CNA Staff, Nov 17, 2025 / 06:00 amSlightly over 10 years after it redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 declined to revisit that controversial decision, upholding at least for now its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that made “gay marriage” the law of the land.
A decade after that ruling, nearly a million same-sex couples in the U.S. are participating in what the law now defines as marriage. Yet the Catholic Church has continued to affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively a union between a man and a woman.
That has been the prevailing definition of marriage around the world for at least about 5,000 years of human history, though many societies have allowed polygamy, or multiple spouses, in various forms. The same-sex variant of marriage, meanwhile, only became accepted in recent decades.
The Church has held since its beginning that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church directs that marriage occurs when “a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life.” It is “by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”
Church Fathers and theologians from the earliest days of Catholicism have consistently upheld that marriage is meant to be a lifelong, permanent union between one man and one woman, with St. Augustine explicitly naming “offspring” as one of the blessings of marriage, along with “fidelity” and “the sacramental bond.”
Gay marriage a ‘misnomer’ by Church teaching
John Grabowski, a professor of moral theology at The Catholic University of America, told CNA that marriage in the Catholic Church’s teaching is based on “unity, indissolubility, and [is ordered] toward life,” or the begetting of children.
“Those criteria can only be met in a union between a man and a woman,” he said. “They cannot be met in a union between two men and two women. ‘Gay marriage’ is thus a misnomer in the Church’s understanding.”
The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, Grabowski argued, was an act of “judicial fiat” rather than a recognition of what marriage actually is. He said the high court was functioning more as a “cultural barometer” reflecting an erroneous shift in perception on what marriage is.
“It would be similar to if the court passed a rule saying we could call a square a circle,” he said. “It’s just not based on the reality of the natural world.”
The Obergefell ruling came after years of LGBT activist efforts to redefine marriage both within individual states and at the federal level. Advocates had argued that there was no meaningful reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and that to do so constituted discrimination.
Many critics have claimed that the Church’s broader teaching on marriage actually left the door open for same-sex couples to marry — for instance, they argued, by allowing opposite-sex couples to marry even if one or both of the spouses are infertile, the Church implicitly divorces biological childbearing from marriage itself.
Grabowski acknowledged that the Church does allow infertile couples to get married (and to stay married if infertility occurs at a later date). But he pointed out that the Church does in fact prohibit marriage for those who are impotent, or constitutionally incapable of intercourse.
The key point for the Church, he said, is what St. John Paul II called the “spousal meaning of the body.” The late pope argued that men and women “exist in the relationship of the reciprocal gift of self,” ordered to the communion of “one flesh” of which the Bible speaks in Genesis.
The Church’s teaching, Grabowski said, “is based on the natural law. It tells us that the way God designed us is for the good of our flourishing, both as individuals and as the good of society.”
Though marriage advocates have continued to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision over the past decade, others have at times suggested a pivot away from directly challenging it at the legal level.
In 2017, for instance, Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Bishop Robert Barron affirmed his opposition to gay marriage but questioned “the prudence and wisdom” of attempting to legislatively outlaw it at that time. The bishop suggested instead that “personal witness and education” were better tools for the current political climate.
Grabowski acknowledged that one “could say, realistically, the ship has sailed and the political question is dead.”
“But that’s a political judgment,” he said. Catholics should not lose sight of the goal to reestablish correct laws on marriage, he argued.
“In terms of something to hope for, pray for, and to the degree that we’re able to, work for it — that’s something Catholics should aspire to.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“…the ship has sailed.” The same was said of the Titanic when it left Southampton harbor, England, on April 10, 1912.
Use common sense and review the anatomy of males and females. That will tell you all you need to know about the natural order.
In a normal world, Fr. Martin and his supporters would be in mental institutions because of their delusions. Parenthetically, Homosexuality as a category of mental illness was removed from the Diagnostic Manual by a psychiatrist who is a practicing homosexual.
Do you really think incarceration of homosexuals would be the “normal” thing to do?
steveb: If you’re addressing me, I can only assume that you’re a poor reader. I said that Fr. Martin who thinks that men can marry another man is delusional and in another saner world, he’d be receiving treatment for his delusions. Please note:I DID NOT SAY THAT HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE INCARCERATED.
