A Deceptively Simple Question on Homosexuality
This post is to ask a question I have been thinking about for a while, but after reading the commentary on Brett’s recent post on homosexuality, I thought my question might provide further grounds for discussion. I suspect it was answered, at least obliquely, in the commboxes, but I think there is some value in making it explicit. The genesis of this is a discussion I was part of some years ago. In it, one of my colleagues defended homosexual behavior by saying that it was natural, just like being left-handed. I recall reading it in various places shortly thereafter. This comparison still pops up from time to time, though a Google search on “gay” and “left-handed” instead brought up articles debating a genetic link between being left-handed and homosexuality.
Though I didn’t said it out loud in the original discussion, at the time and since then I have wondered if a more apt comparison might be between homosexuality and alcoholism. It is “natural” to be an alcoholic, but society does not approve of people acting on these impulses. So my question is this: are either of these analogies legitimate ones? Do they provide useful grounds for understanding homosexuality and explaining Catholic teaching on this subject? I have not been able to answer this question to my own satisfaction, whence this post. But the following are some of my preliminary thoughts on the matter.
All three—lefthandedness, alcoholism, and homosexuality—are “natural” in some sense of the word. The science on all three is mixed, but there is evidence that all three depend on a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors: there does not appear to be a single “cause” and none of them can be reduced to a simple choice or preference. (Of the three, lefthandedness seems to have the strongest genetic component, but the case is not conclusive.) All three are also a combination of inclination and action: we distinguish between a “same sex orientation” or “same sex attraction” and “homosexual acts”; a person can be an alcoholic yet not drink alcohol (sometimes referred to as being a “recovering alcoholic”). And, while a person might be “naturally” left-handed, he or she may act in a right-handed fashion: a choice caused by the righthandedness of many ordinary objects or a behavior forced upon him or her when young. For example, my sister is left-handed in that when she was a child her natural tendency was to do things with her left hand dominant. But the teachers in her grade school forced her to write with her right hand. Superficially she is now righthanded, though she claims her clumsiness is a direct consequence of this enforced change. Finally, all three are surrounded by a number of cultural constructs which have varied depending on time and place. With homosexuality and alcoholism we have seen pronounced shifts in the 20th century: alcoholism passed from a moral failing to a disease (perhaps mental illness is a better term), homosexuality on the other hand was once considered a mental disorder, but no longer. Currently, lefthandedness is considered neutral, but has had both positive and negative associations (cf. the word “sinister”).
The argument that being gay is “like” being lefthanded trades upon the morally neutral status of the latter. If it is “okay” to be lefthanded, even though most people are righthanded, and to reasonably expect certain societal concessions to acknowledge this fact (such as lefthanded desks and scissors for lefthanded students), then one should treat homosexuality in the same way. This argument also draws upon the fact that for lefthandedness there is little or no distinction made between inclination or tendency and action: to “be” lefthanded is to “act” lefthanded. In the same way, it is implicit in this argument that no meaningful distinction exists between being gay and engaging in homosexual acts.
I like the comparison with alcoholism because it makes clear—and so calls into question—the assumptions and elisions in the analogy with lefthandedness. The fact that alcoholism is also regarded as “natural” shows that there are other facets of humanity that in and of themselves are not “evil” but (can) have negative moral consequences. This suggests that being “natural” is not, in and of itself sufficient grounds for making moral judgments. Or, at the very least, we need a more nuanced definition of “natural.” Alcoholism is also a widely accepted example of the distinction between inclination/orientation and acts that Catholic teaching makes about homosexuality. Though I do not know much about the organization, I have always had the sense that Courage was organized in a fashion similar to Alcoholics Anonymous. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
On the other hand, the comparison with alcoholism is also not perfect. First, of course, is the fact that the categorization of alcoholism as a disease is not uncontested: for an interesting range of views from a conservative Catholic perspective, see this discussion at Catholic Answers from 2004. Second, there are strong utilitarian reasons for condemning alcohol abuse—it can kill you, and in the process destroy everything and everyone you care about. Similar arguments do not exist for homosexual behavior or are much more subtle: metaphysical rather than physical consequences. Third, to pursue this analogy further, we would need to deal with the question of whether alcoholism is “intrinsically disordered,” a concept I have never seen applied to anything except homosexuality. In some discussions I have seen something described as intrinsically disordered, but only in a discussion of homosexuality, never independently. I would be interested in seeing such an example. Finally, while alcoholism relates to a very specific act (albeit one with a large social penumbra), homosexuality cannot be reduced to specific sexual acts: the whole psycho-social construct of attractions, feelings and relationships must be considered.
Is this a good analogy? How far can it be carried? Though there are still stigmas attached to alcoholism, it is generally acceptable for a person to say “I am a recovering alcoholic” and to demur on an offered drink or even to refuse to attend social functions where alcohol is served. Should we in a similar vein expect people to identify themselves by saying “I am a recovering homosexual”? In doing so would we both be acknowledging their identity but at the same time supporting their decision to live chastely? Could such a designation coexist with the homophobia still rampant in large sectors of society and the Church?
Comments are closed.
The author announces his idea about “alcoholism” as if it were some special little conceptual widget he had rattling around his mind, and decided to let everyone else in on. This idea, instead, in reality is the standard, shopworn explanation always used by reactionaries. I have no interest in rehearsing the vast weaknesses of this comparison yet again. A Google search will produce thousands if not millions of other discussions on the matter. But I do wish to point out that it is precisely the sort of thinking that was negated now decades ago when the DSM was changed. Further, that it is now a standard trope of groups identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “Hate Groups”. I will stipulate, though, that I am not familiar with the author or his intentions.
Well, in point of fact, I hit upon this idea independently: if it has a wider dissemination, then I was not aware of it.
It is called cultural osmosis. And it speaks to the culture attendant.
The problem with both analogies is that they fail to deal with the faculty of intimate interpersonal love. (If one insists that homosexuals merely lust, and do not love, well, then I have not much more to say, because that’s just a dead-ended belief.) And here the lack in English of alternative verbs for love is a good thing, because the all-encompassing nature of the word shows the connections between love of God, love of family, love of friends and love of neighbor and stranger, and how those kinds of love are implicated in each other. You assert to someone that their faculty for intimacy is disordered, and, if you are a person with influence over them, you put at risk their ability to love God, and you will bear some responsibility in that regard (so, it would be good, if you wish to be taken credibly, to behave as if you really are taking that responsibility on, rather than behaving like the only thing that is important is discharging your duty to tell the truth, which, in the end, is an egoistic exercise with much less virtue than appears at first glance). Another approach is to observe the fruitfulness of their capacity for intimacy (a more inductive approach, less deductive).
All analogies, are by their nature, self-limiting: very rarely does one concept map completely onto another. I heard the lefthanded analogy and the alcoholism analogy was my initial response to the perceived weakenesses in it. Your point about love is well-taken, something I touch on only obliquely.
And I think that’s part of the deeper problem: people constantly focus on gay folk conceptually and do not engage the full flow of what goes on the level of real individuals. It’s the reason what the bishops have to say on the subject is losing traction. And I believe the bishops don’t see that problem; it’s easier to be courageous in an egoistic deliverance of truth than it is to do the work necessary to get through that problem in a more credible way. It’s cheap courage.
Personally in my experience there is a link between alcoholism and homosexuality, but not physical, not genetic. Anyone can be both or either. Both are choices. Both of these behaviors are refusals to obey the design of the body, refusals to apply the brakes, refusals to subordinate desire to right use.
Why do you think either is a choice? The repeated testimony of recovering alcoholics, both in writing and personally from the few I have had as friends, is that they do not choose to abuse alcohol as they do. A compulsion is no less real because it cannot be seen by others.
I am not inclined to dispute her when she speaks from her experience of being lesbian and alcoholic, but I would say other people offer different perspectives….
The demagoguery I see in Catholic Blogistan regarding gays – and homosexuality in general – is really disturbing to me.
Part of this is because I live in the Bay Area and thus rub shoulders on a regular basis with gays – co-workers, friends, my next door neighbor, et al., and part of it is a result of…I’m not sure how to put this…a felt sense that the image of gay folks being projected by their critics does not match the people I know and love who are gay.
Though I am not myself gay, I’ve been to the Castro district in San Francisco many times over the years, and there is a very inspiring sense of being in a sanctuary, a refuge…a place where gay people can be who they are (more on that in a bit) without fear of being either physically or emotionally brutalized. There are people there who risked being visited my horrific, perhaps lethal, violence if they came out in their home towns; this is part of the context of being gay in America, and that should inform our approach to this issue.
But more than that; The Castro is, in short, a place where, I think, Christ would have felt at home, and would have scandalized the Neo-Victorian Moralizers with his tenderness and acceptance of the members of the community.
My sense from being around gays is very different than the way they are typically portrayed by the more politically right-ish side of the Catholic blogosphere – that they just want to “indulge in their favorite sin,” in the same way that alcoholics drink and gluttons gorge themselves.
The gays I know, knew from a very young – pre-sexual, typically – age, that they “are” gay. It was not a “temptation” in the same way that, say, considering stealing money from mom’s purse is. It was a recognition that this is in some way part of the essence of Who They Are. Built-in. “Natural”, to echo your more loaded word.
