Gay Rights Are Human Rights
Human Rights Day approaches. Human Rights Day is the anniversary of one great accomplishment of the past century. After the Second World War, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a document which would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. The goal, in the view of United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, was to “protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people.” On 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted.
It is a message simple and powerful. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Rights, Clinton notes, are not conferred by government. Irrelevant is the country in which we live, the quality of our leaders, or even the sorts of persons we are. Quite simply, because we “are human we therefore have rights, and because we have rights [our] governments are bound to protect them.”
On 6 December 2011, in a speech to the United Nations Human Rights Council, Clinton noted that while many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality, there is still a great deal of work to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world.
In too many places, Clinton observes, gay and lesbian persons are “arrested, beaten, terrorized, [and] even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens, while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way, or too often even, join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are [in order] to protect themselves from harm.”
Gay and lesbian persons are humans beings born free, and not only are they owed dignity but they have the right to claim such dignity. Treatment of such persons remains one of the great human rights challenges of our time. This is not just an African problem (although homosexual expression is illegal in 37 African countries and is, again, being considered as a capital offense in Uganda). This is not just a problem for persons living in countries heavily Islamic (although homosexual expression is a capital offense in Saudi Arabia & Iran [to give just two examples], and is a criminal offense in the post-Taliban Afghanistan).
Even in North America, it was not until 20 September 2011, that full implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was achieved. This official United States policy related to the service of homosexual persons in the military, and although prohibiting military personnel from discriminating against homosexual service members or applicants, nonetheless Don’t Ask Don’t Tell also prohibited gay and lesbian persons specifically from disclosing that which might have indicated their own sexual orientation. Timothy Broglio, Archbishop for the Military Services USA, had opportunity to identify his solidarity with gay and lesbian service persons, and instead urged Congress not to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Congressman Ron Paul, who voted for the repeal, states: “If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with [and] if there’s heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with.” The issue, as he says, is not the issue of homosexuality, but so long as legislation like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell assumed it was, we had evidence (in my opinion) of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls “unjust discrimination (CCC, 2358).”
Gay rights are human rights. According to Clinton, it is a “violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished.”
It always surprised me, when I worked with students in my Practical training, to hear students say things like “that is so gay” when they wanted to express their disapproval of something (as if no stronger word existed in their vocabulary to convey something so negative). I don’t know why this surprised me. Gay students, in disproportionate numbers, are committing suicide, and many such acts result from the inability of gay students to deal with negative treatment being experienced from peers.
In the 2002 adaptation of Graham Greene’s The Quiet American, Mr. Heng attempts to draw the detached Mr. Fowler from his indifference: “Sooner or later, Mr. Fowler, one has to take sides if one is to remain human.”
I’ve chosen my side.
K.
Kelly Wilson is a Seminarian for the Archdiocese of Winnipeg. Besides Vox Nova, he writes at his blog Musings.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
Thank you for your clear voice on this; some may think otherwise, but I agree with all that you say.
You know, Fran, I don’t anticipate much disagreement. I might be underestimating though…
I hope that you are correct. The other day I was at another blog and some very unkind things were said about Vox Nova in general. Frankly, this is one of the most wide-ranging and thought provoking Catholic blogs out here. In fact perhaps the most.
In any event, every time we do separate out a particular kind of person as less than a person, we have failed to dignify human life.
A very thoughtful post. Thank you.
Those interested in a contrary viewpoint might want to view Governor Perry’s most recent campaign ad:
This is such an abomination. The man has no shame.
Would that Perry lose so embarrassingly that he retires from political life!
I undertand that in the first cut of the campaign commerical above, Governor Perry said: “I am not ashamed to say that I am a Christian. I believe in God the Father, and God the Son, and…ummm… I forgot the third one.”
Jesus responds to Rick Perry:
http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/6coz
Most excellent Kelly. Kurt, I just watched that ad and now I must go to confession.
Kelly,
You are fabulous. If only Thomas Peters would appear and confabulate some nonsense here just for fun! You could teach Michael Sean Winters a thing or two about being Catholic.
It’s sad that Clinton doesn’t extend the desire to “protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people” to the unborn as well. :(
Yes, it is.
I’m with you, Mr. Wilson, but I’m surprised that you are acceptable as a seminarian in the modern Roman Catholic Church. I’m quite sure that in some dioceses in America you wouldn’t be.
Why does a post like this surprise you coming from a person like me? Do you see, in the Church’s leadership, persons uninterested in the experiences of a gay student? Do you feel that the Catholic Church is indifferent to the possibility that homosexual persons could be executed in Uganda? How do you experience the Church’s present relationship with gay and lesbian persons? I am genuinely curious in your answer.
Do you see, in the Church’s leadership, persons uninterested in the experiences of a gay student?
Answer: Yes, in the person of Benedict XVI Ratzinger himself, who, as Archbishop in Germany, perpetuated the cover-up of crimes that, doubtless, affected many young males who eventually turned out to be “same-sex-attracted.”
Do you feel that the Catholic Church is indifferent to the possibility that homosexual persons could be executed in Uganda?
Answer: for public consumption, “concerned”; in terms of positive actions, they couldn’t possibly give a damn.
How do you experience the Church’s present relationship with gay and lesbian persons?
Answer: when a Church whose calendar of saints is PACKED with mystics who OBVIOUSLY expressed their longing for communion with God in homoerotic imagery (Hopkins, Bernard of Clairvaux, John of the Cross, etc.) tells modern youth that, if they are “same-sex-attracted,” they are “intrinsically disordered” and, therefore, ineligible for the sacerdotal role, I think that the Church has BROKEN all “relationships”–or moral commitments–to “gay and lesbian persons.” You don’t have “relationships” that are constructive with people whose affectional lives you dismiss as being somehow inferior to your own–or, at least, I don’t.
Let us leave Kelly’s personal situation as separate from the issues being dealt with here. It is enough that he has even raised them given his personal commitments. There is, in general, in my view absolutely nothing to be gained from being too literal in life, and a great deal, conversely, to be lost.
Amen.
The issue, as he says, is not the issue of homosexuality …
Good post, Kelly. It is so important to make the distinction between approval of homosexual acts and advocating for the human and civil rights of homosexual persons. It may be that homosexual acts are “objectively disordered,” but persons are neither acts nor objects. They are subjects, made in the image and likeness of God, and “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” (CCC #2358). That acceptance obviously includes protecting their human and civil rights, especially their right to be free from violence and unjust discrimination. You’re going to take some heat for this post. In fact, having read one or two of the comments in moderation, I know you already have. Hang in there. You’ve chosen the right side!
Mark, isn’t it interesting though that a large portion of the “homosexual community” (whatever that might be) does define themselves according to their acts; base their identity on their sexuality.
So from what I gather Kelly isn’t necessarily saying he approves of homosexuality, but that he is an advocate for human rights no matter if they are gay or straight?
Should people who practice beastiality, incest, polygamy be treated the same way? Should those people “be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” also? Should they have the same human and civil rights?
Nate, there is a line in Clinton’s speech where she says: “While we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose.” To your question, if “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” then, yes, what a person chooses to *do* cannot diminish the dignity owed to him or her on account of who he or she *is*.
In David’s post on Archbishop Dolan, this quote is attributed to Dolan: “If the preborn baby in the womb, from the earliest moments of his or her conception, is a human person — an ‘is’ that comes not from the catechism but from the biology textbook used by any sophomore in high school — then that baby’s life ought to be cherished and protected. If an immigrant from Mexico is a child of God, then we ought to render him or her honor and a welcome, not a roar of hate, clenched fists and gritted teeth in response to the latest campaign slogan.If even a man on death row has a soul, is a human person, an ‘is’ that cannot be erased even by beastly crimes he may have committed, then we ought not to strap him to a gurney and inject him with poison.”
Human beings — not as gays or lesbians or heterosexual, not as conservative or liberals, not as rich or poor, not as… — are owed dignity on account of their being human beings. If a student thinks it’s going to be okay to bully his gay classmate, and I’m in that classroom, then that student is going to be in for a surprise. If a country thinks it’s going to make homosexuality a capital offense, then I am expecting other leaders to step up and say, “No.”
“If a student thinks it’s going to be okay to bully his gay classmate, and I’m in that classroom, then that student is going to be in for a surprise.”
Bullying of any kind, whether it’s done to a straight kid or gay kid is unacceptable. One shouldn’t be of higher importance than the other.
As a Catholic who I presume believes in God, how do you reach out to these gay individuals and help them change their immoral ways? In the Bible God says that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Having acceptance and compassion is good, but how do you also show your disapproval of their immoral lifestyle and help them get right with God?
Nate, you really need to separate persons from attractions and acts. Just like heterosexuals, homosexual persons experience homosexual attraction as a natural part of their sexual identity and human experience. Sometimes they follow those attractions and engage in acts. Sometimes they don’t. But whether they do or don’t, they are persons who have a right to respect and dignity.