Either you’re willingfully ignorant or are malicious and can’t help yourself.
Take it easy. No need to be crass. He was simply asking you if homosexual behavior should be treated as a crime
How was Diogenes’ comment ‘crass’? Steveb incorrectly concluded, that Diogenes’ assertion of historical fact was Diogenes’ personal indictment of homosexuality as criminal. Labeling Diogenes’ comment as crass is as crass as crass is.
Do you know the difference between institutionalization and incarceration?
I am a normal Catholic lady, 86 years young. I was just picturing how messy and impractical it is for two men to make love or two women to attempt intercourse. IT IS MINDBOGGLING.
Does this need an explanation? Why not just cite the Gospel and the ancient Christian Fathers:
Romans 1:26-27
New International Version
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
SAINT EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
SAINT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
“All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians” (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190]).
SAINT BASI THE GREAT
“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).
SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
“[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment” (Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]).
“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases” (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).
“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men” (ibid.).
SAINT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
TERTULLIAN
“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).
SAINT JUSTIN MARTYR (the first recognized philosopher of the Christian era)
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. . . . And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).
________________________________________
THE DIDACHE
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).
These statements by the ancient Church Fathers can be found in the Catholic Answers site
Does the church actually prohibit gay marriage? Not technically,but practically? If you say “Yes, of course,” then what do you do with the recent Gio Benitez situation? An actively gay news anchor, sponsored by his gay partner, was recently confirmed in a NYC parish. He was blessed by none other than the vile homosexualist James Martin, SCH.
When Bishop Strickland confronted the bishops regarding this travesty in a recent meeting, he was met with silence. Not even one other bishop supported his concerns and his call to address the situation. When the church hierarchy denies essential teaching, particularly about God’s design for marriage and sexuality, you don’t really have a church anymore. It’s a sad state of affairs.
I recently saw a glowing article about explosive Church growth, especially in MY area, but I am forced to wonder about the newbies.
Thirty years ago, I certainly was not instructed to observe anything that Oscar quotes above, and I have trouble believing that any “family life” teachings are covered in any kind of depth these days.
I am under the impression that the hierarchy is mostly just concerned with members who pay into the collection plate.
Not MY area, but the NY area
Athanasius: From the lack of response of the bishops to Bishop Strickland’s expressed concern one may safely conclude that our bishops do NOT believe ALL that the Catholic Church teaches and believes.
So of course, no one–most especially the bishops–ought to be surprised that many, many people are no longer showing up.
Young folks are joining, but will they stay? Is this simply the latest and greatest fad. I have heard the new convert retention rates are not that great, but I don’t know the exact statistics. I am not sure anyone really knows (I did a Google search, but didn’t come up with much). Will families encourage vocations? I read a frightful article in Crisis recently, and the situation in the seminary may not be as rosy as some recent reports suggest.
Yes, sad to say. That’s not only tragic, it is also deeply dangerous for the flock. It’s like appointing wolves to come guard the flock.
The Bishops fail to understand that while they have significant formal authority and final in their diocese (unless they happened to cross the recently deceased Pope), the scandals, the bankruptcies, the failure to exercise that authority properly and the myopic fixation of immigration, using deceptive language such as “migrant” and “undocumented” and the death penalty inhibits their ability to exercise any influence over individuals.
But hey, it’s so much easier to fixate on phantom menaces such as “mass deportation” that to address thinks like, the loss of fervor, the neglect of Baptism, the indissolubility of marriage, the immorality and danger of contraception and transgenderism, the loss of respect for the Real Presence, the necessity of confession, the lack of vocations, the closure of churches.
Right now, the average person sees their Bishop as the source of an annual appeal and the guy that assigns priests, not much else.
.catholicworldreport.com/2012/05/09/pres-obama-invokes-the-golden-rule-in-support-of-same-sex-marriage/
The marital act is Life-affirming, and Life -sustaining and can only be consummated by a man and woman who have both the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife. In all our relationships, including Marriage, we are Called to Holiness. “Lawrence v. Texas found that state laws that criminalized consensual sexual conduct between adults were unconstitutional, striking down sodomy laws”, but on whose authority can anyone claim , given the fact that the desire to engage in a demeaning sexual act of any nature, does not change the nature of the demeaning act, and no demeaning sexual act can possibly respect the inherent Dignity of the human person, that those of us that desire to respect the inherent Dignity of all our beloved sons and daughters, brothers, and sisters must now declare that such demeaning sexual acts are “good”, and serve for human flourishing and then be forced to act accordingly?