I suspect that the Church may, at some future time, come slowly to recognize this, and perhaps even in some way come to honor it. But even if not, I think setting up gays as a pernicious “Other” and then indulging in self-righteous condemnation ought to be condemned as Pharisaical.
Matt,
I share your concern about demagoguery in the Catholic blogosphere—indeed, I would call much of it out as homophobic. Given the response to my post, this may be taken as the pot calling the kettle black, but bear with me. I also lived in the Bay area for four years for grad school, and being an academic a fair number of my colleagues are more or less openly gay. I have also known a few alcoholics, both in recovery and still heading towards bottom (in one case a very deep bottom—he drank himself to death). So in some small way I have peeked behind the veil, as it were, of the stereotypes, though I claim no deep knowledge. This puts me off of the stereotypes, whether crude or supercilious. But I still want to reconcile what I see with what the Church teaches, or at least construct an “internal map” that covers all the bases in a way that is intellectually satisfying.
I didn’t spend much time in the Castro—as a poor grad student I rarely left Berkeley or Oakland where I lived. But I must confess that I came away with a very different impression of it than yours. I mostly found it sad, since I saw it as celebrating, in mirror reflection, many of the same things I don’t like about modern culture’s obsessions with (hetero)sexuality: the sensuality, the materialism. I don’t claim my view should be or is definitive—that’s just what I came away with.
One point I want to be clear on, in playing with this analogy, is that I do not think that alcoholics are “indulging their favorite sin”: things are much more complicated than that. I was attracted to this analogy because my understanding of alcoholism shows how complex and subtle it is, including both inclinations and actions, and all of them influenced by “intrinsic” factors. (Is this a less problematic word for you than natural?)
I saw it as celebrating, in mirror reflection, many of the same things I don’t like about modern culture’s obsessions with (hetero)sexuality: the sensuality, the materialism.
Don’t get me wrong – I see those things there, too – and also a sort of Cult of Youth (which, as you say, reflects the wider culture…)
It is more concentrated in the Castro because it is a sort of gay ghetto; straight people have the whole rest of the city to sin in: gays (historically, anyway) have had only the Castro, which makes it more concentrated and thus visible.
The reason alcoholism is a bad comparison is because it really can’t be separated from the pejorative connotation. In so much as the analogy seeks to highlight that attraction is influenced by some innate genetic factors, homosexuality no more like alcoholism and heterosexuality is.
LGBT people are oriented to the same things straight people are: love, connection, affection, etc. To compare those things to the destructive products of alcoholism is really just another way of saying that those things are impossible in relationships between people of the same-sex.
I think that’s really the only question that matters here. Arguments over the right analogy are just fill-ins. If gay relationships aren’t the same as straight ones and are ultimately destructive, then perhaps the alcoholism analogy fits. But this also explains why people who disagree with those sentiments react so strongly against even the discussion of it.
typo *homosexuality is no more like alcoholism than heterosexuality is.
I think it is a well-meaning question, so I will try to be nice. :-)
The first thing that strikes me is that alcoholism is a very bad—and hurtful—analogy for homosexuality because alcoholism is substance abuse or is classified as an addiction or disorder. The analogy breaks down almost immediately when it is observed that “normal,” healthy people drink alcohol, sometimes in fairly large quantities without being alcoholics. There is nothing wrong with alcohol or the consumption of alcohol in and of itself. In fact, I as a teetotaler (I just never developed a taste for alcoholic beverages) I am sometimes concerned that I am missing out on the health benefits of alcohol consumption. My doctor has even suggested I might try an occasional glass of wine. If “sexual addiction” exists, then one might consider compulsive sexual behavior (either heterosexual or homosexual) as being somewhat analogous to alcoholism. But the Catholic condemnation of homosexuality is based not on homosexual behavior being engaged in compulsively. Indeed, that might even be taken as reducing culpability. The Church has no problem with social drinking, not to excess. However, social homosexual behavior, not to excess, would be classified by the Church as “grave depravity.”
The idea of a “recovering homosexual” might fit well within the Catholic view of homosexuality, but if one does not accept the Catholic viewpoint, it seems to me that the concept is homophobic. Based on psychological and psychiatric viewpoints, homosexuality is not a disorder to be recovered from. Diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorders generally include feelings of severe distress on the part of the person with the disorder and impaired functioning. See the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Abuse an Alcohol Dependence. You can’t make analogous diagnostic criteria for “homosexual disorder” without introducing all kinds of irrelevant moral judgments.
You seem to be asking what kind of disorder homosexuality is instead of asking the logical question that precedes that, which is whether homosexuality is a disorder at all. Granted, if you accept the Catholic belief that God created males and females as complementary creatures whose natural destiny is to pair for life primarily for the purpose of procreation, then you are going to consider homosexuality “disordered.” It is disordered basically by definition.
The abundant examples of homosexual pair bonding and homosexual behavior in nature, it seems to me, are too easily dismissed. Of course no one would argue that human beings may morally do anything that animals do. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it seems clear to me that homosexual behavior is “natural” and—what is more important—adaptive in many species. It is not something that works against the flourishing of various animal species. This is sometimes dismissed (ridiculously, it seems to me) by the assertion that all of nature was somehow damaged by the fall of Adam and Eve. However, evolution and natural selection preexist “the Fall” by literally billions of years, and there is no reason at all to think that animal behavior changed at the dawn of human history.
“I think it is a well-meaning question, so I will try to be nice. :-)”
Thank you David. I really meant what I said: this is an idea that has been bouncing around in my head for quite a while, and this seemed like a good time to bring it out and get some constructive feedback on it. Am I wedded to it? No. But as my post tries to make clear, I found at least some merit to it, but also felt that I was missing something. Your response and others are very helpful in this regard.
DN writes:
“You seem to be asking what kind of disorder homosexuality is instead of asking the logical question that precedes that, which is whether homosexuality is a disorder at all. Granted, if you accept the Catholic belief that God created males and females as complementary creatures whose natural destiny is to pair for life primarily for the purpose of procreation, then you are going to consider homosexuality “disordered.” It is disordered basically by definition.”
Well, my intention was not to classify homosexuality as a disorder, but to compare it to something which is so classified, but with a somewhat different intent. Hence, I see why you are drawing this conclusion—it may be intrinsic to this analogy, and perhaps a major flaw. But, though I did not make it clear in this post, my starting point, as I indicated in my response to Matt above, was three separate things which I could not quite get to jibe: Church teaching on homosexuality, right-wing Catholic rants about homosexuality, and my own personal encounters with various gay people. So yes, in some sense I was starting from the Church’s position that homosexual behavior is sinful, while trying to find a way to respond to an overly facile comparison to lefthandedness.
In reading your response, I would caution you on one thing however, which is your reliance on the current diagnostic criteria as objective categories. Let me hasten to say that I do not militate throwing then out wholesale. But as Foucault (I believe) pointed out, these categories are social constructs, and as such influenced by a variety of non-objective factors.
There is much to be gained by treating alcoholism as an addictive disorder and not simply as a moral failing. But the very fact that you cannot recover from alcoholism (i.e., a completed action, in the past) but are “in recovery” and using a variety of moral tools to stay sober suggests that it is not simply a medical condition. The intent of my analogy (however flawed) was to think about homosexuality with these distinctions in mind, not to simply classify it as a “disorder.”
But the very fact that you cannot recover from alcoholism . . .
Alcoholism, it seems to me, is a social construct, and the “fact” that you cannot recover from alcoholism is not really a medical fact. It is propaganda (and probably very beneficial propaganda—I’m not knocking it) meant to warn people who have had problems with alcoholic before to always remain on their guard. The DSM-IV has no diagnosis of alcoholism and distinguishes between alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. It seems to me a useful distinction. There are people who, because they enjoy it, drink too much, or drink when they shouldn’t, who are not dependent on alcohol, and should they be stranded on a desert island where no alcohol was available, they would not have a problem. On the other hand, there are people who are addicted to alcohol who, if suddenly stranded on the same desert island, will experience such severe withdrawal effects that they may die.
It may be helpful to think of an addiction as a disease, but once a person has overcome an addiction, if he or she is put in circumstances where the the addictive substance is totally unavailable, how can the person be considered to have a lifelong disease?
What is a psychiatric disorder, and what behavior the Church considers “disordered,” are not matters of fact (or so it seems to me). There would be no such “thing” as a psychiatric disorder if the field of psychiatry didn’t exist. Things that were formerly classified as psychiatric disorders (such as homosexuality) are no longer, and some people accuse psychiatry of adding too many things as disorders that are normal problems of everyday life. The DSM-IV, it seems to me, is extremely useful, but it is not really a collection of medical facts.
In some sense, classifying any particular condition as a disease or disorder is not a matter of discovering some kind of scientific truth about it. It’s going to depend on your world view, and who can be said to have an objective world view?
Oh, this takes the cake, Foucault being used to argue against objective analyses that show homosexuality is not disordered. Why am I not surprised that those questioning the normality of homosexuality are drawn to the work of a gay S&M enthusiast?!
The analogy between alcoholism and homosexuality does not work for me. The reason is that when speaking about alcoholism we are speaking of a form of compulsive gluttony that is ultimately destructive of the mind, body, and soul of the alcoholic. It is a behavior that the alcoholic himself comes to loathe, but which he cannot control.