Now, if a person is living a homosexual lifestyle – that is, routinely engaging in homosexual acts – you and I may agree that they are acting sinfully. But is their sin any greater than the unmarried man and woman who live together without marriage? Or the college student who routinely masturbates? Or, to get away from sex, the man who cultivates bigotry in his heart and mind? Or the woman who routinely speaks harshly, abusively to her daughter? Or the old man who won’t forgive his brother? Or the teenager who regularly bullies an unattractive schoolmate? There’s a lot of sin in the world, and the sin of those living homosexual lifestyles is no worse and no better than anyone else.
So, how do you help any sinner “get right with God?” First, in humility you acknowledge that you too are a sinner. Second, you love them. Third, you counsel them privately, not in public, and not by shaming or punishment. Fourth, you pray for them. And last, you leave it to God to judge them, conscious that in his mercy he will take into account all the realities and mitigating circumstances of their lives.
Nate, a few observations. First, this is a Catholic blog, and we try to look at the world through the lens of Church teaching. I have to presume you aren’t a Catholic, or else you wouldn’t so blithely dismiss the teaching of the Church that “homosexual persons are to be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” If you are a Catholic, then you are a dissenter, which is unfortunate.
Second, from one post to another you contradict yourself. In an as-yet unapproved comment you made on the post titled “On Seeking the Standard Bearer for Social Conservatism,” you write of Newt Gingrich, “Shouldn’t we leave the judging of ones sins up to God? I mean, no human on earth is without sin.” Apparently, what’s good for Newt Gingrich is no good for homosexual persons who merely seek to live without violence and unjust discrimination. Shouldn’t YOU leave the judging of their sins up to God? Are you without sin? Should your sin entail the revocation of your human and civil rights?
Last, on your blog you list yourself as a student, so I presume you’re young. Perhaps you don’t know that the role of higher education is to teach you how to think, not what to think (unless, that is, you are enrolled at Glenn Beck University or the Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, Limbaugh Wing). When you try to engage intelligent people in a forum like this, please make an attempt to form a coherent argument rather than trotting out ad hominems or making naked assertions. Better yet, hit the library and start thinking. You can start at 241.00
Yes I picked up that this is a Catholic blog. Just because you disagree with me doesn’t make my comments a fallacy.The difference I think you might be missing is that Newt doesn’t keep getting divorces. From his words hes dealt with his sin. Homosexuals are continuously living a life of sin.
I’m genuinely wondering how one can be a advocate for gay rights and yet live by Gods word and show disapproval of people who are blatantly sinning and living immoral lifestyles like homosexuals are.
Introducing this discussion of gay rights within the context & framework of human rights and participating in this open online discussion is an act of genuine and courageous service to our community.
Way to go, Kelly. I hope that in leading by example as you have done here, more of our Catholic people, including our clergy, our hierarchy as well as seminarians and students of theology & ministry, will be inspired to get into the conversation, enter the dialog and help us all to work though this profoundly human development of personal and collective self-understanding and awareness of human dignity in our global human community. I believe that it is a matter of faith seeking understanding, which is a consummately human activity.
It is quite fascinating that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has opened up the topic for further reflection and deeper understanding on this anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. Surely this is not just a coincidence. It could even be providential.
Let us be clear about the historic & still ongoing tragedy of men and women in our world who are sexually oriented to other persons of the same gender. Their human rights are still being denied every day in almost every part of the world, including right here in the heart of North America.
Dare I mention that it was in the Archdiocese of Winnipeg, where Kelly is a seminarian today, in the year 2007, the Christian Peacemaker Team member, author and activist James Loney was forbidden by Archbishop Weisgerber to address a conference on Social Justice at a Catholic facility, because he was in a relationship with another man?
As Kelly clearly and prophetically states the case: “Treatment of such persons remains one of the great human rights challenges of our time.”
The challenge is not our bold words about human rights. As wonderful as the words may be in the Declaration of Human Rights, the real challenge is our behaviour, our decisive actions, our relationship with our neighbour. Ultimately the real test of our humanity is the way in which we live our lives, respecting the dignity of one another in human community. It is often called the Golden Rule. All the great spiritual traditions of humanity recognize it and honour it in one way or another as a core teaching or doctrine.
Kelly writes, “It is a message simple and powerful. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
I’m with you so far.
Kelly writes, “Quite simply, because we ‘are human we therefore have rights, and because we have rights [our] governments are bound to protect them.’”
Still with you.
Kelly writes, “In too many places, Clinton observes, gay and lesbian persons are ‘arrested, beaten, terrorized, [and] even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens, while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way, or too often even, join in the abuse.’”
I’m with you here too.
Kelly writes, “[quoting Clinton] ‘They are … forced to suppress or deny who they are [in order] to protect themselves from harm.’”
What does it mean to “deny who they are”? They have to use false names? I think it’s a mistake to equate “I am gay” with “gay is who I am”.
Kelly writes, “Gay and lesbian persons are humans beings born free, and not only are they owed dignity but they have the right to claim such dignity.”
I’m with you here. But their being born free and owed dignity is not due to their being homosexual. It’s due to their being human. So the issue is not homosexual or gay rights, it’s human rights. Homosexuals as such are due no more nor less rights than anyone else, nor any special kind of rights.
Kelly writes, “Gay rights are human rights.”
Only in an equivocal sense, I think. Say that homosexual persons are entitled to certain rights, certainly. But those rights are human rights, not homosexual rights. There are no homosexual rights, per se, any more than there are rights attached to any other kind of disordered desire.
Kelly writes, “According to Clinton, it is a ‘violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave.’”
Clinton agrees with me here: These things are a violation of human rights, not gay rights.
Agellius, regarding the relationship between “gay rights” and “human rights,” I’ll repeat what I wrote to Dan:
Regarding the terminology of “gay rights,” my own view is that human beings — not as gays or lesbians or heterosexuals, not as conservatives or liberals, not as rich or poor, not as … — are owed dignity on account of their being human beings. Therefore the language of “gay rights,” I suppose, would best be understood in terms of human rights that gay and lesbians seek and are not afforded on account of their sexuality.
Kelly writes, “… the language of ‘gay rights’, I suppose, would best be understood in terms of human rights that gay and lesbians seek and are not afforded on account of their sexuality.”
I think far more often in our culture, what is meant by “gay rights” is the right to live as a homosexual, with all that entails: Actively engaging in homosexual activity, and marrying a person of the same sex if desired; also, the right to profess one’s homosexual preference and live openly in homosexual relationships, in any and all circumstances, without suffering negative consequences (such as, for example, getting fired from a job in a Catholic school).
Whereas, as Catholics we know that properly speaking, there can be no right to a sinful act. And further, that the Church clearly and firmly opposes same-sex marriage.
As soon as I saw your headline, “Gay Rights Are Human Rights”, with banners flying, I figured you were being rhetorical, and that in reading your post it would become clear that you were not using “gay rights” according to the common definition.
But while your post does focus on the right of homosexuals to be treated with humanity and dignity, nowhere do you specifically disclaim the other “rights” often demanded by and on behalf of homosexuals.
Thus, you equate “gay rights” with “human rights”, and draw a bold line between those supporting the former and those opposing them — the logical implication being, that those who oppose “gay rights”, oppose human rights for homosexuals — without acknowledging that there are many who oppose gay rights according to the common definition, without wishing to deny human rights to homosexuals.
I might gently suggest using a term less open to equivocation; or if you must use “gay rights”, then make it clearer that you are using it in a special, limited sense.
Agellius, I’m not really sure what problem you perceive. I think the post is fairly straight-forward insofar as it is pretty clear that it is about human rights, and the extent to which persons have them denied on account of their sexuality. I give specific examples, and in the comments section I have clarified the concern by stating that these are not “gay rights” in the sense that they are not rights owed on account of one’s sexuality, but rather that one’s sexuality should not be the grounds for denial.
I think that the idea of gay rights includes a lot more than protecting gays from targeted acts of violence. In a Catholic setting, the controversy over gay rights isn’t about supporting the Matthew Shepard Act. It’s about supporting homosexual marriage.
Exactly right, Nate. And on that topic, the Church clearly teaches that same-sex marriage is harmful to the common good. As the Compendium explains, “This duty calling for respect [for homosexuals] does not justify the legitimation of behaviour that is not consistent with the moral law, even less does it justify the recognition of a right to marriage between persons of the same sex and its being considered equivalent to the family” (section 228). I am curious whether Kelly Wilson agrees with this teaching.
“This duty calling for respect [for homosexuals] does not justify the legitimation of behaviour that is not consistent with the moral law
And the Church has found that “legitimation” includes allowing gay people to hold a job or simply live without laws calling for imprisionment. In otherwords, the Church has not found anything in social policy towards gay people that meets its test of “unjust” discrimination.
Yes, Nate, it might be broader than that, but the controversy has been on a variety of issues. We have had our Catholics prelates demanding laws that call for the jailing of people for homosexuality, demanding that bosses have the absolute right to dismiss gay people from their means of livelihood etc. It can be argued that marriage is a different matter than “unjust” discrimination. Sadly, it cannot be argued that the Church has put herself on the side of calling the jailing and unemployment of gay people “unjust.”
