Friday, March 12, 2010

Gay As I Wanna Be ...

Between Boulder and Mississippi (there's an unnatural pairing if ever there was one), the debate over "gay rights" is raging hot and heavy in the national and local press right now, leaving many wondering what all the fuss is about.

The Catholic Church's teachings on homosexuality, scarcely explored and oft-misrepresented, have come under particularly heavy fire in my neck of the woods in light of Archbishop Charles Chaput's affirmation of the archdiocese of Denver's - and the Church's - enrollment policies for Catholic schools.  In a press release given earlier this week, the Archdiocese eloquently and firmly stated that:
To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching.  Our admission policy states clearly, “No person shall be admitted as a student in any Catholic school unless that person and his/her parent(s) subscribe to the school’s philosophy and agree to abide by the educational policies and regulations of the school and Archdiocese.”

Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment. To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home.
 Accusations of hatred, bigotry, intolerance and slander have been sent flying, and GLBT activists in Boulder - and nationwide - have been stirred into a frenzy, but is there cause for such distress?

Let's examine the reasoning behind the decision to refuse re-enrollment to these kids.  According to the above statement, prospective parents are fully aware of the implicit adherence to Catholic teachings upon enrollment of their offspring in a Catholic institution.  I suppose that Jewish, Muslim and heck, even Montessori schools have some kind of "code of conduct" or "system of belief" to which they ascribe, and from which they inform their academic curriculum.  If not, then what would be the point of attending  a specific type of school?

Catholic teaching, however difficult to swallow in a multicultural milieu such as ours, has remained consistent, if nothing else, over the millennium.  Why then all the shock and disbelief over the school enforcing their own clearly stated policy?

Because it's "intolerant."  Of course, that same argument could be turned against the parents in this situation, seeking to enforce and superimpose their beliefs upon the Catholic Church... but I don't suppose that's going to be a popular argument.

Because the Church is one of the last remaining scapegoats of our time.  It is perfectly acceptable - laudable even - to demonstrate the most outrageous anti-Catholic bigotry in the media and in common conversation at cocktail parties.  It's acceptable to advocate for the advancement of anti-Catholic legislation in our government.  And it's becoming increasingly popular to pressure Catholics into abandoning their practices of faith in public... in short, it's the last acceptable form of discrimination.

But isn't that precisely what the Church is attempting to do to gays?

In a word, no.

The Church views the practice of  homosexuality as just one disorder in a long list of conditions which afflict the human person.  (Consequently, until recent decades, so too did the American Psychological Association, but you'll have to score a copy of DSM-II if you don't believe me.)

Let me be quite clear in stating that the Church does not - nor has she ever - condemned the homosexual person.  Partly because she staunchly refuses to identify the person by the disorder from which he suffers.  A person is never just an alcoholic or just a cancer sufferer... the condition does not the man make.

I'm sure blood pressures are spiking at this point because, yes, I just drew the analogy between homosexuality and disease.  But hear me out.  Or rather, hear us out.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 2357:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Hard words, those.  But read on.  Paragraph 2358 concludes:
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.(emphasis mine)
 Respect.  Compassion.  Sensitivity.  Three values that any human person - however he or she might identify sexually - longs to be viewed in light of.

Do I contradict myself, then?  Am I foolishly advocating for an archaic institution which is in regular violation of all three of the aforementioned values?

Again, no.  It is not the Catholic Church who commits the grave sin of giving the suffering person over to their difficulty, to their compulsion... it is our culture.

Study after study has revealed the loneliness, depression, hopelessness, and instability which mark the homosexual lifestyle... but we now advocate for it as a "civil right," insisting that it is intolerance of the behavior - not the behavior itself - which is causing such anguish.  It's funny though, because in the Netherlands, arguably one of the most pro-gay places on the planet, a place where the practice of homosexuality has been widely and unquestioningly embraced, the suicide rate among individuals identifying as gay is 8 times that of men in heterosexual marriages.

I return then to the Denver Archdioceses' statement, focusing now on the closing paragraph: "To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home."

Odd that the Church, the very "cause" of such suffering in persons identifying as homosexual, would base a decision upon the purported well being of the students.  I'd wager many would argue that's not at all the case.  But it is, much as our confused and troubled world would like to deny it.

The Church recognizes the grave disservice done to a child who is being taught one thing at home and another in school... and with that, the autonomy of the parent.  Now, does this mean the Church should cow to the beliefs of the individual and adjust her doctrine accordingly to suit the will of the people?  Again, no.  It doesn't work that way.  I've said it before, but "man does not his own reality construct."  Well, except on reality TV.  But that's really another matter.

What this couple is essentially asking of the Church is a renouncement of belief on the Church's part.  Notice that the Church does not respond in kind, does not demand from the couple that they renounce their beliefs.  It is quite simply a difference of opinions ... on the nature of sin.

Our role as Catholics, as Christians, is to preach the Gospel, not to enforce it.  I know a million people would argue that this is precisely the Church's policy ... but they misunderstand the nature of sin and of the human person.  The Gospel, after all, speaks for itself through Christ and His disciples, through their lived witness, and much of what is contained "is a hard teaching... who can bear it?"

Who indeed?

More to follow...

5 comments:

  1. Sorry Bob, unpublishable comment there...

    Bye the way, I'm sure you can recognize that homosexuality and pedophilia, while not always manifest in the same individual, are nonetheless behavioral fruits of the same tree, sprung from the same "if it feels good, do it" mentality.