When speaking of homosexuality, we are speaking of an orientation toward love. It is not intrinsically self-destructive. All of the things we might list which are destructive in homosexual behavior are also potentially present in heterosexual behavior. Homosexuals are self-loathing only because their orientation brings down all kinds of scorn upon their heads from the heterosexual population. If they were routinely accepted as “normal, but different,” they would not, like the alcoholic, come to loathe themselves.
Only by applying the “God hates fags” mentality to the question of homosexuality can we make a case for it being instrinsically bad–as alcoholism surely is.
As a gay man one of the things I find funniest, grimly funny that is, is that such conversation are conducted in the “Now , Jeeves, let try to get to the bottom of this matter” attitude. It assumes already that this is a decent way to handle the matter. I can tell you I do not see it that way at all. No more than I would see someone saying, “At what point is it OK to let my daughter marry a n—–r.” as such. That such conversations still go on, this late in the game, is proof to me that the spirit is only variably present in people who think he is always present.
And anyone who questions my reasoning here can be quickly confounded by the simple societal logic, which even they obey without question. I am willing to bet quite a lot that 100% of the people who entertain just gibberish in faux tones of considered reflection, would be willing make the clear distinction when reality really hits. Take this case. You are on a plane, and they announce, “Ladies and Gentlemen, we would like to tell you that your pilot today is a decorated former member of the Air Force and that he is a very obvious homosexual.” I bet the plane could be filled with half of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and not one them would get up and leave. Maybe the other half is filled with a group from the National Organization for Marriage getting back from a group vacation in Mykonos. Not one would get up and leave, and be inconvenienced. The would spend the flight talking about how homosexuality lacks the “moral heroism” described by John Paul in his Theology of the Body. BUT, consider a different case. They make an announcement that says, “Ladies and gents, your pilot today is a devout Catholic and father of five, and quite the alcoholic. He tries to stay on the wagon, but we can’t vouch for him 100%.” Empty plane in no time, assuming no other recourse. Does one really need to resort to colorful analogies to make such a simple point about societal decency and coherence?
The only thing I don’t like about Vox Nova is the screening policy. When I wrote and posted my previous comment, there was only one comment showing. By the time my comment had been approved it showed up down at the bottom of nine or ten other posts, which combined made all of the points I made in my comment. Had I been able to see those when I read the article, I would either not have bothered to comment, or would have made different points.
Is the possibility of troll attack really that threatening to you folks?
[Moderation is generally done by the author of the post and I try to get to comments as quickly as possible! Please feel free to make additional points as they come to you.]
That the biological purpose of sex is reproduction and normally requires a male and female is pretty solid ground for the position of the Church. Everything else builds on that.
“God hates fags” mentality isn’t necessary at all.
Brian,
I always remind people when they make such facile comments that many religionists objected to a variety of different vocal techniques on the same grounds. Coloratura was the work of the devil, not natural. Once again, does one need these colorful examples to make such simple points???
Nevertheless, nature is the foundation of all morality.
Nevertheless, nature is the foundation of all morality.
No, as I have argued elsewhere, in Catholic thought, nature is damaged because of “the Fall,” and it is not nature that is considered in formulating morality, but an idea of what nature would have been that is used to determine what is natural and unnatural in Catholic sexual morality.
I reference David Nickol’s point to make my riposte exactly. I doubt he would agree with my view, but at least he has more realistically described the Catholic (medieval-Realist philosophy) view. When someone finds a really good definition of nature will they inform the Benobos please??
I think there is a perfect analogy in almost every sense of the word – consider obesity. The similarities are striking:
1. People are unsure of whether the origin is genetic, environmental, personal choice, or a combination thereof.
2. The self-image of the people in question is generally affected in the same way: They desire affection as we all do, but consider themselves unworthy or unable to be loved because of their condition.
3. People afflicted with the condition are often persecuted or marginalized by much of mainstream society.
4. The condition is often associated with a high-risk lifestyle.
..and so on.
I do not have time at this moment to tie this back to the original question. I will do so later. Until then, I thought I would share this to provide food for thought.
Wow.
Um, re #2, uh, no, you have it double inverted. They are told that their love is not worth giving and being received, and are commanded to dis-able it.
And, re #4, yet again we focus on a limited selection. For example, consider lesbians, who consistently get ignored. Again….
Liam, your sarcasm is unwarranted and insulting. Your lack of charity and clear bias completely blinds you to any kind of objective thought on the matter. Try a little harder to see what I was trying to say. Maybe there’s some truth in there that warrants discussion.
I would have thought that an analogy to compulsive viewing of pornography/masturbation would be closer to the mark. May be a link between gay and straight compulsions.
Overeating, overdrinking, and oversexing (and any sex not tempered by the realities of reproduction is over-and-ungreen-sex) are all choices. It is true that we are human, and tempted, and fall. It is not true that we don’t have control over these behaviors. And we could go on and list hundreds more. Is abusing your children genetic? There are those who argue it and statistics that support it. Stealing? Smoking? Cursing? For every single non-rational behavior (how that is defined is another good discussion) it is possible to generate a plausible victim-scenario, with accompanying rights. It’s not helpful, it’s not loving to the individual or respectful of the species. Most of all, it makes robots of us. We so much more complex and capable. When motivated, we can achieve more rational lifestyles.
But our liberal society, with its shifting boundaries, can’t motivate us. It’s too busy excusing us.
Of course, the best and most obvious analogy by which to understand homosexuality is heterosexuality.
Depends where you look.
Perhaps, David, one benefit of your alcoholism analogy is to show that the “I was born that way” argument for engaging in homosexual acts is insufficient. If genetics predisposes someone to alcoholism, it is undeniably a bad thing to indulge it. Therefore, merely having a genetic predisposition toward certain actions does not in itself justify acting out that predisposition. Note this does not say anything regarding the disordered nature of homosexual acts, only that basing an acceptance of those acts on genetic predisposition is inadequate, because – as the alcoholism analogy shows – doing so is not always best for us.
DCU writes, “In some discussions I have seen something described as intrinsically disordered, but only in a discussion of homosexuality, never independently.”
The Catechism says, “A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.” 1753
It also says, “‘Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” 2352
DCU writes, “Second, there are strong utilitarian reasons for condemning alcohol abuse—it can kill you, and in the process destroy everything and everyone you care about. Similar arguments do not exist for homosexual behavior or are much more subtle: metaphysical rather than physical consequences.”
On the contrary, I have heard the argument several times, that the homosexual lifestyle is hazardous to your physical health. Especially the male homosexual lifestyle.
Thanks: I think that this proves that I should reread the Catechism. It has been a while.
However, both of the examples you cite fall short of the point. They are describing certain acts as “disordered”; to the best of my knowledge, only homosexuality as a state of being is described as intrinsically disordered. Pushing my analogy: should we consider alcoholism itself (as opposed to the act of abusing alcohol) intrinsically disordered?
With regards to your second point: I am not sure that there is a single “male homosexual lifestyle” which reduces the effectiveness of your response. There are actions which may be hazardous to your health, but these apply to heterosexuals as well.
DCU writes, “… to the best of my knowledge, only homosexuality as a state of being is described as intrinsically disordered.”
Not in the Catechism. The acts are what it describes as disordered:
‘Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”‘
However it does follow by simple logic, that a preference for disordered acts is a disordered preference.
Peter Paul, you said it all–and quite brilliantly! I don’t need to comment here.
So-called “natural law” is a human construct, originally based in medieval attempts to understand how the world works. It is an archaic concept, useful now for “crowd control” — i.e. for politics.
There are two kinds of law: statute law and the Laws of God. The Laws of God include the laws governing both biology and physics, since God is necessarily the Creator and Designer of those laws. Thus, if people are born with a homosexual orientation–as it is now undisputably certain that they are–then such is God’s Will. If “natural law” would contradict this, then this is just one more proof that “natural law” is a fraud and a tool of the power brokers.
So, since cancer obeys the laws of physics, it is necessarily God’s will and is therefore good?
Natural law is not a human construct, on the accounts of the medieval philosophers (who did not make up the concept but received it as part of the philosophical tradition — the notion is found clearly in Aristotle, implicitly in Plato, and developed into a materialist system by the Stoics). According to the Latin medieval tradition, natural law is the participation of the eternal law in created things. Human positive law is nothing other than a particular determination of what is implicit in the natural law for the good of the community.
It certainly has not been established that people are born with a homosexual orientation. You will have to cite the study.
Has it been established that people are born with a heterosexual orientation? What is the cause of a heterosexual orientation? If homosexuality is a choice, does that mean heterosexuality is a choice?
It seems to me that if it were known why heterosexual people are heterosexual, it would not be difficult to explain why other people are not. Has a heterosexual gene been identified?
“should we consider alcoholism itself (as opposed to the act of abusing alcohol) intrinsically disordered?”
I think the application of the term “intrinsically disordered” to homosexual acts refers to the fact that human sexuality is “ordered” to be between one man and woman. So, any sexual act that is not ordered in that way is by definition disordered (including masturbation, as noted above). “Intrinsic” refers to its being impossible to justify or rationalize through some sort of context, because the act, in its very essence, contradicts the natural ordering of human sexuality. The term is less condemnatory (as many seem to take it) than it is theological/philosophical.
the fact that human sexuality is “ordered” to be between one man and woman. So, any sexual act that is not ordered in that way is by definition disordered (including masturbation, as noted above).