We’re not talking about whether it is or is not OK to imprison gay people or dismiss them from their jobs. Kelly presented himself as a champion of gay rights, rainbow flag and all. That made me curious to know if he thinks all the major items that fall under the banner of gay rights are in fact moral or good for society. Nate brought up one of the most crucial items–the call for “marriage equality–that is addressed very clearly in Catholic teaching. So I asked whether Kelly supports Church teaching on gay marriage. Why is it so difficult to answer that simple question?
We’re not talking about whether it is or is not OK to imprison gay people or dismiss them from their jobs.
Given our Church’s regretable stance on these issues, I would say we are talking about it if we are talking as Catholics.
We have had our Catholics prelates demanding laws that call for the jailing of people for homosexuality, demanding that bosses have the absolute right to dismiss gay people from their means of livelihood
I wasn’t aware of that. I think this would be good information to get out there, perhaps in a guest-post by you, Kurt? Would love to find out more.
Consider Matthew 5:28 in this context. A heterosexual man who lusts after a woman, but abstains from the act, knowing it would be wrong, always has a potential legitimate outlet for the attaction he feels; he can marry and sublimate that lust into the conjugal act. The man of homosexual orientation, however, can only choose to practice denial of that which he has been hardwired–presumably by God, who made him–to feel. There is a cognitive dissonance embedded in the question of homosexuality that I have yet to see dispelled in any of the rhetoric on the topic.
>>>The man of homosexual orientation, however, can only choose to practice denial of that which he has been hardwired–presumably by God, who made him–to feel.>>>
What of the person sexually attracted to children (presumably hardwired by God?) who can only choose to practice denial of that which he feels? Really, if pedophilia is a disordered affection, why can’t homosexual attraction be classified the same way?
@ Peter John –
I don’t quite see a one-to-one correlation there. We tend to restrict even other children from having sex with children, be it heterosexual, or not. An adult engaging in sex with a child is an abuse of innocence by power. It is a different issue.*
The mutual consent to sexual activity between two consenting adults, however, does not contain that element, which is contrary to love. The behavior of a pedophile is abusive in its essence.
*Pedophiles, of course, may not see it that way, as the very existence of an organization such as NAMBLA suggests.
My point is only regarding the disordered affection of the pedophile and that a disordered affection need not be assumed to be “hardwired by God”. Neither does it need to be acted upon or need necessarily to have an outlet.
You can answer that yourself.
Yes, I can in the sense that we all have disordered affections that we are called not to act upon. It’s not like its just a burden this or that subjectively classified subgroup. We’re all in the same mess.
Unfortunately given the landscape, this won’t be critically evaluated. As with many things in North America today, the individual is being privileged over the social. The UN Declaration on Human RIghts has been used to legitimatize such things as gay rights parades and compulsory education on the normality of homosexuality. I think the following from the Moscow Patriarchate actually addresses the conflict between the personal and social. Of course, such a thing would never be produced in America or the prairie provinces because social rights have been so degraded.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx
Nice post Kelly.
I’d like to see the Church speak out more along the lines you have.
I think that would be very helpful for a whole bunch of reasons from correct explanation of our position on sexuality, to pastoral care, to the requirements of the new evangelisation.
God Bless
I’m somewhat confused as to the point of this post. Isn’t is self-evident that violence against any member of society is a violation of their human rights? How is that specifically “gay rights”? Aren’t “gay rights”, by definition, rights attributed specifically to those with a homosexual orientation?
Dan, I hope it would be self-evident that violence against any member of society would be seen as a violation of human rights. I am sure it is, in fact, self evident to the readers I have encountered on this blog. But, you know, this post has as its interest something more than just violence committed against persons. See, when we think of the violation of the rights of gay and lesbian persons we think of Africa, or those living in countries heavily Islamic. But even in (what I presume is) your own country of the United States, it wasn’t until the 2003 ruling Lawrence v. Texas, that the laws of 14 states regarding same-sex sexual activity were invalidated.
Now regarding the terminology of “gay rights” my own view is that human beings — not as gays or lesbians or heterosexuals, not as conservatives or liberals, not as rich or poor, not as … — are owed dignity on account of their being human beings. Therefore the language of “gay rights,” I suppose, would best be understood in terms of human rights that gay and lesbians seek and are not afforded on account of their sexuality.
Ron, you’ll notice that I don’t respond to every comment I get. I respond to what I reasonably can, but time does not permit too many sustained conversations. If your comments are presented here under the assmption that I do respond (and if you therefore await a response), now you know for furture comments.
I’m not presenting myself as a champion of anything.
And what we *are* talking about depends on the topic *I* introduce so, yes, we are talking about whether it’s okay to imprison gay people or dismiss them from their jobs. Clinton was presenting to the United Nations Human Rights Council. Do you know which countries sit on that Council, and what policies towards gay and lesbian persons they advocate? Further, in the United States, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed less than two months ago so, yes, we are talking about people losing their jobs. Since I’ve introduced the topic, trust that I do know what we are talking about.
As for what the Catechism states about discrimination (which is what this topic is about), I think I have been fairly straightforward in this regard by identifying what I believe to be examlpes of what the Catechism calls “unjust discrimination.”
Snippy and snide. About what we have come to expect from our clergy-to-be these days, I guess. And, of course, you didn’t bother to answer my question about the teachings of the Catholic Church. That, too, is about what we have come to expect.
And yet I am letting your comments go forward wherein you accuse me of being snippy and snide, comments which make sweeping generalizations about the clergy, and comments which introduce what I have, not for the first time, indicated as off topic. All and all, I think you have been fairly treated but, if you disagree, I’m not preventing you from abandoning my posts…
I suppose the question is…how do we define dignity. A homosexual wanting to marry would argue that by not allowing them to marry the Church is not treating him (or her) with dignity.
As Catholics, our boundaries are defined by Dogma, by the Repository of Faith, and our faith teaches us that we should live chaste lives. Catholic understanding of Chastity tells us that sex outside of marriage is sinful. It also states that homosexual activity is sinful. Someone who is homosexual has the right to be treated with dignity…but that does not include having the Church not teach that sin is sin.
Mr.Martin, defining “chastity” as refraining from sex outside of marriage is a VERY narrow definition of “chastity.” In fact, chastity may be observed in both a sexual and a non-sexual way. Also, defining “same-sex attraction” only in terms of “homosexual acts”" is an inexact and highly reductive way of understanding “homosexual” persons. There was no such thing as “homosexuality” as we know it before the 19th century, and MANY of the “romantic friendships” (most of them “chaste”) that were enjoyed by priests, writers and artists of previous ages would be called “homsexual” by the science-obsessed devotees of the man Nabokov called “the Viennese witch doctor.” In damning all “homosexual” persons with the same brush of “intrinsic” defectiveness, or “disorder,” the Church subscribes, inadvertently, to what Nietzsche called the “religion of science.”
So, let me be precise, in clearly emphasizing my anger with the modern-day Catholic Church for doing what it has done in stigmatizing the element from amongst whom, in the past, it sometimes drew its greatest saints and artists: MANY men and women living together in “same-sex” romantic relationships are, indeed, “chaste,” just as are many husbands and wives regularly having sex with each other. “Chasitity” is a STATE OF MIND which is often, but not always, the gift of grace; it means that one is temperamentally INCAPABLE of using the body of the one whom one loves–or anyone else worthy of love and respect–as an object of pleasure. MANY great saints have been homosexuals, and they were, indeed, “chaste,” even when they were sexually active. Francis of Assisi was “chaste” despite himself, because he could never get it out of his head not to be; that was God’s gift to him.
And, now let me share something else with you that will probably horrify you: I honestly believe, like many Europeans of my acquaintance who have watched and listened to him, that Benedict XVI Ratzinger is a “closeted” “same-sex-attracted” man, and that, unlike other honest trusting souls of his sacerdotal order, his venom against “gay” people is the fruit of his habit of furtiveness in concealing from himself and others what he probably pined for in his youth. And, yes, he IS and probably always was “chaste,” but “chaste” in a way that is not the fruit of any agape love.
To assume that I meant to define chastity as simply meaning that sex outside marriage is not chaste and nothing else based on a few sentences is like reading a Beetle Baily comic and and thinking the cartoonist encapsulates the entirety of the military experience. Note I said homosexual activity was sinful….not being “same sex attracted”. You said: “MANY men and women living together in “same-sex” romantic relationships are, indeed, “chaste,” just as are many husbands and wives regularly having sex with each other.”
Are you suggesting that same sex couples can be sexually active and still be chaste?
Do I believe people can engage in romantic relationships and not have sex..absolutely.
I’ve watched and listened to Pope Benedict too, and I’ve seen no evidence that he is a “closeted” “same-sex-attracted” man, nor have I seen any evidence of venom against “gay” people.
