it, and are more fundamental than it. In trying to re-define the family, the state acts with as much hubris as if it were going to re-define God, or re-define the law of gravity.

The Archbishop gives specific examples or recent events, and, in his mind, these betray "a consistent pattern of decisions ... which is taking our nation down a path which denies the fundamental right to life to the innocent and defenseless unborn and violates the fundamental integrity of the marital union and the family."

Archbishop Burke reminds us of "the most serious responsibility of Catholics to uphold the natural moral law." It is part of our duty as Catholic citizens, and demanded as part of the virtue of patriotism. The natural law "is the irreplaceable foundation of just relationships among the citizens of our nation." If the Natural Law is ignored or contradicted by our politics or our positive law, our politics and our positive law must be denounced.

President Obama speaks a lot about hope, and it was perhaps this to which Archbishop was alluding when he stated: "Let us say once again: we need the greater and lesser hopes that keep us going day by day." But the hope that Obama offers is of limited value with the "great hope." "This great hope can only be God, who encompasses the whole of reality and who can bestow upon us what we, by ourselves, cannot attain. The fact that it comes to us as a gift is actually part of hope. God is the foundation of hope: not any god, but the God who has a human face and who has loved us to the end, each one of us and humanity in its entirety. His Kingdom is not an imaginary hereafter, situated in a future that will never arrive; his Kingdom is present wherever he is loved and wherever his love reaches us."

The Archbishop continues: "The change which brings hope can only be the renewal of our nation in the divine love which respects the inviolable dignity of every human life, from the moment of its inception to the moment of natural death, and which creates and gives growth to new human life through the love of man and woman in marriage. Any hope which is incoherent with the great hope is truly illusory and can never bring forth justice and its fruit, peace, for our nation and world."

Archbishop Burke is well aware that we must dialogue with those who do not share our faith, and we must respect those different than we are. However, "[d]ialogue and respect for differences are not promoted by the compromise and even violation of the natural moral law." We need not accede to the validity of a murder's crime to speak with him, nor can we consent to any group that promotes abortion or un-natural unions. Opposing the current culture is burdensome; it is not always pleasant for those with peaceful dispositions not prone to being belligerent. "If we as individuals or our Catholic institutions are not willing to accept the burdens and the suffering necessarily involved in calling our culture to reform, then we are not worthy of the name Catholic."

"In a nation set so firmly on a path of violation of the most fundamental moral norms, Catholics and others who adhere to the natural moral law are pressured to think that their religious commitment to the moral law as the way of seeking the good of all is a merely confessional matter which cannot have any application in public life. ... On the contrary, the common good depends upon the active engagement of religious faith in the public forum."

As patriotic Catholics, must be "simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just." It is our duty, in "addressing the critical issues of our nation," that both "the Church and we, as her faithful sons and daughters, intervene on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being." This is what the God of Love commands. And it is not a matter of promoting a confessional state, or of violating the establishment clause. Archbishop Burke explains:

"Our uncompromising commitment to protect the inviolable dignity of innocent human life and to safeguard the integrity of marriage and the family are not based on peculiar confessional beliefs or practices but on the natural moral law, written on every heart and, therefore, a fundamental part of the Church's moral teaching. At the same time, what is always and everywhere evil cannot be called good for the sake of accomplishing some other good end. All of us must be concerned about a wide range of goods which are important to the life of our nation, but the concern for those goods can never justify the betrayal of the fundamental goods of life itself and the family. We must take care to uproot from our moral thinking any form of relativism, consequentialism and proportionalism, which would lead us into the error of thinking that it is sometimes right to do what is always and everywhere evil."

Though there are many issues which confront us, and with which we must take sides, there are some that are clearly preeminent. With respect to these, which are the right to life and the right to the integrity of marriage and the family, "there is no element of the common good, no morally good practice, which a candidate may promote and to which a voter may be dedicated, which could justify voting for a candidate who also endorses and supports the deliberate killing of the unborn, euthanasia or the recognition of a same-sex relationship as a legal marriage. The respect for the inviolable dignity of innocent human life and for the integrity of marriage and the family are so fundamental to the common good that they cannot be subordinated to any other cause, no matter how good it may be."

"As Catholics, we can never cease to work for the correction of gravely unjust laws. Law is a fundamental expression of our culture and implicitly teaches citizens what is morally acceptable. Our efforts to assist those who are tempted to do what is always and everywhere wrong or are suffering from the effects of having committed a gravely immoral act, which are essential expressions of the charity which unites us as citizens of the nation, ultimately make little sense, if we remain idle regarding unjust laws and decisions of the courts regarding the same intrinsic evils. We are never justified in abandoning the work of changing legislation and of reversing decisions of the courts which are anti-life and anti-family."

"The most treasured gift which we as citizens of the United States of America can offer to our country is a faithful Catholic life." If that is so, then any watering down of the Catholic life, and any refusal to shoulder the burden of confronting a culture of death and family attack, is an act that betrays God, the Church, and our country.

The speech is worth a read:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2009/05/full-text-archbishop-raymond-b.html