That strikes me as a purely religious, mostly Catholic proposition, not an observation about human sexuality, particularly if “one man and woman” implies lifelong monogamy. It is a statement about what some people believe sexuality ought to have been, not what it is. Only appeals to something like “the Fall” could justify calling “disordered” something as harmless and widespread in both humans and animals as masturbation.
Catholic sexual morality tends to be about “technical violations,” not about human welfare and harm done to oneself and others. For people like Aquinas, masturbation was more “disordered” than rape, since if sex is for procreation, rape is less of a “technical violation” of the purpose of sex than masturbation. Contraception is also a “technical violation,” since people who use NFP and people who use artificial contraception can do so with exactly the same intent.
Forgot to connect the alcoholism point, sorry. I think the only way in which alcoholism could be called intrinsically disordered would be if it is given that the normal order of alcohol consumption is in moderation, and therefore immoderate intake is disordered. But that’s kind of trivial compared to human sexuality, it seems to me. And you could certainly extend that application of intrinsically disordered to almost any sin. I don’t think it stretches that far.
“So, since cancer obeys the laws of physics, it is necessarily God’s will and is therefore good?”
Since nothing exists that is not sustained in that existence by God, I have to conclude that it is. However, the means used to cure cancer also obey the laws of biology and physics, and the intellectual power used to discover and employ those means are providential; so God does not leave us helpless in that regard.
An inclination to drink alcohol is not as such disordered; the disorder is from the fact that the one so inclined does not subject his desire to the rule of reason, and by repeatedly getting drunk develops a habit of drinking too much. An acquired habit of this sort can become an illness because of the fact that habits reside in the powers of the sensitive appetite, which are the activities of organs. Hence the repeated act physically changes the way the brain is structured.
Homosexual inclination, on the other hand, is considered disordered in itself, since it is contrary to the natural inclination not to sexual pleasure (a function of man’s sensitive appetite), but to the natural inclination to reproduction (a function of man’s generative power). By nature, the generative faculty is ordered to reproduction which entails that its act be directed to a member of the opposite sex. The fact that the generative faculty in animals is closely connected to the sensitive appetites makes the analysis of “sexual orientation” much more complex; it is natural in the sense that it is directed to sensible pleasure, but unnatural in that the inclination to seek pleasure in the wrong object overrides the natural drive of the reproductive faculty.
Boy, I could use a drink right now.
Kurt,
Wine is the most healthful and hygienic of drinks.”
— Louis Pasteur
The trouble I see with the alcoholism vs homosexuality comparison is based on the benefits obtained by abstention. When the alcoholic refrains from drinking, family life, employment, social life, personal health, etc. all improve. The benefits are clear and almost immediate. When the gay or lesbian refrains from homosexual relationships there is no comparably appreciable benefits. Instead there is loneliness. It’s a real failure of Catholic pastoral practice that it has insisted on celibacy and done little to ameliorate the resulting alienation and enforced emotional solitude. Is it any wonder that the Catholic position has been so poorly received by the gay community?
David L. writes, “When the alcoholic refrains from drinking, family life, employment, social life, personal health, etc. all improve. The benefits are clear and almost immediate. When the gay or lesbian refrains from homosexual relationships there is no comparably appreciable benefits. Instead there is loneliness.”
I am personally familiar with one case of someone with a homosexual inclination making a decision to stop acting on that inclination, who happens to be my stepbrother. His decision did not result in loneliness. On the contrary, he is happier now than he ever was before. So I don’t accept your summary assertion that there are no appreciable benefits from the decision to refrain from acting on the homosexual impulse.
While I wouldn’t offer these as analogies, it seems to me that if homophobia could be eliminated from the Church but the basic doctrine that sex is licit only in marriage and gay people cannot married were retained, it would make sense for the Church to treat those with a homosexual orientation much like it treats civilly divorced Catholics, and those in same-sex relationships much like it treats the civilly divorced and remarried. Civilly divorced Catholics (with living spouses) may not enter into any sexual relationships, although it is their inclination to want to. Civilly divorced and remarried Catholics are in an illicit relationship.
Read John Paul II’s Address to the Pontifical Council for the Family regarding divorced Catholics and see how markedly different the recommendations are for the divorced than for gay people.
Aside from the revulsion many people feel regarding gay people, I think one of the reasons the Church treats gay people as more of a threat than other “sinners” is that there is a belief that if homosexuality is not suppressed, there will be an ever-growing number of gay people. There is no reason whatsoever to think that is true, but it seems to me the more divorce is tolerated, the more likely people are to get divorced (unless we have reached some kind of plateau).
Think of Archbishop Chaput’s booting the children of a lesbian couple out of Catholic school as you read this paragraph from John Paul II’s address:
I think the Church will someday change its teachings on same-sex unions, but if it does not, treating gay people much the same as divorced people would be a dramatic improvement.
Regarding the above, if it has to be a feature of the site to italicize blockquotes, elements in the blockquote marked for italics should be rendered in roman type.
” It’s a real failure of Catholic pastoral practice that it has insisted on celibacy and done little to ameliorate the resulting alienation and enforced emotional solitude.”
Celibacy is not the answer, anyway. Jesus made it quite clear that it’s not what you do, but what you WANT to do, that defines who you are. (Matthew 5:28)
David Nickol writes: “Read John Paul II’s Address to the Pontifical Council for the Family regarding divorced Catholics and see how markedly different the recommendations are for the divorced than for gay people.”
OK, I’ve read it. I have also read Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church issued on October 1, 1986 (abbreviated “CDF”)
Of course, both these documents were issued under JP2.
Let’s compare (I will abbreviate John Paul II’s address as “JP2″, and the CDF document as “CDF”):
Regarding imparting the Church’s teaching faithfully:
JP2: [P]astoral help presupposes that the Church’s doctrine be recognized as it is clearly expressed in the Catechism: “The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom” (n. 1640).
CDF: The Bishops have the particularly grave responsibility to see to it that their assistants in the ministry, above all the priests, are rightly informed and personally disposed to bring the teaching of the Church in its integrity to everyone.
Regarding its being a disorder:
JP2: Of course, a new union after divorce is a moral disorder….
CDF: Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Regarding abstaining from the sacraments:
… the divorced and remarried cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion since “their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist” (n. 84). … It is also true with regard to Penance, whose twofold yet single meaning of conversion and reconciliation is contradicted by the state of life of divorced and remarried couples who remain such.
CDF: There is no parallel statement that persons with homosexual inclinations may not receive communion or the sacrament of penance.
Regarding guidance and support to be offered:
JP2: Pastors, especially parish priests, must with an open heart guide and support these men and women, making them understand that even when they have broken the marriage bond, they must not despair of the grace of God, who watches over their way.
CDF: The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person’s God-given dignity and worth.
On how the spiritual life is to be practiced by those in these circumstances:
JP2: We must not cease “to hope against all hope” (Rom 4:18) that even those who are living in a situation that does not conform to the Lord’s will may obtain salvation from God, if they are able to persevere in prayer, penance and true love.
CDF: An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.
On the need for conversion and repentance:
JP2: It is necessary to introduce them to listening to the word of God and to prayer, to involve them in the charitable works of the Christian community for the poor and needy, and to awaken the spirit of repentance by acts of penance that prepare their hearts to accept God’s grace.
CDF: As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God’s personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord’s grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.
—
I don’t claim that the Church treats people in both circumstances exactly the same. But then hey are not exactly the same situation. Nevertheless, I see no essential difference in terms of the Church’s expressions of the need to make clear that both are disordered, the need to be charitable, and the need for conversion and repentance of sinful ways of living.
Agellius,
The huge difference, and I can document this if you like from CDF documents and USCCB documents, is that while the divorced and divorced/remarried are to be welcomed (at least temporarily) as they are. The person with a homosexual orientation is supposed to keep it a secret, and the gay couple is not welcome at all, anywhere, if they openly acknowledge their relationship. As I have argued before, gay people (as opposed to celibate, “homosexual persons”) are not granted a right to exist by the Catholic Church and especially in the Catholic Church.
To the best of my knowledge, anti-discrimination based on marital status was accepted without a peep by the Church. The Church, I don’t think, would find discrimination against the divorced and remarried defensible in hiring or housing, but it would consider discrimination against a gay couple in a civil union or a same-sex marriage to be “just discrimination.”
Living as a same-sex couple, or getting legally married where same-sex marriage is legal, is “objectively disordered external conduct,” and clearly can be used, according to the CDF, to discriminate.
Can one imagine that the “couple in an irregular situation” in the following paragraph would be a legally married same-sex couple in a Catholic parish?
David writes, “The huge difference, and I can document this if you like from CDF documents and USCCB documents, is that while the divorced and divorced/remarried are to be welcomed (at least temporarily) as they are.”
Yes, I would like you to document that someone with a homosexual inclination is not welcomed “as he is”, and that couples are “not welcome at all, anywhere.” What exactly constitutes being “welcome”? The two documents I cited in my last comment express that persons with homosexual inclinations have full access to the sacraments, whereas D&R couples not only can’t receive Communion, they can’t even go to Confession!
How much more discouragement can the Church give? She has no more coercive power than to deny people the sacraments. I repeat: Objectively speaking, denial of the sacraments is the harshest “punishment” the Church can possibly mete out. Nothing puts your soul in more peril than being deprived of the grace of the sacraments.