As someone quite familiar with the writings of Ratzinger/Benedict, I too have not noticed his venom against gay people. In fact, some within the Church (who are worth taking seriously) claim that Benedict, particularly in his treatment of love, is paving the way for acceptance of love expresed between homosexual persons. I don’t think interpretation would be even claimed if there were actual venom in the writigns of Ratzinger/Benedict.
Kelly,
As To Ratzingerian venom, what would you call his many statements in public that gay marriage will be tantamount to the destruction of civilization? This hardly sounds like paving the way to anything constructive with gay people, but rather trying to bulldoze a simple matter of people wanting their own rights to the goods of society. You know I appreciate your bravery here, but I sure hope there isn’t a little bit of Stockholm Syndrome going on….
I am going to sound a different note.
Ron Paul: “If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with [and] if there’s heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with.”
What this shows me is that all politicians want is for us to be quiescent, nothing more. I demand the right to be awkward, to be a nuisance. Nuisance rights are human rights. If I can’t dance I don’t want to be part of your revolution.
Marie Marshall
Kelly,
Of course I think all the talk about rights and responsibilities is very important. But you know part of the reason some of these commentators are still going on with their tedious old parsings of simplistic moral categories– and not even ones that could even affect the real lives of married gay people like myself– is because the gay community has not been as savvy as if should have been in the past. There has been a learning-curve, and thankfully it is on the upswing. But part of that past “incompetence” in the past has been hyper-self-criticism as well. Instead, the virtuous and dexterous road is one that involves cultivating friends. I think a recent blog entry from a priest working in Virginia, and blogging at Devil, Does Your Dog Bite? does a good job of using a parable of Jesus to make this point quite sharply and cleverly:
Kelly,
1. I have to echo Agellius’s and Dan’s caution. The substance of your post is fine, but when you say “Gay rights are human rights,” you’re using fuzzy language that is going to be misinterpreted. In your response to Agellius, you define “gay rights” to be “the rights owed to human being on account of their being human beings— not as gays or lesbians or heterosexuals, not as conservatives or liberals, not as rich or poor, etc.” Well, that’s a nice definition, but that’s a definition you came up with yourself, and it’s not the definition of “gay rights” that is commonly used or commonly understood. “Gay rights” is commonly understood as “the rights owed to gay human beings on account of their being gay human beings” — which starts to get you into fuzzy territory, because such rights might include things like “the right to have a homosexual act condoned or supported.” So the natural and common understanding of your post title does not correspond with your actual position. Now maybe in your post you’re trying to purposefully redefine “gay rights” — but if you are, it might have helped to be more clear about that fact in your post.
2. I also hesitate at your reference to the Lawrence v. Texas case, as an instance of a positive development of “gay rights.” Setting aside the legal reasoning of the case (which is terrible), let’s simply consider its result, the fact that it invalidated laws that criminalized sodomy. I agree with you that that is a good thing. (I’m with Justice Thomas — it’s an “uncommonly silly” law that should have been changed.) But when you talk about “rights” with regard to invalidating a law criminalizing sodomy, I hesitate because we’re getting into fuzziness. I agree that it is not prudent to have a law criminalizing sodomy, but it’s not prudent in the same way that it is not prudent to have a law criminalizing pre-marital sex between consenting adults. When weighing prudential considerations (a la Aquinas’s Treatise on Law), it’s a very good thing for society to have the Lawrence v. Texas-type laws nullified, just as it is a very good thing for society to not have laws that criminalize pre-marital sex. But it’s weird to talk about this situation as one of “rights”. What is the right that is recognized by Lawrence? Some people think it’s the right to have homosexual relations — but that’s not a right that should be recognized, just as we shouldn’t recognize a right to pre-marital sex or a right to commit any other sin. I suppose Lawrence could stand for “the right to not be imprisoned if one commits the sin of homosexual relations”; but one generally doesn’t think about “the right to not be imprisoned if one commits the sin of heterosexual pre-marital sex.” Or maybe Lawrence stands for “the right to be treated equally, whether one engages in pre-marital homosexual relations or heterosexual relations”, but here, again, I think “right” is being talked about in a fuzzy way, maybe because I think “right” normally refers to a positive thing that should be protected (like the right to practice religion, the right to free speech, etc.).
[And maybe this whole issue of mine goes to the larger issue of "privacy" and the "right to privacy". The phrase "right to privacy" is a fuzzy phrase -- if it means "the right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in human freedom, even human freedom to commit certain sins", then I don't see a problem. But if it means "the right to commit certain sins", then there is a problem.]
Given his post spoke of actions of the United Nations and the U.S. Department of State, I think it was abundantly clear Kelly was speaking of the civil and public sphere, not of matters of moral theology, and that the common usage of “gay rights” does reference the civil status of gay people. I would also state that we who are supporters of gay rights have the greater authority as to what we mean by it than our adversaries.
Nevertheless, Thales, I appreciate your dissent from the position too many of our Catholic prelates have taken in support of laws criminalizing people who are homosexual.
Kurt,
I don’t understand your point, because I was talking about the civil and public sphere too. The common usage of “gay rights” is “rights for gay people as gay people” in that context, in my opinion — at least, that’s the impression I get from supporters of gay rights.
Thales,
Well then you have lost me on your previous post. Leaving marriage aside for the moment, gay people are asking for the right to be free of threat of imprision because of that status and the right not to be dimissed from employment simply because of that status. These seem legitimate rights that people in general should have but have been denied to gay people therefore making it neccesary to have a gay rights social movement to try to correct these absues. I’m not getting where you find fuziness in this.
Kurt,
Do you see the distinction I’m getting at when I say there is “the right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in human freedom, even human freedom to commit certain sins” and then there is “the right to commit certain sins”? I suppose that we can talk about the first as a “right”, and the second isn’t a right at all, but using “right” in both ways is a very fuzzy way of talking, considering that both are very different from true positive rights, like the right to life, the right to freedom, etc.
Set aside the issue of homosexual relationships — consider, instead, the sin of cheating on one’s spouse. We don’t talk about “the right to commit adultery”, do we? And is it correct to talk about “the right to not be imprisoned if I commit adultery”? In my opinion, we could use the word “right”, but it seems fuzzy to talk about “rights” in that way.
When I think of “rights,” specifically related to what we are discussing here, I am thinking of the right not to be unjustly discriminated against on account of one’s sexuality.
Kurt,
Do you see the distinction I’m getting at when I say there is “the right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in human freedom, even human freedom to commit certain sins” and then there is “the right to commit certain sins”?
Yes, one refers to rights under law and civil society. The other refers to morality and theology. So now I’m back to my first response to you. I don’t think it is fuzzy because the UN and the Department of State do not speak to the concept of “Sin.” (and I really don’t think we want them to!). So while Kelly’s point seems totally clear to me, I’m lost as to the point you are making.
Kurt,
My point is that it’s inaccurate to talk about “the right to lie to one’s wife, and not have any fine imposed” or “the right to sleep around, have as much pre-marital sex as possible, and purposefully and intentionally emotionally scar as many woman as possible, and not be imprisoned” or “the right to shoplift with impunity, and not be subject to the death penalty”. Those aren’t truly rights.
When I think of “rights,” specifically related to what we are discussing here, I am thinking of the right not to be unjustly discriminated against on account of one’s sexuality.
Kelly,
Sure, that’s fine. But as I said, the common understanding of “gay rights” goes beyond that (many of the commenters her in this thread are illustrating that fact.). “Gay rights” is often understood to include “the right to have homosexual acts recognized as normative” and “the right to have homosexual acts and relationships supported by society and its institutions.”
Thales,
Well, I think it is “often understood” that way by bigots who seek civil sanctions against gay people. Certainly that has been the argument that on this issue of sodomy laws or job diiscrimation. When those civil concerns have been raised, the anti-gay element has put forward the position to act such is to give social approve to homosexual acts. It is a tiresome argument, but I can’t deny it exists. Though I have noted that at times legislators in favor of the just rights of gay people have offered to put language in legislation that says repeal of sodomy laws or job protection for gay people is not an endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle. While the offer has been made, it has never won us any extra votes.
Kurt said: Well, I think it is “often understood” that way by bigots who seek civil sanctions against gay people.
Okay. But in this particular comment thread, I don’t see any of these bigots — everyone is acknowledging that gay people have to be considered with love and respect because of their human dignity. And on the other side of the coin, as I said to Kelly above, several commenters on this very thread are illustrating the fact that gay rights are “often understood” to go much beyond that into more questionable instances of “rights.”
But in this particular comment thread, I don’t see any of these bigots — everyone is acknowledging that gay people have to be considered with love and respect because of their human dignity. And on the other side of the coin, as I said to Kelly above, several commenters on this very thread are illustrating the fact that gay rights are “often understood” to go much beyond that into more questionable instances of “rights.”
Yes, people here have noted that a segment of public opinion has linked the call for gay rights at the UN and the State Department to state endorsement of homosexual acts. The question is do we have to honor this understanding because of the significant numbers who embrace it or do we dismiss it because of its underlying bigotry.