    We define our own reality, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I absolutely love your blog. Thank you so much for writing what you do and for writing it so extremely well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love your blog. You are intelligent and do your research, and you are not afraid to tackle important issues. To be practicing moral beings means to get your hands dirty (refer to the book "Sex, Greed, and Dirt") and delve into these issues.

    I too am Catholic, but have lately had a hard time trying to fully see the side that the Church stands on in regards to homosexuality. I want to be persuaded, but I feel there are so many glitches to the argument.

    First off, the natural law argument fails to coherently support the argument that homosexuality is wrong, because, while "we" Catholics would argue that it's not natural because "slot a doesn't fit into slot b" and because "you can't produce offspring naturally any other way".. the opposing view would argue that "the differentiation of genetics has led to people to be attracted to their own sex, and therefore this is natural because it's a natural instinct caused by genetics." Therefore, in most arguments using natural law, the two sides either contradict or discredit the other, nixing it as a reliable source to draw conclusions from.

    My second issue is that I guess I never realized how scripturally based the Church is.. what with the reasoning for only men being allowed to be priests and homosexuality being wrong. The part that gets me on the homosexuality is that most of the scriptural quotes summarize to say that "man shall not lie with man as they would with a woman." In the historical context of reading this quote, one would know that at this time, many men had concubines and slaves, generally women. These women were looked at is sexual property. And because their society was primarily patriarchal, it was demeaning for a man to appear or act as a woman, because of women's low status. Therefore, in these scriptural quotes, the quote lifts up the notion that "men" shouldn't lie with other "men" because it would be beneath them to assume the role of a woman. This says nothing to me about why God doesn't allow this, or anything else. Instead it says to me that this is the way society looked at it during this time, and thus is reflected in the scripture.

    I'm on the fence with the issue of homosexuality, and recognize that it's important to research any ethical issue before forming a moral conclusion. As a practicing Catholic, I'm finding it hard to believe in the Churches reasonings when the arguments seem as narrow minded as they do, and lack the support to clearly define why homosexuals cannot commit themselves to a loving relationship with another person, perhaps with the same intent as a married couple would.

    Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear anonymous,

    Thanks for your insightful comments. You are correct in pointing out the scriptural basis for much of what the Church teaches, though unlike other Christian denominations who claim that "it's true because it's in the Bible" we acknowledge that "it's in the Bible because it's true." That's where the canon of Scripture originated: apostolic discernment and consensus that,"yes, this is God's word, and therefore true... and shall therefore be included in the canon of Scripture."

    Too many Christians - including many Catholics - put the cart before the horse and insist that Biblical reference is the standard of truth ... yes, it is... but what is true was true before it's inclusion in Sacred Scripture, and not only because of it's inclusion - make sense?

    Your questions about homosexuality are quite valid too, in our society which teaches that tolerance is actually acceptance, and which dismisses the idea of absolutes - in the moral realm or elsewhere - as archaic.

    The Church's stance on homosexual behavior (note: the behavior, or the action, being the locus of the sin, and not the desire itself, nor the person suffering the attraction) stems from the reality that we as human persons are created in God's image to love as He loves: totally, faithfully and fruitfully.

    All moral and theological arguments aside, the stark biological reality is this: homosexual "love" can never be fruitful, and so it cannot rightly be called love.

    The Church isn't trying to prevent people who struggle with same sex attraction from finding fulfillment/happiness/companionship ... she (the Church) is simply unable to teach something that is false. She will never recognize the validity of homosexual "marriage" because no such thing exists.

    Marriage is, by nature, the permanent, fruitful union of two persons: a man and a woman, united in sacramental purpose for the begetting and education of God's children and for the mutual sanctification of each other. The Church won't change her stance on this because she can't. She didn't create it - He did.

    We exist to be in communion with one another - to give and receive love so fully, so completely, that in the giving and receiving an entire other person may come into existence... much the way the Holy Spirit, though co eternal with the Father and the Son, is nonetheless an outpouring of the Father's love for the Son, received and returned with such perfection that the love, in essence, becomes an "Other." This Trinitarian exchange of love is mirrored - dimly - in the conjugal act between husband and wife, whose love can also incarnate, or make physical, the reality of their spousal love.

    Kinda heady stuff for a comments section, but it is what we profess to believe as Catholics, and not simply because it is in the Bible or because it is socially acceptable at some juncture in history.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Jenny,
    I appreciate your comment and its validity. In connection with this topic, I therefore also am struggling with the purpose of marriage. I know you recently got married (congrats!) and am engaged myself. I get hung up on the emphasis that is put on procreation in the marriage. Yes, it's important, but hypothetically.. what if a couple didn't want to have children..or at least not right away? (with overpopulation and unprepared parents... the idea of "be fruitful and mulitply" isn't exactly applicable to today's situations) Should they not be married then? Because to avoid children would be to not have sex, idealistically. And to not have sex would be not consummating the marriage. Therefore, this hermeneutical circle seems to tell me that to get married means having children, and if your goal isn't to have children, then you shouldn't get married. So now, marriage = children, and visa versa? What then, is the purpose of getting married if you cannot just love each other as Christ loved us? I feel like this is a statement homosexuals would attest to, because not all relations want to purposefully procreate, especially if the the context for raising their children is not yet primed. These are hypothetical questions, but as someone getting married, they have huge weight. I think too many people don't stop to question the institution to which they are entering before they do, just because it's a societal norm.

    Thanks,
    Annonymous

    ReplyDelete

No trolls allowed.