Granted, while meting out that “punishment”, the Church doesn’t want D&R couples to be so discouraged that they leave the Church entirely, thus losing all hope of repentance and reconciliation. Is her attitude any different towards homosexuals in this respect? Absolutely not! You’ve cited nothing that shows otherwise.
Agellius,
It was my suggestion that the Church ought to treat (1) chaste, celibate “homosexual persons” the way it treats sacramentally married, civilly divorced persons who do not civilly remarry and (2) same-sex couples the way it treats sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried persons. In the first category, the Church permits no sexual relationships whatsoever, and in the second, it sees the existing sexual relationship as illicit.
Instead, the Church (USCCB) strongly advises “homosexual persons” in the first category to keep their sexual orientation a secret. It also considers it “just discrimination” to exclude them from certain positions on the basis of orientation alone.
In the second category, I don’t believe Catholic employers (e.g., Catholic Charities) have ever refused to grant divorced and remarried heterosexuals (who, in the eyes of the Church, are not married and living in an illicit relationship) insurance coverage for their spouses. It seemed clear to me int he address of John Paul II that I cited that he expected divorced and remarried persons to be brought openly into parish life, although of course not condoning their relationship. John Paul II spoke about special care for the children of divorced and remarried parents, yet last year one of the most vocal and powerful archbishops in the country expelled the children of a lesbian couple from Catholic school. The CDF, in a passage that I have previously quoted, says that same-sex couples are engaging in objectively disordered conduct and may be discriminated against for that conduct when it comes to housing and employment. If the Church says that divorced and remarried couples, because they are engaged in illicit conduct, may lose their jobs or be evicted from their apartments, I am unaware of it.
My point is that there is a special stigma attached to illicit homosexual behavior that is not attached to equivalent heterosexual behavior. From the point of view of the Church, the restrictions on a heterosexual divorced person and a homosexual person are exactly the same. Neither may seek or engage in sexual behavior, yet the homosexual person is seen as a threat. From the viewpoint of the Church, a divorced and civilly remarried couple (or a heterosexual cohabiting couple) and a same-sex couple are both in illicit relationships. The divorced and remarried couple is supposed to be brought into parish life. Is the same true of same-sex couples?
One argument that I frequently get when I say the above is that divorced and remarried couples can “regularize” their relationship, but same-sex couples can’t. I don’t accept that. First, even with the extraordinarily low bar set for annulments, not everyone can obtain one. And all that anyone in an irregular sexual relationship has to do to regularize it is to stop having sex.
It is my personal feeling that the Church should (and some day will) find a way to accept same-sex relationships under some circumstances. But I am setting that aside and saying that if the Catholic Church does not change its teaching that sex is licit only within a heterosexual marriage, it can nevertheless dispense with the special stigma it attaches to homosexuality by treating all those for whom no sexual behavior is allowed the same, and by treating all consenting adults in illicit sexual relationships the same. One might even argue that the Church should be more alarmed by illicit heterosexual relationships than by illicit homosexual ones, since there are many, many more illicit heterosexual relationships than homosexual ones, and heterosexual relationships are far more likely to result in the birth of children. Instead, when 40% of children are born out of wedlock (70% among African Americans), there is no-fault divorce, half of all marriages end in divorce, Catholics are granted annulments at an extraordinarily high rate, 28% of women who have two or more children have had them with two or more men, cohabitation before marriage is the rule rather than the exception, 90% or more of Catholic couples of childbearing age use artificial contraception, and there are 1.3 million abortions a year (how many same-sex couples have unwanted pregnancies?), and yet it is homosexual not heterosexual relationships that seem to most alarm the Church, and somehow heterosexual marriage is in peril because of a push to legalize same-sex marriage. What is wrong with this picture?
David Nickol writes, “It seems to me that if it were known why heterosexual people are heterosexual, it would not be difficult to explain why other people are not. Has a heterosexual gene been identified?”
In light of the way our bodies are designed, there is no reason to ask why people prefer heterosexual sex. Just as there’s no reason to ask why they prefer to breathe oxygen: That’s what their lungs are designed to breathe. Yes, some people prefer to breathe other things, such as smoke. But that’s no reason to ask why everyone else breathes oxygen.
There’s no mystery in people doing things that their bodies are designed to do. What needs explanation is why people do things their bodies are *not* designed to do.
In light of the way our bodies are designed, there is no reason to ask why people prefer heterosexual sex.
Agellius,
I disagree. And I don’t think it is completely accurate to say our bodies were “designed for heterosexual sex.” One might argue that the human body is extraordinarily well designed for masturbation, for example. People who enjoy oral or anal sex might say the human body was designed for oral and anal sex, both of which are engaged in by many animal species. Of course it’s true that human reproduction is “natural” and clearly the human body is, to some extent, “designed” for heterosexual sex. But it strikes me as foolish to say it is designed exclusively for heterosexual sex, or even among heterosexuals, for “the marital act.”
I am not going to go into any detail at all, but it is a fact that the female genitalia have a “design flaw” which makes “the marital act,” alone, less successfully satisfying for women than for men.
And of course we don’t “prefer” to breathe oxygen. We must breathe oxygen, and it is not difficult to explain why in detail, going back millions of years. Even if a homosexual orientation is considered an aberration, it would be necessary to explain the “normal” path to a heterosexual orientation to explain what goes wrong in those who do not develop one.
You are making what I call the “tab A goes into slot B” argument for the naturalness of heterosexuality, and while I wouldn’t deny that heterosexuality is natural, there are other combinations of tabs and slots that, although they don’t result in procreation, are clearly not human inventions, since they occur in other species, and not just mammals.
As I said earlier, the Catholic idea of what is natural is based not on nature itself, but on the idea of some idealized, prelapsarian “nature” which no longer exists. Consequently, animals can commit “unnatural acts,” even instinctually, and they can be written off as consequences of the Fall and a corrupted nature. So there is no way to demonstrate that something is natural by appealing to nature, because in Catholic thought, nature is not what it should be.
David writes, ‘I disagree. And I don’t think it is completely accurate to say our bodies were “designed for heterosexual sex.” One might argue that the human body is extraordinarily well designed for masturbation, for example.’
What is patently obvious is that our sexual organs were designed for reproduction. Since we can only reproduce with persons of the opposite sex, it’s natural that we should find persons of the opposite sex sexually attractive. That the vast majority of persons are so attracted, requires no further explanation.
Reading down a thread like this reinforces the idea that Vox Nova these days is made up of a pretty thoughtful and faithful stable of writers, yet has somehow managed to gather a readership which disagrees with Church teaching on all “the usual” points. Which is too bad, as it makes much real conversation on the issues impossible.
Good point.
Come on Darwin – these are all pretty good comments-
you might not like what you read here but they are thoughtful and honest comments.
And yes not surprisingly society clearly increasingly sees the wisdom of a position
represented here by those you call mentioning the ‘usual points’.
If this would be all about musing about the infinite wisdom of official church positions
why bother with any of this really?
I just had a very nice conversation with one of my neighbors who with his partner just a couple of weeks ago adopted an infant. As far as this heterosexual is concerned these two gay men deserve our full support. Frankly plenty in our church see it exactly that way and fully support gay marriage and adoption.
Darwin, we are called to Evangelize and I find that dialogue is always good when evangelizing. What is the use of an echo chamber?
Hear, hear!
Darwin, we are called to Evangelize and I find that dialogue is always good when evangelizing. What is the use of an echo chamber?
I’m not hugely fond of echo chambers either — but if disagreement is too basic conversation becomes nearly impossible because there’s not enough commonality to have discussion.
I mean, really, how much of the conversation in this thread has consisted of the authors providing evangelization, and how much has consisted of frequent commenters doing a pile-on on David for writing his post in the first place? I realize that counting comments isn’t always a good way of gauging what’s going on, but the only contributor other than David that I notice having commented on the threat prior to my comment was Matt saying he was uncomfortable with the topic matter. David has made a couple of attempts to explain why he thought this was a reasonable way of looking at the question, but mostly the thread has been regular commenters talking to each other, with the majority of the opinion that David’s exploration of the topic is ridiculous.
I’m not out to fault anyone — it takes a huge amount of energy to persistently answer objections to Catholic teaching, particularly because explaining usually takes a lot more words than objecting. (This is, for instance, why I got tired of defending the compatibility of Catholicism and evolution after a few years and mostly stopped posting on the topic — explaining evolution to creationists takes a lot of time and they tend to be a very persistent group of people.) But given that very dynamic, it’s hard to discuss moral “hot button” issues from a Catholic point of view if there are too many dissenting voices around intent on shouting down. The questions flood out the explanations and it just becomes an objection fest.
Darwin,
David implied many questions and asked five explicitly:
• Is this a good analogy?
• How far can it be carried?
• Should we in a similar vein expect people to identify themselves by saying “I am a recovering homosexual”?
• In doing so would we both be acknowledging their identity but at the same time supporting their decision to live chastely?
• Could such a designation coexist with the homophobia still rampant in large sectors of society and the Church?
It seems to me that I and many others directly engaged those questions. Even my messages suggesting that the Church treat gay people like divorced people are very relevant to the last three questions, since the Church has made it clear that people with a homosexual orientation ought not to identify themselves.
From the CDF:
From the USCCB:
@grega: I hope we meet in heaven. We might laugh about whether we find musing about infinite wisdom so unattractive.