I tend towards the latter.
Having said that let me skip ahead to where this conversation could be going. We have a social movement called the gay rights movement, which like every endeavor in this world cannot be perfect. There has also been a social movement in reaction to this which we might call the anti-gay rights movement. These are both secular efforts of this world. It would be my belief that the gay rights movement is working for much good to advance the dignity of LGBT people. I would also note that many in the anti-gay rights movement have no trouble claiming that “gay people have to be considered with love and respect because of their human dignity” while reject that such love and respect precludes support for sodomy laws or job discrimination (include prelates of our own Holy Mother, the Church).
The way LGBT people are treated in our society (and other societies) requires a social movement to correct wrongs, a social movement that sadly our Church has not been a part of. I welcome Kelly’s call for the lay faithful to move where our prelates dare not go. And maybe the lay faithful so doing not only aid their own salvation by their good works, but help, through Catholic insight, to bring certain corrections to a good but imperfect social movement.
Sorry for my ignorance, Kurt, but honest question: which Catholic prelates are currently calling for sodomy’s criminalization?
I’ll just throw the question back at you, Mr. Martin: do you believe that opposite-sex couples can live together and have sex and still be “chaste”? Historically, in the history that we know about holy people, many have thought “no,” and many have thought “yes.” I think it has to do with things that are not in the public domain, and which are between them and their God, but you really should be more aware, as a Roman Catholic, that the ancient Church–the Church of the Fathers–thought not, and valorized the monastic or the celibate state at a much higher level than the modern “family-idolators” who run the insitution now.
no. I believe that the Church teaches us that sex outside of marriage, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual is sinful (unchaste). I would suggest sex within marriage could be unchaste, depending upon one’s thinking when engaging in it…although I haven’t given that much thought. As far as your last statement, you presume much about my understanding (or lack thereof) of Church history based on a few line posted by me.
Of course, I meant connubial sex.
I would suggest sex within marriage could be unchaste, depending upon one’s thinking when engaging in it…although I haven’t given that much thought
And, really, the statement by you that I quote above is all one has to know about how you mentally disparage the love a man has for a man, or a woman for a woman, compared to what you feel for heterosexual love. To you, that love is “acceptable,” whether it’s “chaste” or not, so long as it is confined within marriage. Most of the commentators here will not be able to recognise, apparently, how that attitude represents the denial of dignity to something that is NATURALLY a part of the homosexual person’s human nature, but I assure you, as a veteran teacher for many, many years, that the youth of the world–including the Catholic youth–have seen right through that unjust prejudice, and have thoroughly and completely rejected the Magisterium’s position. I never heard such booing and hissing against their theology teachers’ enunciation of any other position of that Magisterium as what I heard, as I passed in the hall of my Archdiocesan high school in my last teaching position in America, as what I heard when THIS bad idea was presented to the kids.
As minor, in so many ways, as it actually is, it is THIS denial of the worth and dignity of “same-sex love,” as compared with the love of a man and a woman, around which opposition to the Church’s moral authority by modern youth is coalescing. Mr. Wilson is acute in his obvious perception that it must be addressed. I’d bet that, as a seminarian, he’s probably already encountered, as I did in Albuquerque, intelligent youth–both “gay” and “straight”–who are made to be infuriated by this vicious teaching.
I agree that homosexual persons be accorded human rights. Just as any other person should. We do need to hold that rights are not negated by sinfulness nor by inclinations that are not in accord with our true dignity such as alcoholism, pedophilia or homosexuality.
I think that means ultimately that there is no right for one to marry another of the same sex or polygamous marriage. The true dignity of human persons in marriage consists of one man and one woman committed for life and open to bearing children.
I have argued before, and still maintain, that the Church could reasonably support the same rights for gay people—in and outside the Church—as it supports (either actively or by tacit acceptance) for baptized people who have been sacramentally married and civilly divorced. The Church does not seem (now, whether it did in the past) to find them unworthy to be teachers, coaches, tenants in apartment buildings, and so on. It welcomes them in the Church on at least a limited basis.
The Church does not lobby for civil law to prevent sacramentally married but civilly divorced people from remarrying or enjoying any other civil right. It only refuses to marry them in the Church. If the Church is going to press for civil law to prohibit marriage of same-sex couples, then why should it not press for laws preventing civil remarriage those who it claims are already married in the eyes of God?
Just because the Church does not lobby to prevent other abuses of marriage does not apply here. Clearly there are things that are immoral that are not made illegal and the Church has long supported such judgments by the state. The Church does apply its discipline by prohibiting such couples from receiving Holy Communion so a, sacramental penalty is imposed.
But the Church should support the State imposin a prohibition here because marriage is not about two people of the same sex marrying. It just isn’t marriage.
So when is the RCC going to endorse the human right LGBT persons have to marry the person of their choice?
The true dignity of the human person begins with dignifying oneself first. Do we dignify ourselves judging others as sinful when we are prejudiced. Do we dignify God, our faith and ourselves when we do not love those who love another of the same sex? Do we dignify ourselves when we cause harm to innocents when we label something as unnatural and this view is supported by those who physically and psychologically harm those with same sex attraction? When we do this are we a part of the social system that creates violence in the world? What is truly inherently disordered is religious teaching that reveals a lack of wisdom when it becomes part of the foundation of hate and violence in the world.
Do we believe in sin? do we believe that we are all called to move away from sin and toward God? Did Jesus instruct that we not teach right and wrong? Loving someone is not the same as loving their actions. I love my daughters, that doesn’t mean I don’t teach them what God through his revelation says is sinful. Ronald seems to be saying that because I label homosexual sex as unnatural, I am on the same level as those who call them names or physically harm them. But I believe that is also abhorrent and sinful. What Ronald seems to be suggesting is that the Church in it’s teachings are part of the foundation of hate and violence in the world. I cannot believe that and still believe that God through the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church.
What Ronald seems to be suggesting is that the Church in it’s teachings are part of the foundation of hate and violence in the world. I cannot believe that and still believe that God through the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church.
And how immature and pusillanimous a “faith” THAT is! The Church once “taught” that slavery and wars of religion were part of “God’s plan.” Do you suppose that THAT wasn’t “part of the foundation of hate and violence in the world”?
And thanks to Peter Paul, for his tactful and elegant way of reminding folks that, because it CAN be “self-sacrificial,” “same-sex love” can, indeed, be “chaste”: he has to go and make dinner for his “husband.” Bravo, Peter Paul!
Digby,
In your tu quoque you forgot to throw in usury.
PPF, can you provide a link to where BXVI has said this? I’m not disputing that he may of said this, but it would be easier for me to engage with specifc claims.
I think is referring to the most regretable statement made by then Cardinal Ratzinger suggesting that gya people should not be surprised to be victims of violence when demanding unentitled rights.
Kelly,
I will hunt around tonight and find some, but I think there have been very many times where he was quoted saying just that. Must make dinner now; husband waiting and hungry.
Kelly,
Two seconds of Googling found this from 5/2010, from the Huffington Post: Benedict XVI: Gay Marriage “insidious and Dangerous”;
Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday called abortion and same-sex marriage some of the most “insidious and dangerous” threats facing the world today, asserting key church teachings as he tried to move beyond the clerical abuse scandal.”
Of course there is more to be found, I don’t have the stomach to spend my time looking at his noxious statements. But frankly, there is a more profound trajectory by which one can limn this matter. I know I have harped on the Curran Affair here before, but I do it because I think there is a profound historical lesson to be learned. And I happen to think God put me there in part to learn it, and draw out its implications. One must look at the whole matter from the viewpoint of before the whole affair. At the time I was sent to CU to study in major seminary, I do not think it an exaggeration to say that Curran was the most famous and well-respected Catholic moral theologian in the world. Now there were some famous names from Rome, but in terms of widespread cred Charlie Curran had it. And it is important to NOT look at the matter from the vantage point that has obtained after losing his trial. Virtually everyone took his ideas seriously in the Catholic realm. His classes were filled with precise reflections on papal and conciliar precedents. Thus, Curran’s views on homosexuality seemed quite in line with the prevailing sense that some change was afoot for real on the issue. Well, Kelly my man, it was Ratzinger himself who did Curran in. And that is a more profound indication of his hostility to gay people (btw, I have no clue if Charlie was gay– given my general view that people who are NOT hostile to gay people are often secure straight people probably not). He was a great teacher too, I regret only that I was truly unmotivated at that point, because my interest is in the history of ideas, and Charlie knew a lot about Catholic ones..
But there is yet a deeper level to this. Just this evening on EWTN I saw yet another howler from the Chesterton vaudeville show they have on. Tonight they had some dude dressed-up as Nietzsche, spouting this and that, and Chetserton answering. There relevant part was that the unbelievable fatuous host Alquist opined that all German philosophy is filled with “madness’. But this numbskull forgot that the guy they love to call “the Great”, John Paul, based his entire philosophical views on a German philosopher– Edmund Husserl. So, Kelly, how is one supposed to take this tradition seriously?? Not only do they hate gay people– they hate the very philosophers their own Pope spent his life studying and writing brilliant articles on in the Analecta Husserliana, which I used to spend hours reading in minor seminary. It is a tradition in grave trouble. That is all. Caveat emptor.
