Posts
Irreducibility: it's a fancy word that has serious implications (another fancy word)... Let's put it this way: Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Philosophy all have this same concept: There is a point beyond which you cannot reduce a thing without changing its identity.
For example, if you remove my hair, I am still human, and I am still myself, perhaps slightly more or less handsome. No big whoop. If you remove some more essential aspect of me, say all of my lower torso, something has definitely changed. I would then be lacking some significant aspects of what it is to be a human being.
Occam's Razor, a popular tool in philosophical circles, is essentially a mental process of removing all unnecessary elements of an argument or analysis to get closer to true understanding. It is often over-simplified to the axiom: "The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This generalization loses the elements of completeness and accuracy and in so doing actually proves the point that one can, in the process of simplifying, remove something that in fact is essential. Occam would agree that one always must favor accuracy over simplicity.
In the sciences we learn about elements. It is possible to have great quantities of an element. Think of a zeppelin full of hydrogen. It is possible to reduce this great quantities all the way down to a single atom. However, if one tries to reduce beyond this point, a radical reaction takes place called fission: energy is released, and what remains is no longer the same element as before. For a larger scale understanding of what energy fission releases, think of the uranium-based fission device dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945.
In our country right now, there is a debate ongoing as to the definition of marriage. It is incumbent upon all rational beings in a society to contribute to such discussions in the interest of truth, social order, and the continuation of the very fabric of society. The Catholic Church provides a beautiful definition for marriage: "[...] a covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring [...]" (CIC 1055).
There are five clear elements to this definition: 1) it is a covenant - agreed upon by man and ratified by God, 2) it is between a man and a woman - it can neither be alone nor with same sex partners nor with multiple partners, 3) it is for the whole life - it is a bond of love meant to last from consummation until death and all points in between, 4) it is for the good of both spouses - it must upbuild both partners and cannot be a relationship of slavery or abuse, 5) it is meant to produce and raise children - it must not be intentionally sterile.
When any of these four elements is absent or denied, marriage itself is being abused. I'll ask you to forgive the stereotypes, but a man who beats his wife, a wife who has her eyes on moreso on the potential alimony than on growing old with her spouse, a man and wife that take no interest in one another, a spouse who insists on bringing other persons into the marital bed, a young couple who consistently put their own interests ahead of having children or raising their children well, all of these are shadow "marriages" and cry out for deliverance. But even more to the point, they are denying themselves the inherent goods of marriage which cannot be present when it is reduced beyond its simple form. Repeat: By willfully denying an essential characteristic, they are depriving themselves of the identity and goods of marriage.
If some outside entity were to recognize such a flawed relationship exists and deny the recognition of their bond as marriage, what harm has been done to them? What these men and women are seeking through marriage are certain personal, civil, and spiritual benefits. The spiritual benefits that may have been sought are not available regardless. The civil benefits are intended as support for properly formed unions and the children they raise up. If those other "marriages" are denied the civil benefits when they are violating the conditions for application of those benefits, namely contributing to the well-being of society by a healthy marriage, then they are not being wronged, but rather prevented from wronging society by drawing unjust compensation from the rest of the citizenry. The personal benefits such as recognition, personal satisfaction, deeper sense of intimacy are simply not the concern of everyone else. I truly desire that everyone have those goods, but societies must be concerned with common goods (truth, justice, peace) not private goods. Securing private goods are strictly a private matter, not governmental.
Marriage is an immense treasure. The Lord Jesus saw fit to raise it to the dignity of a sacrament. Man and woman find in marriage the motivation to draw closer to their divinely intended perfection and the sublime calling to bring about that perfection in the other. Such a creation must be treasured and defended. Hear the calling in your own lives, and remind others of it. Some or those "marriages" can still become true celebrations of Matrimony.
Please look for the second installment of this article, which deals with many arguments regarding marriage and how they hold up to scrutiny. As always, if you like it, hate it, or want to talk about it, comment below.