After looking over all the comments and thinking about the topic, I just wanted to echo Mark’s point above, which I found most compelling: Although the alcoholism analogy fails in many ways, I think it’s most useful in refuting the “I was born that way” argument, by showing that “merely having a genetic predisposition toward certain actions does not in itself justify acting out that predisposition. “
Thales,
If that’s all that has come out of this thread, then it is a waste of typing on virtually everyone’s part. Who would not have conceded that at the outset? Anyone who would make an argument that any behavior is good if one was born with a genetic predisposition to it would have to maintain that manic-depressives or schizophrenics should receive psychiatric treatment because they were “born that way.”
If you can find an actual, serious argument from anyone arguing on behalf of gay people that merely because they were “born that way,” they have a right to homosexual behavior, I would be very interested to see it. Anyone who seems to be making that argument would no doubt be making a brief statement that relied on a lot of unstated assumptions.
Thales:
Alcoholic drinking is a clearly destructive behavior propelled by personal factors or maybe predisposition. Anyone who knows alcoholism well understands how obviously destructive the behavior is.
In the case of homosexuality, “I was born that way” (or, for that matter “my circumstances rendered me inclined this way”) does not trying to justify acting out a destructive predisposition. Rather, it says “God made me this way through birth or circumstance, and my behavior is not in any way destructive to myself or others. I demand equal respect for who I really am.” The argument isn’t about justifying an act because it’s some kind of consolation for being deprived of “normal” relationships: It is about whether the act needs “justifying” at all.
“merely having a genetic predisposition toward certain actions does not in itself justify acting out that predisposition. “
That has been stated, but how has it been “shown?” If this is the way I was made, should this not also be the way that I act? If not, why not?
Whoa, everyone. Why the big reaction now? I’m just repeating what Mark said! :)
David Nickol,
-No, there was no waste of typing. I actually appreciated all of the discussion, because it made me realize that “the alcoholism analogy fails in many ways”, as I said in my comment. How the Church responds to people with homosexual inclinations with love and compassion, while remaining committed to defending its position on sexual morality, is a difficult topic that deserves much thoughtful reflection, and I thought that many of the comments added to the discussion.
-”Who would not have conceded that at the outset?” Maybe we run in different circles. I’ve seen the genetic predisposition/natural argument made many times in support for the morality of homosexual behavior ever relied on that argument. In fact, Rodak makes it now, just above this comment.
Frank K.,
-As I said, the analogy with alcoholism is not perfect: You’re right to say that the destructive behavior of alcoholism is far different from the behavior of homosexuality. (Now I think homosexual behavior is destructive also, but in a different way from alcoholism — I suspect you disagree, and that’s fine — but all this is besides the point.) I think David Cruz-Uribe is right when he says in the post: “Second, there are strong utilitarian reasons for condemning alcohol abuse—it can kill you, and in the process destroy everything and everyone you care about. Similar arguments do not exist for homosexual behavior or are much more subtle: metaphysical rather than physical consequences.”
Rodak,
It is shown by analogy to alcoholism: some have a genetic predisposition to it, but this predisposition does not justify acting it out.
Sorry, I’ve got a typo in the response to David: “I’ve seen the genetic predisposition/natural argument made many times in support for the morality of homosexual behavior.”
“merely having a genetic predisposition toward certain actions does not in itself justify acting out that predisposition. “
“That has been stated, but how has it been “shown?” If this is the way I was made, should this not also be the way that I act? If not, why not?”
It was shown in relation to the posited existence of a gene predisposing one for alcoholism. No one celebrates when someone who is “born THAT way” embraces the lifestyle of an alcoholic. Again, this is not necessarily to say – for the sake of argument – that someone who is “made homosexual” is wrong to act on that predisposition, it is just a point that being “born that way” does not ALWAYS mean that acting out that predisposition is a good thing.
“I wouldn’t deny that heterosexuality is natural, there are other combinations of tabs and slots that, although they don’t result in procreation, are clearly not human inventions, since they occur in other species, and not just mammals.”
Surely we set the bar for human sexual ethics higher than “animals do it, too”.
“the Catholic idea of what is natural is based not on nature itself”
Right, “natural” not in terms of The Nature Channel or what lower life forms do, but in philosophical terms, natural as of the nature of something which has been created.
“but on the idea of some idealized, prelapsarian “nature” which no longer exists.”
When asked why the Mosaic Law permitted divorce, Jesus responded “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”
That would be Jesus Christ referring to the idea of a prelapsarian “nature” to which we are called to strive.
Surely we set the bar for human sexual ethics higher than “animals do it, too”.
Mark,
Please note that I did not make the crude argument you imply I did. In my message of June 4, 2011 2:07 pm I said the following:
“Right, “natural” not in terms of The Nature Channel or what lower life forms do, but in philosophical terms, natural as of the nature of something which has been created.”
Do you think this clarifies anything?? Do you have any sense of how vexed the term “natural” is in the history of philosophy?? Even in the limited realm of Catholic philosophy. You are trading in absurdities by way of simplifications.
“Rodak,
It is shown by analogy to alcoholism: some have a genetic predisposition to it, but this predisposition does not justify acting it out.”
Acting out on a predisposition to alchoholism will physically, mentally and spiritually destroy you. Therefore, you don’t act out on it in self-defense, if for none of the other excellent reasons for you to not act out on it. The negative effects of alcoholism are intrinsic: alcohol is literally poisonous. Alcoholism is also a form of gluttony.
By contrast, if it were not for the societal bias and discrimination against acting out on one’s inclination toward homosexuality, there would be no negative effects involved with it. In fact, it would be only another form of love; a means by which to both express and receive the love of other human beings. There is nothing intrinsically bad about homosexuality; it’s “badness” is posited arbitrarily by persons trapped in the web of a medieval version of natural science which has no basis in reality. Neither physics nor biology have a specific morality woven into the fabric of their laws: “natural law” is merely an archaic and extremely skimpy understanding of the realities of the physical world, poorly integrated with Greek philosophy and biblical moral law.
There is nothing intrinsically bad about homosexuality; it’s “badness” is posited arbitrarily by persons trapped in the web of a medieval version of natural science which has no basis in reality.
Several aspects of its “badness” would include:
- Since same-sex sexuality is naturally sterile, there’s less reason for long term fidelity between partners (no family to tie them together) and this results in a predictable (and in reality observed) increase in promiscuity. Sexual promiscuity is not healthy.
- The physical expression of male same sex attraction which is historically most identified with that “lifestyle” (male on male anal intercourse) is pretty demonstrably not healthy in the long term.
- Same sex relationships do not achieve the basic “purpose” of the human organism as a biological entity, the spreading of genes and perpetuation of the species — although there are those who argue that the trait as adaptive for the species as a whole, it is clearly not beneficial for the individual in the biological sense.
This is one of the reasons why many traditional societies have frowned on people engaging exclusively in same sex relations — though there has in many societies been tolerance of people maintaining same sex relationships on the side or during certain periods of their lives. It’s certainly not the case that “badness” is only assigned to homosexual actions by readers of the bible or post-medieval Christians. Seriously, have you read some of the stuff ancient Romans had to say about men who engaged only in same sex relationships, or who ever took “the woman’s part” in same sex relations?
Neither physics nor biology have a specific morality woven into the fabric of their laws:
If you think this is what “natural law” refers to, it seems to me that you’re not really grasping the concept. The idea of natural law is, at a very basic level, that if we believe God created the world then we can in some sense discern the way that God means us to act from the way things in the natural world are “meant” to work and from the moral instincts that we find within us.
Darwin,
All your points are “common sense,” but are they true, and do they add up to a real argument?
- Since same-sex sexuality is naturally sterile . . .
Homosexual sex is naturally sterile.
Sterile sex yields no children.
Children tend to cement relationships.
Childless relationships lead to promiscuity.
Promiscuity is bad.
Homosexual sex is bad.
That seems like quite a leap to me.
Is there an increase in promiscuity among postmenopausal women?
How promiscuous are lesbians?
I can’t find an actual number, but I have found the statement several places that the divorce rate for childless couples is “slightly higher” than for couples with children.
One might argue that same-sex marriage and having children would be a way to counter the negative aspects of same-sex relationships you
Regarding: male homosexuality = anal intercourse = unhealthy.
You’ve actually got quite a lot of arguing to do there. The Greeks, for example, did not practice anal intercourse. I actually don’t know how common anal intercourse has been historically in male same-sex relationships. And that it is “pretty demonstrably not healthy in the long run” needs to be demonstrated. (I doubt that we want to have that discussion here!) In any case, conclusively proving that anal intercourse was not healthful would prove that anal intercourse was not healthful, not that there is something inherently wrong with male homosexuality. (By the way, I recently read there is an increase in anal sex among heterosexuals.)
. . . .although there are those who argue that the trait as adaptive for the species as a whole, it is clearly not beneficial for the individual in the biological sense.
I am not sure what this means, exactly, but if not reproducing is not beneficial for the individual in the biological sense, then arguments against homosexuality on these grounds are arguments against priestly celibacy, too. One would think that something that benefits the group rather than the individual would be considered a good thing. Altruism is something that benefits the group rather than the individual. We give medals to soldiers for it.
Seriously, have you read some of the stuff ancient Romans had to say about men who engaged only in same sex relationships, or who ever took “the woman’s part” in same sex relations?