Peter Paul is SO right about Benedict XVI Ratzinger.
The evidence of Pope Ratzinger’s malfeasances as Archbishop of Munich, as well as his blasé attitude regarding the rape of children by at least one German priest:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,731683,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html?pagewanted=all
In relation to the very Charlie Curran affair Peter Paul refers to, one can only beg to differ with the exculpating depiction of Pope Ratzinger as a brilliant, distracted academic with his head in the clouds who simply overlooks person-related issues when given administrative responsibility:
http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2010/04/reader-writes-andrew-sullivan-ratzinger.html
Pope Ratzinger is actually a micro-manager by natural instinct. The difference is that he believes quashing dissent over fine points of moral theology (which is not dogmatic faith) is more important than protecting children from priestly rapists!
Here’s why history will not be kind to this terrible pope who has not a pastoral bone in his body:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1387066/posts
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Fox-pope-benedict16
And the question for a lot of people, now, is not whether the Church can tolerate queer folk, but whether it’s ethical for queer folk to remain in the Catholic Church, considering the recent and historic record of that church:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheLaneCenter#p/c/A2C79FE0C8981790/0/cTHxJthnLWs
I have a great deal of sympathy for a young man so idealistic and trusting as Mr. Wilson, who, simply by broaching this subject, shows his charity and fitness for pastoral work, but I’m afraid for him—afraid that he does not yet understand how Machiavellian are the ecclesiastical politicians at the helm of the institution he proposes to serve. True that she has, in a sense, been “protected,” perhaps by a “Holy Spirit,” from “inerrancy” for almost two thousand years, but it seems to me that that same “Holy Spirit” has finally lost patience with her brutal callousness.
Mr. Wilson, you are young generous-spirited. There will be many other ways for you to minister to those who love your God.
digby,
Thanks. I want to share a distinction that I make internally on this very issue. I distinguish between the actions of those with position in society that allow them to influence others inordinately, from those who basically interact with society in the normal course of things. With the first category, if there are contradictions that impinge on mine or others’ right, it makes sense to highlight them. It is almost an obligation. But for the rest of humanity, which is most, the world is filled with contradictions. In fact, with all of humanity it is not the case of IF there are contradictions — but merely how many. This just seems to the nature of life, and no one escapes. But the quantity of contradiction is what gets people after a while. A lot of people in the Catholic Church in my experience have a remarkable greater amount of such contradiction. Kelly is super-smart and will navigate his way. Everyone’s path is different. The older I get the more I am committed to trying to understand a wider and wider swath of difference. But I draw the line at rank intolerance, and I know you do too. For that blight I basically feel virtually no hold is barred. And for the intolerant I have a bit of wisdom from Mike Tyson: “Everyone has got a plan, until they get punched in the mouth.”
Do we believe in sin? do we believe that we are all called to move away from sin and toward God? Did Jesus instruct that we not teach right and wrong?
Brian Martin,
Human rights are not based on what one religion (Catholicism) regards as sinful.
What Ronald seems to be suggesting is that the Church in it’s teachings are part of the foundation of hate and violence in the world. I cannot believe that and still believe that God through the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1910:
Human rights are not based on what one religion (Catholicism) regards as sinful.
Not strictly, but human rights are based on morality, namely, the moral sense that a human has dignity (and thus, rights).
Thales,
By which, of course, you mean that it’s all a matter of natural law, which Catholics understand better than anybody else, and therefore what is and is not a human right is a determination best left to the Catholic Church.
I don’t think so! :-)
David,
Ugh, that’s an uncalled-for and snide response. Call it natural law, or call it something else…. but it’s so obvious as to be bordering on self-evident that the notion of human rights is based on the moral sense that the human person has inherent dignity.
Thales,
I stand by it. The Catholic Church uses its understanding of natural law as a reason to oppose not merely same-sex marriage, but any legislation that would protect gay people from any discrimination no matter how unjust. Why? Because if gay people would stay in hiding, like they are supposed to, discrimination would not, the Church thinks, be a problem. And something like hate-crime legislation might legitimize homosexuality by giving gay people protected status. I suppose it is quite natural for the Church to believe its understanding of natural law is some kind of objective truth, but for those who are not Catholic, it isn’t.
David,
Yes, big newsflash, people disagree about things! The Catholic Church has a notion of human dignity; and there are other people who have a different notion of human dignity. So what? The fact is that people disagree about all kinds of things, including whether sauerkraut is tasty or not. Now when it comes to the issue of human dignity, we can either (1) make snide comments about those who have a different view and take potshots at them; or (2) we can respect the fact that well-meaning people can have different views about this topic of human dignity, and we can try to have an honest debate about the topic and perhaps seek common ground.
I’m afraid the debate in the comment thread has devolved and might be beyond recovery. I get that some people disagree with the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage, for example. I get that. But snarking that the Church is full of venom and hates gays is simplistic and unfair and juvenile. The Church has a certain view about human dignity, and someone might disagree about that view, but people should take it seriously, consider it, and have a honest discussion about it. That type of discussion should be able to occur, especially here on a Catholic blog. Is that possible?
Kelly writes, “Agellius, I’m not really sure what problem you perceive.”
Well, I guess I’ve already explained it as well as I can, so I’ll leave it at that. Thanks for explaining how you see it.
This has been a wonderfully mind-expanding discussion. Thank you, all who have participated.
Kelly,
The most perfect “cherry on the cake” has serendipitously appeared. Here is I was just writing on the Curran Affair last night, and the jouranalist who is really into guys who look like Jerry Falwell (and that’s most of the Catholic bishops conference) Michael Sean Winters had an alert for an article on Curran. It is by a right-wing hack named Mark Judge. But who knew till today that he was going to be quite so generous for incredible comic relief. He attacks Fr. Curran as being “obsessed with sex”. Now as MSW says, just about the last thing Curran’s Gestalt portrayed was obsession with sex. But of course if you dig you quickly encounter why this hack has made such a strange statement, which even Curran’s critics who actually knew him would find risible. (Not that Charlie was bad-looking either, but he would definitely not get one of those little jalapeno peppers that students give “hot” profs on online sites.) Anyways, Mark Judge has recently published a very revealing book, called– if you can believe it!– A Tremor of Bliss: Sex, Catholicism and Rock n’ Roll. But there is something even better than the title. First he demonstrates his complete tandem pretension and goof ball ignorance. He displays hilarious hauteur by entitling one of his chapters simply “Phenomenology”. But then even better he seems to completely misunderstand what phenomenology is actually about. And especially Husserlian Phenomenolgy which is what his chapter is about ostensibly because he is discussing Pope John Paul’s work, which was overwhelmingly Husserlian. Judge writes: “Phenomenology holds that people’s subjective feeling…point[s] to ultimate value and truth. I don’t think mark knows an Husserlian “bracket’ from a raquet he uses for squash paddle at his health club. He simply misunderstands phenomenology. (It is amazing what gets published. They clearly think hard-up right wingers will buy anything.) No matter he goes on. He is doing this to raise the idea of “obsession with sex” . And then he says, he is going to leave out his personal experiences mostly. but then on the same page he writes this. And, Kelly, I hope you will allow this quote. Because this guy is a perfect example of the idiotically conflicted modus vivendi of ignorant right-wingers who style themselves fine Catholics. Since he has excoriated a smart man like Charlie Curran for “obsession with sex” one is a bit amused to find some incredibly, unwittingly funny soft-core porn on the very same page! To wit:
“…she was the only one left in the bar. The place….had a view of the Georgetown streets [all pornographers quickly know to establish the exhibitionist-fantasy element!] Ellen locked the front door, and took me by the hand…..We made love on the floor [classic trope of porn "on the floor", actually not very conducive to "love"] but also — I think because during our passion I had backed against a door– set off a silent alarm that rang at the police station. The police soon arrived [being caught by police also a classic porn element by way of danger which many claim to find a turn-on, one which I never understood] , followed by the owner. Ellen mumbled something about an accident, and we escaped.” p. 49
The most important point to make about this bit of comic gold is that this is the sort of “young Catholic” that is calling a great inllectual like Chalres Curran “obsessed with sex” O posit that you can tell everything about the whole “movement” of such people by this juxtaposition. Secondly, since the story is riddled with so many porn tropes, he probably made it up, which is even more telling and pathetic. Lastly, even if the the outlines of the story are true, one can read what probably actually happened vis-a-vis the police arriving. Judge slips in the idea that it was a silent alarm (unlikely at a bar in the middle of busy Georgetown where there are lots of break-ins.) No, what probably happened is that this accuser of the good Fr. Curran was, by his own description humping on the floor with some girl, and someone was grossed out by his tasteless and creepy perviness for doing it there. They called the cops. Now District of Columbia police love to show up asap for these kind of perv crimes; ironically it is hard to get them to show up for a car burglary. I know this because one late afternoon when I came back home I saw some old guy masturbating in his car on our street. I went straight in to the house and called the police. They were here in two seconds. And believe me I had called them in the past for people trying to break into cars, and got very delayed response. Sooo… Mark Judge grossed someone out so much by his uncouth behavior that they called the cops, and he an his lovely lady lied to squirm out of being caught for indecent exposure like some guy in a trenchcoat in a park. This, my dear friends, is the sort of young commentator who is getting published on line, commenting on the one the great scholars of Catholicism in the 20th -21th Century. They know how to pick ‘em.
