The following text is the homily for the 6th Sunday of the year by the Rev. Carleton P. Jones, O.P., STD, Pastor of Sts. Philip and James Church in Baltimore, MD. (Recently, Fr. Jones gave this interview, discussing the life and significance of Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman.)

On January 20, the bishops of Maryland issued a press release entitled "Marriage Must Not Be Redefined." This was in response to Bill SB 116 that is currently before the State legislature. Since all the US bishops have designated this "World Marriage Day," our Maryland bishops' call for Catholics to oppose this change in our state law is a good occasion for a homily on marriage.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines marriage as a "covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life," one which "is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of (their) offspring." (CCC 1601) That is how marriage has been understood through all the centuries of Christian culture. Each part of the definition is important.

Bill SB 116 proposes to change one part of this definition, the part which says that marriage is between "a man and a woman." This change has already been made in several States and nations. Some say that it is only a matter of time before it is made in all the formerly Christian countries. And I'm afraid I think that this is bound to happen, for the simple reason that the laws and practices of our society have already undermined every other part of the traditional definition of marriage. So, the proposal to extend marriage to persons of the same sex is just the last stage of a process that has already changed the way that marriage has always hitherto been understood.

Consider the first part of the definition: Marriage is a "covenant," an unconditional, mutual commitment. Most of the formal commitments people make are contracts, which bind the parties only as long as both of them fulfill its terms. If one party goes back on his promise, the other party is released from his, and the contract is dissolved. Not so with a covenant, which our religious tradition refers to the unconditional commitment that our Lord God makes to us, and we to Him. The Bible shows that God is faithful to His covenant, even when His people are unfaithful. Our religion is based on this divinely-initiated covenant: God promises to share his life with us if we commit our lives to Him. Our religion is a marriage between the Lord and us, His people, and this is meant to be reflected-signified-by the marriage bond between two human beings, man and woman.

Now, this means that marriages cannot be dissolved, unless they were in some way defective from the outset. That is called "annulment." But for several generations now, of course, divorce has been accepted, and enshrined in civil law-most recently, so-called "no-fault" divorce. And that, you see, reduces marriage from a covenant to a contract: the vows of marriage, which commit the persons to each other "for as long as we both shall live," now mean "for as long as we both agree." And the harm of this change to the stability of family life, and especially to children, is incalculable.

That takes us to the second part of the definition: Marriage is "by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring"-ordered to both together, inseparably. The "good of the spouses," their mutual love and support, cannot be separated from "the procreation and education of" children-assuming that God gives them offspring. You could almost say that the mutual love and support of spouses is for the sake of bringing children into the world and giving them a home: in traditional terms, children are the blessing of a marriage; they are the "good" of the spouses. Those of us who had the privilege to be raised in good homes know that this was our parents' attitude toward us: we were welcomed into their lives, and if there were any reason to doubt it, this would be a blight upon our lives.

The acceptance of contraception in marriage has put a wedge between "the good" of spouses and "the procreation...of offspring." This means, in effect, that children are to be welcomed in the sense of being deliberately chosen, each child "planned" instead of being just lovingly accepted. That may sound like a positive good for the spouses, because now they have a measure of control over their lives. But is the choice to conceive a child really the same kind of thing as the choice to buy a new car, or to paint the house-because we can "afford" thus to enhance our "quality of life?" How does it affect a child-even unconsciously-to feel that his existence depended on his being welcomed by his parents because they felt they could "afford" thus to enhance their quality of life, as opposed to being welcomed simply as a blessing: God's gift to them through their unconditional gift of themselves to one another.

Contraception makes the spouses' gift of themselves to one another in the marriage act conditional: it says, "I give you all I am and have except for my fertility, my power to conceive a child ." And this has made a huge, if subtle, change to marriage-in at least this sense, that children have become an option, each child in fact a choice the spouses make from their assessment of what's "good" for them. They may of course choose not to have a child, or another child, in which case every child might not have lived but for his parents' choice to have him.

Most people now unhappily do not deplore the use of contraceptives; more people are no doubt offended by the practice of abortion-but to kill a child in the womb is just the most effective means of contraception, and that is why it is legally sanctioned and so widely practiced. The best pro-life message I have ever heard was on a button that a young woman was wearing at the annual March for Life. It read: "I am an abortion survivor." But these days, almost all young folks could wear a button that reads, "I am a contraception survivor."

Contraception separates what nature is designed to unite: the loving union in "one flesh" of spouses (in other words, their "good") with what their loving union naturally brings about, God willing: offspring, children to be welcomed to a home. But if the purpose of marriage is no longer to be thought of as the "good" of a couple being open to becoming more than a couple, that is, a family with a mother and a father, then what is its purpose? Simply to provide for the "good" of two people however they wish to define it; two people in love with each another who want to make a permanent relationship (for as long as they both continue to agree to it). If that is marriage, then there is no reason why two people of the same sex shouldn't have the right to marry.

That is the state of things in our society. The Church does not oppose "gay" marriage because we are opposed to "gay" people, but because we are opposed to the reduction of marriage from a covenant to a contract, and the separation of the "good" of couples from their becoming mothers and fathers of families. At this last stage of the world's abolition of marriage as traditionally understood, we Catholics cannot expect to reverse a social trend that is already so far advanced. But we must continue to bear witness to the truth about marriage-that it will always be what it has always been, a "covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life," that "is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring." We seek more than to defeat this or that provision of the civil law; we seek to witness to a truth that has endured the test of time, to attract people of good will to this truth, and to practice the truth about marriage among ourselves, whatever this poor world thinks or does.