Yes, and I have read “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination,” too. And it seems to me that a lot of what is considered repellant about homosexuality is that it is often viewed as men taking the role of—I hate to use this word—women. Could there be anything more disgusting for a man than to act like a woman? I don’t think it is a coincidence that as women have made gains in equality in Western culture, there has been an increased acceptance of homosexuality.
Almost all arguments against homosexuality in forums like this are actually against male homosexuality (usually with a pretty heavy emphasis on anal intercourse). Many of the criticisms of male homosexuality not merely don’t apply to female homosexuality, but are actually less true of female homosexuality than of heterosexuality (for example, the spread of diseases). Also, most of the arguing is done by men (although that is true of basically every topic in forums like this). So we don’t usually get arguments against homosexuality, we get arguments made by men against male homosexuality.
I have seen no informed speculation on this, but I wonder how healthful heterosexual sex would be in the 21st century if antibiotics that cured syphilis and gonorrhea had not been discovered in the 20th century.
Rodak,
Please realize that you are now making an entirely different argument from the argument you initially stated (“If this is the way I was made, should this not also be the way that I act?”) I was speaking to your first argument, the argument from genetic predisposition: that just because someone has a predisposition, this predisposition does not justify acting it out. This argument is faulty for the alcoholism reason.
You are now making a different argument: that if a person has a predisposition *and it is a predisposition which is conducive to the person’s good or at least is indifferent to the person’s good*, he is justified in acting it out. That’s a much better argument — I understand it and it makes sense. I, however, still disagree: I think that acting out one’s homosexual inclinations are *not* conducive to a person’s good.
Have you read any of the recent Catholic scholarship on human sexuality derived from John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? I recommend that you do so. Regardless of whether you find this scholarship persuasive or not, I think you’ll see that the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality is not an arbitrary positing “by persons trapped in the web of a medieval version of natural science which has no basis in reality.”
NOTE: I made a serious coding error in my previous message. Here is the same message coded correctly.
Surely we set the bar for human sexual ethics higher than “animals do it, too”.
Mark,
Please note that I did not make the crude argument you imply I did. In my message of June 4, 2011 2:07 pm I said the following:
That would be Jesus Christ referring to the idea of a prelapsarian “nature” to which we are called to strive.
A very dubious assertion. If the notion of “the Fall” is anywhere to be found in the teachings of Jesus, I would be interested in you pointing out where. I take Jesus to simply be saying that God created marriage to be permanent. “The Fall” has nothing to do with it.
It is a topic for another discussion, but exactly what “the Fall” and Original Sin might mean given what we now know about human origins is very much up in the air. The speculations of Benedict XVI concerning Original Sin are quite startling and have prompted some ultraconservatives to accuse him of heresy.
“By contrast, if it were not for the societal bias and discrimination against acting out on one’s inclination toward homosexuality, there would be no negative effects involved with it.”
Only 30 years ago, the concept of a man “marrying” another man was incomprehensible to the society of which you speak. Now, a number of states have instituted so-called same-sex “marriage”. It would appear that “societal bias and discrimination” has changed dramatically towards acceptance of homosexuality. And yet we see no decline over that time in the “negative effects involved with it”. If your premise were true, would we not see a marked reduction in the documented negative physical and psychological impact of the homosexual lifestyle?
As for “no negative effects”, even today, with increased acceptance, especially among youth, we find:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=13771753
“CDC Study: Gay, Bisexual Teens Do Riskier Things”
Mark,
Did you read this part?
There is a lot more acceptance of homosexuality today than there was thirty years ago, but there is also a lot more awareness and open conflict. In some ways (but only some) it may have been easier to be gay when homosexuality and same-sex marriage were not such hot-button issues. For Catholic teens, it may have been somewhat easier to deal with when the Church said pretty much nothing about homosexuality, because it felt nothing needed to be said, than it is today when there is an open conflict over same-sex marriage and nondiscrimination laws,
In the bad old days, you knew what you had to do—not let your parents or friends find out, and live a secret, double life if you wanted to be sexually active. Nowadays, if you are a gay teenager, there’s a culture war going on about whether you are to be accepted or not, and you can’t turn on the television or radio without hearing about it.
Uh, did you even bother to read the article you cite?:
“Why? CDC officials don’t know for sure: The survey didn’t ask kids why they smoked or attempted suicide or did other things that could be dangerous.
“But gay, lesbian and bisexual students deal with stigma, disapproval and social rejection. ‘Many risk behaviors are related to how people feel about themselves and the environment they’re in,’ noted the study’s lead author, Laura Kann of the CDC’s division of adolescent and school health.”
The “increased acceptance” of which you speak is mainly confined to the “effete intellectual snobs” whose opinion those of your evident cast of mind would sneer at in most contexts. The article you would have me read seems to support my point in explicit terms.
Much of the change that we see is the result of changes in statute law, based on civil rights suits supported by the equal protection clause. There is not that much change in societal attitudes on a personal basis, particularly among older people and social conservatives.
David Nickol writes, “From the viewpoint of the Church, a divorced and civilly remarried couple (or a heterosexual cohabiting couple) and a same-sex couple are both in illicit relationships. The divorced and remarried couple is supposed to be brought into parish life. Is the same true of same-sex couples?”
My response takes a bit of explanation. Please bear with me.
People who divorce and remarry presumably are either not very strong Catholics, or else for whatever reason were ignorant of the grave immorality of what they were doing. When they seek to “return to Christian practice”, presumably this is because for whatever reason their hearts were moved to be closer to God.
When they return, JP2 says, pastors need to “[help] them to clarify their concrete status”, which I take to mean, based on the rest of JP2′s speech, letting them know that their situation is irregular and immoral, and that they can’t receive communion or go to confession until such time as they separate, or can regularize their relationship.
The next step is to get them praying and listening to God’s word. Why? “[T]o awaken the spirit of repentance by acts of penance that prepare their hearts to accept God’s grace”. Prepare the ground for their ultimate *repentance* of their immoral situation in order to “integrate them into Christian practice”.
What is “Christian practice”? Well, the highest act of Christian worship is the Mass. Therefore being fully “integrated into Christian practice” can only mean the state where they are able to receive Communion. Everything JP2 recommends, then, is toward the end of getting the couple to accept God’s grace and repent of their sinful situation, so that they can be in a worthy state to receive Communion.
Now what is the Church’s goal with respect to persons with homosexual inclinations? The CDF document states, “An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care.” Further, “[a]s they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God’s personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord’s grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.”
Which boils down to: Through prayer, pastoral care and the sacraments, let’s try to bring homosexual persons to the point where they’re ready to repent of their sins and receive Communion.
The goal is exactly the same. That being true, it seems your beef is that the Church doesn’t pursue the same goal in exactly the same way in both cases. Why doesn’t it?
I find the answer in one of your criticisms of the CDF and the USCCB: That persons with homosexual inclinations are asked to keep their inclinations to themselves. Whereas D&R persons are allowed to go public with their sinful situations.
Or are they?
Do you suppose that unmarried heterosexual couples who are acting as if they were married, by living together and having sex, would be encouraged by the bishops and the CDF to make their sinful situations public in parish life?
What about the other examples of “intrinsically disordered” sins mentioned by the Catechism: Do you think frequent masturbators would not be asked to keep their activities private, with the possible exception of “certain close friends, family members, a spiritual director, confessor, or members of a Church support group”, rather than go around advertising them?
A D&R couple who are “returning to Christian practice”, will not necessarily be known to all who see them as a D&R couple. So long as they don’t advertise the fact, it would likely only be known to their confessors and personal acquaintances (and possibly support groups, etc.). Whereas two homosexuals presenting themselves to the parish as a “couple” cannot help but advertise their sinful situation to the world.
Since you have taken the “good-for-the-gander” tack: If homosexual couples are to be encouraged to advertise their sinful situation to the parish rather than keep it private, then every parish should be a merry collection of publicly acknowledged masturbators, liars and calumniators, as well as D&R couples. Parishes should be places where everyone publicly and proudly advertises his unrepentant sins.
But what kind of witness is that to the non-Catholic world?
I believe this is the bishops’ point. In fact the CDF makes it explicit, when it says that those who openly display their homosexuality, are those who believe it worthy of public approval; in other words, they are unrepentant. The bishops and the CDF are saying, that you just can’t go around proudly advertising your unrepentant sins in the context of parish activities.
The difference, then, is that a D&R couple can participate in parish activities without *necessarily* advertising their sinful situation. An openly homosexual couple cannot.
I don’t agree that the bishops should be faulted for treating these different situations differently.
That persons with homosexual inclinations are asked to keep their inclinations to themselves. Whereas D&R persons are allowed to go public with their sinful situations.
Agellius,
Persons with a homosexual orientation are not in a sinful situation if they remain celibate. They are in exactly the same situation as persons who are sacramentally married and civilly divorced. A person who is divorced and cannot remarry (and does not intend to remarry) would be wise, in social situations, to let it be known that he or she is “unavailable.”