This seems to be a replay of the 19th century debate where conservative Catholics invoked the utterance of a highly conservative pope that “Error has no rights!” and to which liberal Catholics responded, “yes, but PEOPLE in error do have rights.”
plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose!
After getting my head collectively handed to me…possibly deservedly so for trying to discuss complex issues in short comments..
(Still contending that certain individuals may well be making assumptions far beyond what I actually said, but not having the time to deconstruct the conversation in anything resembling a constructive manner)
Thales said:” Human rights are not based on what one religion (Catholicism) regards as sinful.
Not strictly, but human rights are based on morality, namely, the moral sense that a human has dignity (and thus, rights).”
That sums up my belief, and even if I believe certain actions are sinful, it does not mean I get to act in a hateful manner.
But what of speaking truth.
If there is sin, then anyone who chooses a sinful state is going to not want/like to hear that they are sinful (as I can speak from my own experience) and even be offended when sin is pointed out. Is it treating them with a lack of dignity by stating it?
If there is sin, then anyone who chooses a sinful state is going to not want/like to hear that they are sinful (as I can speak from my own experience) and even be offended when sin is pointed out. Is it treating them with a lack of dignity by stating it?
Brian Martin,
People who argue your position often, if called homophobic or bigoted by advocates of gay rights, become furious and say it’s a conversation stopper, or say the are speaking out of love, and why must gay rights advocates speak out of hatred. (I am not, by the way, accusing you of being homophobic or bigoted.) So, many people with a religious argument against gay people or gay rights get to call gay people sinners, or say they commit acts of “grave depravity,” or say they have a “more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil,” and yet when gay people respond with anything other than, “Thank you, sir. Again sir!” they cry foul.
When Christian anti-Semitism was rampant, I assume Christians expected Jews to accept talk of how guilty of deicide they were as just an honestly held belief that all good Christians were obliged to speak the truth about. After all, wasn’t it true that Jews had called for the crucifixion of God incarnate and said, “His blood be upon us and our children?” How can anyone argue with that?
Just because something is sincerely motivated or based on religious belief does not make it benign.
If I have come across as having the position you describe…and I see in retrospect that is an easy point to come to, then I suspect that I haven’t presented my views well.
Stephen and Kurt seem to sum it up for me below a lot better than i do…but i have questions for them as well.
Kelly J. Wilson should be commended for forthrightly defending the official teaching of the Catholic Church on the rights of those brothers and sisters who self-identify as “gay” and lesbian, especially since he subsequently added a helpful clarification, which is that the rights in question are best viewed as the *human* rights of persons who self-identify in that manner. All Catholics need to internalize the Church’s teaching on the wrongness of unjust discrimination directed toward those persons, and to reject categorically all degrees of the hatred that has come to be known as homophobia. As we uphold the Church’s positions on those matters, we should also make clear our agreement with the Church’s teachings on chastity–both chastity as a universal ethical obligation (*CCC* 2348), and chastity as it applies to persons with same-gender attraction (*CCC* 2358-2359). To anyone who accepts the Gospel and the duty of the Magisterium to interpret the natural moral law in the name of Jesus, both concepts–human rights and the obligation of chastity–are mandatory aspects of a Catholic’s dialogue with the contemporary world.
Stephen: I consider that a brilliant summing up.
I would also include the Catholic religion as imperfect just as “secular” movements he describes as imperfect.
Stephen, would you an objection to expanding your very charitable statement above to say:
All Catholics need to internalize the Church’s teaching on the wrongness of unjust discrimination directed toward those persons, and to reject categorically all degrees of the hatred that has come to be known as homophobia. As we uphold the Church’s positions teachings on those matters, we should also make know to our pastors that we cannot accept their judgments, which we find imprudent, in calling for laws to imprison gay people or deny employment, as we are convinced these are examples of unjust discrimination
Kurt writes, “we cannot accept their judgments, which we find imprudent, in calling for laws to imprison gay people or deny employment, as we are convinced these are examples of unjust discrimination”
I have never in my life heard any pastor make such a call. Which pastors have you heard saying such a thing? Taking your words at face value, I’m assuming you mean having a pastor say that people should be imprisoned merely for having homosexual inclinations.
But taking it even further, I have never heard a pastor so much as suggest that people should be imprisoned for actually committing homosexual acts. Have you? Can you name some?
It is only in the past year or so that I heard, for the first time, a pastor say even that homosexual acts are sinful. But even this relatively bold pastor has not said anything about imprisoning anyone.
And again concerning employment, again taking your words at face value, it sounds like you’re saying that pastors are preaching that all persons with homosexual inclinations should remain forever unemployed. The only thing I have heard regarding employment of homosexuals is that people who are actively, openly and unrepentantly engaged in homosexual relationships are not suitable for employment in Catholic schools. Which I happen to agree with. Whereas I would not say that persons with homosexual inclinations should be barred from employment in Catholic schools on that basis alone.
Agellius, in terms of employment, however, I’ve given the example of the only recently repealed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” I’ve also encountered the view that homosexual persons should not be found in positions of authority (particularly in schools [even public schools]).
Agellius,
I have never in my life heard any pastor make such a call. Which pastors have you heard saying such a thing?
The reference is to members of the Episcopate.
I have never heard a pastor so much as suggest that people should be imprisoned for actually committing homosexual acts. Have you? Can you name some?
47 U.S. states once had sodomy laws that called for jail time for people found to have committed a homosexual act. There were legislative efforts to repeal these laws. Many dioceses objected to their repeal including the Cardinal-Archbishop of Washington, where I live. I was present when the Archdiocese testified in a public hearing on the proposed repeal.
And again concerning employment, again taking your words at face value, it sounds like you’re saying that pastors are preaching that all persons with homosexual inclinations should remain forever unemployed.
I said they supported the right of bosses in general, commercial employment to dismiss gay people at will because of that status.
The only thing I have heard regarding employment of homosexuals is that people who are actively, openly and unrepentantly engaged in homosexual relationships are not suitable for employment in Catholic schools. Which I happen to agree with. Whereas I would not say that persons with homosexual inclinations should be barred from employment in Catholic schools on that basis alone.
That puts you to what eh secular world would call the “left” of both our bishops and the gay rights movement. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (as well as similar legislation at the state level) has been opposed by our bishops. All versions of this legislation exempted Catholic schools and other faith based organizations as well as small businesses but for the remainder of general employment, prohibit bosses from firing someone because the worker is gay or lesbian.
We also have a proposed UN resolution earlier this year that called for all member states to repeal laws criminalizing homosexuality. It was strongly objected to by the Holy See.
However, as you hint at, most parish priests have the pastoral good judgment not to be pushing these Episcopal and Vatican positions. Some observers, however, think the silence on the parish level simply enables higher church authorities to push an agenda the lay faithful would sharply object to.
Stephen, Kurt…
I suspect some others here would suggest that to deny marriage in the Church to homosexuals and certainly to prevent the legalization of gay marriage in civil society is a form of unjust discrimination and a direct violation of human rights
Some would, probably many. Stephen’s tone was exceedingly charitable. I just wanted to suggest a minimal change to it to meet what I thought was the major omission.
This is a footnote or “for what it’s worth” re Charles Curren: I think putting homosexuality at the root or center of what happened with regard to the Vatican’s action against him overlooks the rather major fact that he, no less than Archbishop Hunthausen in Seattle, had long been the target of a letter-writing campaign directed to Cardinal Ratzinger by “orthodox” American Catholics who considered Fr. Curran a major leader of US dissent from magisterial teaching. I know because I was friendly at the time with many Catholics who blamed Curran for what they believed to be the collapse of moral theology in the American church. He was first and foremost credited with organizing the media campaign of dissent against Humanae Vitae. His teaching on homosexual acts was really far down the line among the complaints against him. It may be hard to believe now, but homosexual marriage wasn’t even an issue at the time.
Anne,
Yes I know of that letter writing campaign; you speak the truth. But you have entirely left out the context. A lot of those involved with that campaign — and I knew a few including one Claire van Roy of my parish at home — were also heavily involved in the Seer of Bayside movement. Believe me, homosexuality was the least of their obsessions. “Communion in the hand” was regularly condemned as the virtual be-all-and-end-all of perversion for the Bayside followers. I remember a drawing Claire van Roy showed me of person receiving communion in the hand and next to it was a drawing of the torments of hell –very vivid. And all the priests at my parish thought Claire was the biggest pain in the rump, believe me! (She is “passed” now) So this was about the level of the objections to the utterly brilliant scholarship of Charles Curran. The irony is that the Seer of Bayside got condemned herself, and the visions discredited, but Ratzinger had some needed back-up for what he wanted to do anyways. Ain’t history grand!