If it is true that it is “nice “ to respect the inherent Dignity of the human person, how can it also be true that we must respect the desire of any person to engage in demeaning sexual acts that deny that same inherent Dignity, and in this case, Lawrence v. Texas,( this being demonstrative, singular, and proximate) regardless of the actors or the actors desires, simply because the engaging in of these demeaning sexual acts is consensual? Furthermore, under whose authority, can those who desire to respect the inherent Dignity of the human person by not condoning demeaning sexual acts, of any nature, be then accused of unjust discrimination and penalized?
Pray for respect for the inherent Dignity of all our beloved sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, for every human person has the inherent Right to be treated with Dignity and respect in all their relationships, including their private ones, and no State or Government has the authority to deny or force someone to relinquish their inherent unalienable Right to be treated with Dignity and respect, even if they so desire, while erroneously and unjustly claiming that it is a failure to affirm the inherent Dignity of the human person if we do not desire to affirm the engaging in of demeaning sexual acts, that cannot possibly serve out of respect for the inherent Dignity of all persons.
Regarding The Golden Rule and The New Commandment Of Jesus The Christ- “Love one another as I have Loved you.
At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, “4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved. “
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Yet the Catholic Church has continued to affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively a union between a man and a woman.”
So, was Jacob REALLY married to Rachel, or was Leah his only wife? If the latter, why does the Bible consistently call BOTH Leah AND Rachel his wives?
It’s quite clear from the stories in the Bible that polygamous marriages are a terrible idea that leads to disaster, yet it never drops a hint that they are anything but real marriages. This puts them into a different class than “gay marriages”, which were never presented as a real thing.
OF COURSE the Church has the authority to forbid polygamous marriages, just as She has the authority to permit the eating of pork or to forbid the eating of meat on Fridays. The state also has the authority to forbid and an interest in forbidding polygamous marriages, just as it can rightly forbid smoking in a fireworks store.
If a Catholic woman marries a Protestant man in a Protestant church without dispensation, the marriage is invalid. If a woman attempts to marry a warehouse (https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/photos-seattle-woman-weds-doomed-building-2827447.php), that, too, is an invalid marriage. There is a significant, qualitative difference in just HOW they are invalid, though; and so it is with polygamy and “gay marriage”.
I don’t know what point you are making.
Rachel and Leah and Jacob predate the Catholic Church. The Hebrew people did practice polygamy. The Church prohibits polygamy. The Church prohibits gay marriage. Neither give glory to Jesus Christ, but some people still participate in polygamy and some in gay marriage.
Thanks for clarifying.
Wrong headline.
“The Catholic Church Does Not Recognize Counterfeits”
FIFY
I agree.
An important distinction needs to be made between civil marriage and religious marriage. Civil marriage, as recognized and regulated by both the U.S. national and local governments, is available to people regardless of their religious beliefs. On the other hand, churches are free to regulate religious marriages according to internal ecclesiastical rules.
To my point: the article notes that Professor Grabowski “pointed out that the Church does in fact prohibit marriage for those who are impotent, or constitutionally incapable of intercourse.” And the Church has the first amendment right (in the U.S.) to do so. But people with such medical issues are also free to go to a town hall and have a civil ceremony performed by a governmental official. And if such an “impotent” couple desires a church wedding, they are free to do so within a faith community–Episcopal, perhaps, or Unitarian Universalist–that would support them.
I support every religious denomination’s right to regulate religious marriages within their denominational walls. But the Catholic Church should not be trying to impose its theology on civil marriage. For example, I have no problem with the Church prohibiting church weddings for divorced Catholics, but those divorced Catholics should enjoy the freedom to go to a town hall and get their civil marriage. Catholics should think about same-sex couples in the same light.
Michael Mazza: If I were you, I go and study some Philosophy, as well as Catholic Theology. The prohibition against two men attempting to marry is NOT derived from the Theological Teaching of the Catholic Church. It is derived from an understanding of the Natural Law about which you are profoundly ignorant.