Let me just say with this, you are getting into ugly territory:
I repeat, celibate gay people are not sinners. And my point is that, in my opinion, same-sex couples are no worse sinners than heterosexuals who cohabit or the divorced and remarried. I am not saying that same-sex couples should be encouraged to shout from the rooftops what they do in bed. But it seems to me that cohabiting couples and divorced and remarried couples are often quite open about their situation. Divorced and remarried couples may very well go to Mass (and not receive the sacraments) because they are nevertheless raising their children Catholic. I don’t think anyone would be scandalized by a situation like that. Such a couple wouldn’t have to attend church at another parish and live in fear of being found out.
Here is what it boils down to. To those in power in the Catholic Church, having a homosexual orientation is a shameful thing. Engaging in homosexual sex is clearly considered much more “depraved” than heterosexuals cohabiting or getting divorced and remarried. Pretty much every Catholic teaching about sexuality puts a special stigma on homosexuality as a “grave depravity” that it does not put on other common sexual behaviors. I would like to understand why it is more acceptable for Catholics to use artificial birth control inside a sacramental marriage than it is for a same-sex couple to have sex. Aren’t the married people (in the eyes of the Church) in some way defiling a sacrament?
Catholic teaching does much to maintain the idea the homosexuals and homosexual behavior is disgusting and “depraved” in ways and to a degree that other sexual sins are not. By opposing anti-discrimination laws, it seems to keep the lives of gay people difficult in ways that other people’s lives are not. Although I disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality, my criticism here is not that the Church teaches that homosexual sex is wrong. It is that the Church teaches it in such a way that it is conveying the idea that the sins of gay people are worse than similar sins of straight people, and that gay people are to be suppressed and feared and must themselves live in fear of being found out, no matter how chaste they are. It is difficult to call this anything other than homophobia.
David Nickol,
One of the reasons I think we are all living through one of the nadirs of culture in world history is the that we seem to have both the worst of prudishness and vice all rolled in one. One the good things about Catholic cultures used to be for centuries that the sexual pecadilloes of the powerful, even if they were weiners, were given a knowing latitude under the aegis of original concupiscence. Now the hyper-moralizing mania gets mixed with a really detached sexual free- for -all, often personally destructive. What a toxic combo! Why in the world is the Catholic Church playing into all these trends with their giant culture war?? I know a lot about Catholic history, but still I cannot fathom it. All the little parsings of these moral matters have a centerpiece status now that they NEVER did in nearly two thousand years of history for this Church. I could debate your ideas closely on sheerly ethical and theological grounds. But I would rather highlight the astounding job the Catholic Church is doing in pissing really everyone off. This just one of the reasons that I say that a lot of right-wing Catholics are crypto-nihilists. For only the bleakness of tacit nihilism would blinker itself to this extent. Look, I understand that this site represents an attempt not to be in that vein, and I can appreciate that. But the horizon is one of surreality, to my mind, from any reasonable historical perspective. One could imagine Dali painting it, in a very sick mood. .
A D&R couple who are “returning to Christian practice”, will not necessarily be known to all who see them as a D&R couple. So long as they don’t advertise the fact, it would likely only be known to their confessors and personal acquaintances (and possibly support groups, etc.). Whereas two homosexuals presenting themselves to the parish as a “couple” cannot help but advertise their sinful situation to the world.
I don’t see this at all. A D&R couple has participated in two (three) public acts — each of their weddings. They got kids with all different names, and the kids have other parents. The breakup of the first marriage may have been the talk of the parish. I don’t see any reason to assume their status is not known.
But having said that, I welcome a focus by the Catholic Church as homosexuality as a pastoral problem and an end to Catholic efforts to have laws to imprision gays or allow economic sanctions such as denial of employment.
David writes, “Persons with a homosexual orientation are not in a sinful situation if they remain celibate. … I repeat, celibate gay people are not sinners. … ”
I know that “Persons with a homosexual orientation are not in a sinful situation if they remain celibate”, and I never said otherwise. In fact I pointed out that D&R couples are *forbidden* the sacraments, whereas persons with homosexual inclinations are *not*. Does this not make it clear that having homosexual inclinations does not automatically place you in a sinful state?
David writes, “Let me just say with this, you are getting into ugly territory: …”
I think it’s ugly of you to imply that I am accusing people of sinning who merely have a certain type of attraction.
David, you are the one who argued that D&R couples and same-sex couples should be treated the *same*. Since D&R couples are denied the sacraments based on their sinful situation, and you argued that same-sex couples should be treated the *same* as D&R couples, then it’s *you* who made the initial assumption that same-sex couples are in a sinful situation in the eyes of the Church. It was therefore reasonable of me to assume that by “same-sex couples”, you meant couples who were acting as though they were married, i.e. living together and having sex. For you to now accuse me of believing that *celibate* homosexuals are in a state of sin, based on anything I’ve said up to now, is baffling.
David writes, “And my point is that, in my opinion, same-sex couples are no worse sinners than heterosexuals who cohabit or the divorced and remarried.”
I understand you believe same-sex couples are no worse than heterosexuals who cohabit or D&R couples. In fact, that was the very point that was implied in my post: That it’s not only same-sex couples who should not go around advertising their sinful state, but also cohabiting heterosexual couples, frequent masturbators, and, yes, D&R couples. I believe that it’s the intent of the cited writings of the CDF and the USCCB to teach that people living in a state of unrepentant sin should not go around advertising it. Whether the sin is heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant.
David writes, “I am not saying that same-sex couples should be encouraged to shout from the rooftops what they do in bed. But it seems to me that cohabiting couples and divorced and remarried couples are often quite open about their situation. Divorced and remarried couples may very well go to Mass (and not receive the sacraments) because they are nevertheless raising their children Catholic. I don’t think anyone would be scandalized by a situation like that. Such a couple wouldn’t have to attend church at another parish and live in fear of being found out.”
You said that homosexual couples should be able to present themselves in a parish as couples. The point of my last post was, that in presenting themselves as a couple, they *are* shouting their sinful situation from the rooftops, because they can’t be a couple (in the same sense that a D&R couple is a couple) except in a sinful way. Now if they present themselves as merely friends or roommates, then no one would have the right to judge them as living sinfully based on that data alone. (And in doing so, they would be complying with the USCCB’s directive to keep their situation private.) But presenting themselves as a *couple* leaves people no other option but to conclude they are living sinfully.
A D&R couple would be in a parallel situation only if they wore t-shirts or got tattoos or something, advertising that they are D&R; or if they went around proudly telling everyone. Otherwise, people who don’t know them don’t need to know that they are living sinfully. It’s not an open and obvious scandal.
Now granted, in some parishes D&R people may be quite open about their situation, and the pastors may encourage them to be so. But this is anecdotal. What the bishops want people to do, and what people actually do, are obviously not the same thing.
David writes, “Here is what it boils down to. To those in power in the Catholic Church, having a homosexual orientation is a shameful thing. Engaging in homosexual sex is clearly considered much more “depraved” than heterosexuals cohabiting or getting divorced and remarried. Pretty much every Catholic teaching about sexuality puts a special stigma on homosexuality as a “grave depravity” that it does not put on other common sexual behaviors. I would like to understand why it is more acceptable for Catholics to use artificial birth control inside a sacramental marriage than it is for a same-sex couple to have sex. Aren’t the married people (in the eyes of the Church) in some way defiling a sacrament?”
Let me be clear that I’m addressing this only because you brought it up: Granted that heterosexual and homosexual sexual sins are both in the mortal category, it’s a simple fact that there is an extra element to homosexual sins. Homosexual sex violates not only the revealed moral law that people not have sex outside marriage, but also the natural law. It’s not merely between two people who are not married, it’s between two people who *can’t* be married. Consider the case of a brother and sister having sex: The Church would be remiss if she were to teach that such a thing is wrong merely because they are not married. The fact that it’s between people who *can’t* be married is what makes it so strange and disturbing to a lot of people.
Now, none of this excuses uncharity towards homosexual persons, and I have never said or implied otherwise. But the Church has to be allowed to speak the truth frankly in order to let people who are tempted by this sin know what they are getting into.
If you are arguing that heterosexuals who use birth control unrepentantly, or cohabit, should be admonished and corrected just as much as people who commit homosexual sins unrepentantly, then believe me, we are in complete agreement. Why bishops and priests often give such people a pass is beyond my understanding — not because I’m vindictive and want to see people criticized, but because for their own good they need to know the seriousness of their actions.
But that being said, I have *never* heard homosexuals criticized or condemned from the pulpit during the last 20 years since my return to the Church as an adult, neither by priests, nor by bishops, nor by popes; nor were my kids in Catholic elementary school ever so much as taught that homosexual sex is sinful, let alone disordered. So I’m really not sure where you believe the actual persecution of homosexuals is taking place in the Church. It appears that the Church merely stating the fact that homosexual sex is disordered causes you a lot of discomfort, and you interpret that as persecution or condemnation, when in the eyes of the Church it is merely stating the facts.
David writes, “Catholic teaching does much to maintain the idea the homosexuals and homosexual behavior is disgusting and “depraved” in ways and to a degree that other sexual sins are not. By opposing anti-discrimination laws, it seems to keep the lives of gay people difficult in ways that other people’s lives are not. … the Church teaches it in such a way that it is conveying the idea that the sins of gay people are worse than similar sins of straight people, and that gay people are to be suppressed and feared and must themselves live in fear of being found out, no matter how chaste they are. It is difficult to call this anything other than homophobia.”
Since these appear to be subjective impressions, I won’t argue but will simply say that I don’t see it that way.