Ratzinger’s principled opposition to same sex marriage is not evidence of his ‘venom’ for homosexuals or even homosexuality.
On the other hand, it’s hard to miss the hatred and venom of those that disagree with Ratzinger and the moral tradition of the church.
Brian,
Do you really expect those who are in a minority and are being discriminated against to see the situation in exactly the same way as those who are in a majority and do the discriminating—as an intellectual disagreement where each side respects the opinion of the other side? Should Rosa Parks have given up her seat and limited herself to explaining politely why she thought racial discrimination was wrong?
I think you’re begging the question. Why should I accept that opposing gay marriage is a matter of unjust discrimination? Why shouldn’t I just take all this rights talk as empty self-interested rhetoric? How do we distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination?
Mr. Killian seems to think that you can say you believe in “freedom of religion” as the Catholic Church routinely does in the last century or so, and not allow difference in governmental philosophies touching on moral matters also dove-tailing with religious issues. Of course, Mr. Killian is free, in this free country to be as incoherent as he wishes to be. Society is free as well to not take him one scintilla seriously.
Why should I accept that opposing gay marriage is a matter of unjust discrimination?
Brian,
Did I say anything about gay marriage? The Catholic Church has been opposing anything that could reasonably be called gay-rights legislation since before anyone ever dreamed of same-sex marriage.
Why shouldn’t I just take all this rights talk as empty self-interested rhetoric?
Apparently you do. Why shouldn’t I take Catholic teaching on homosexuality as an attempt to rationalize a pathological aversion to homosexuality? Then we won’t have to say anything more to each other.
I do not regard as unjust discrimination the Catholic Church’s principled resistance, even in pluralistic and secularized nations, to redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. That resistance, which I consider an ethical duty, serves both revealed truth and the rights of all persons, including those who experience same-sex attraction. All human beings, both married and unmarried, have the right to live in a society that privileges the conjugal relationship between a man and a woman as the sole moral context for active sexuality, inasmuch as the well-being of the entire society depends on transmitting and nurturing human life through the family in the sense in which Catholicism understands that institution.
As for the United States military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I believe that it should not have been revoked. One reason for that prudential judgment is my concern about possible recurrences of the tragedy of the death of Matthew Shepard in the cases of soldiers and sailors who naïvely overestimate the climate of tolerance in their barracks and aboard their ships. It should be noted, however, that the Magisterium, in its 2002 CDF instruction on political participation and its 2003 instruction on opposing legal recognition of same-sex unions, dropped its previous mention of military recruitment, thus possibly signaling that Catholics are not obliged to attach to that question the same importance that we should accord to fighting a redefinition of marriage. The 2003 document summarizes a Catholic’s duty in one lapidary sentence: “Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons” (section 5). Reluctantly coexisting with the rescission of “don’t ask, don’t tell” does not imply approval of homosexual acts in opposition to the Church’s teachings on chastity.
It should be noted, however, that the Magisterium, in its 2002 CDF instruction on political participation and its 2003 instruction on opposing legal recognition of same-sex unions, dropped its previous mention of military recruitment, thus possibly signaling that Catholics are not obliged to attach to that question the same importance that we should accord to fighting a redefinition of marriage.
Somehow, I’m not inclined to suppress my own prudential judgment to the shifting positions of the CDF. The Church’s judgment on the civil rights of gay people has been wrongful. Her tendency to edit out particular positions once they become a point of social embarassment does not free the prelates of the Church from accountability as to these postions.
Given that the Catholic Church has never found a single example of “unjust discrimination” in the civil order, I don’t think referencing that serves any purpose.
Yes, big newsflash, people disagree about things! The Catholic Church has a notion of human dignity; and there are other people who have a different notion of human dignity. So what?
Thales,
To go back to my analogy with anti-Semitism, the Catholic Church had one view of Jews, and the Jews had a different view of themselves. You ask, “So what?” But of course when the Catholic Church was dominant, it made a great deal of difference to the Jews that the Catholic Church didn’t agree with the way the Jews saw themselves. When there are the oppressors and the oppressed, it’s not merely a matter of two sides disagreeing with each other.
I’m afraid the debate in the comment thread has devolved and might be beyond recovery.
Rarely have I seen a debate about homosexuality on a religion blog that was as restrained and respectful as this one. I really don’t know what you are talking about.
But snarking that the Church is full of venom and hates gays is simplistic and unfair and juvenile. The Church has a certain view about human dignity, and someone might disagree about that view, but people should take it seriously, consider it, and have a honest discussion about it. That type of discussion should be able to occur, especially here on a Catholic blog. Is that possible?
I think you and many other people fail to understand that in a very real sense the Catholic Church—and I have argued this before—doesn’t recognize the right of gay people to exist. It is not that the Church has one idea of human dignity and those who believe in gay rights have another. It is that the Church’s idea of how homosexuality should be dealt with in society is that those with a homosexual orientation should keep it a secret and remain celibate. The Church claims to oppose “unjust discrimination,” but its recommendation is that homosexual persons should keep their homosexuality a secret, and then there can’t be any discrimination. And of course it is only when it comes to a homosexual orientation that there must be no “unjust discrimination.” Those who engage in homosexual behavior may be fired from their jobs or evicted from their apartments.
The Church may not hate gays, but it does not want gay people to have any rights. It does not want gay people to be gay people. It wants closeted, celibate homosexual persons. I feel that calling oneself gay implies self-acceptance. The Church does not want people with a homosexual orientation to arrive at self-acceptance. It doesn’t want gay people to exist.
It doesn’t want gay people to exist.
I would rephrase that: the Church wants gay people to exist, but it doesn’t want people to be gay. Inasmuch as the Church considers homosexuality a disorder, it believes that those afflicted with homosexual tendencies would ultimately be happier and more integrated if they lived their gender in unity with their sex.
[The Church] believes that those afflicted with homosexual tendencies would ultimately be happier and more integrated if they lived their gender in unity with their sex.
…and that it is appropriate to use the power of the State to cause gay people to live this way.
…and that it is appropriate to use the power of the State to cause gay people to live this way.
That’s going a step too far.
David,
When I said that I’m afraid the debate in the comment thread has devolved and might be beyond recovery, I was referring to the fact that a number of commenters, including you, were talking past each other and not taking the Church’s position seriously, and that therefore, a discussion on this topic might be impossible.
I think this because of your comments like this: The Church may not hate gays, but it does not want gay people to have any rights. It does not want gay people to be gay people…. It doesn’t want gay people to exist.
The Church believes that every human person has dignity, and that they should be respected and that they have certain rights due to that dignity. Now, there are a number of things that the Church thinks violates the dignity of people, of both the actor and the acted-upon, such as murder, shoplifting, lying, slander, etc. And the Church even thinks that there are some things that a freely-consenting person can do himself alone that doesn’t immediately affect other people, but that still violates the dignity of the actor, such as getting high, getting drunk, cutting oneself, eating too much, watching porn, etc. And not only does the Church think that such actions are not in accord with the actor’s dignity, but the Church thinks that such actions are actually detrimental to the actor’s physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual well-being.
One of the actions in this last category is committing sexual acts outside of a permanent and exclusive heterosexual relationship. The Church thinks such acts are a violation of the actor’s dignity and are detrimental to the actor’s well-being. The Church’s belief on this issue is sincere and honest, and the Church has given many reasons supporting this belief.
Now I get that some people disagree about whether sexual acts outside of a permanent and exclusive heterosexual relationship are a violation of the actor’s dignity and are detrimental to the actor’s well-being; I get that people can disagree with the reasons given by the Church for its belief. I get that. That’s fine. But if there is any hope of an honest discussion about the Church’s view of human dignity and whether it is flawed or inadequate when compared to a different view of human dignity, the Church’s position has to be considered seriously. Dismissing the Church’s position by saying “it hates gays” or “it doesn’t want gays to exist” is no way to start an honest discussion about the differing views of human dignity. It would be just like me saying “gay activists are bigots who want to impose their moral beliefs on me and the rest of society” — that is no way to start an honest discussion about human dignity, because it fails to recognize that gay activists can be honest and sincere in their beliefs about human dignity.
A serious discussion about human dignity is a difficult thing, especially because it is such a personal topic that touches so closely our individual desires and beliefs and lifestyles. But it’s an very important discussion to have. Unfortunately, as I said above, I’m not sure that at the current time, such a discussion is possible.
@Killian
Ratzinger= Uruboros
suspect some others here would suggest that to deny marriage in the Church to homosexuals and certainly to prevent the legalization of gay marriage in civil society is a form of unjust discrimination and a direct violation of human rights
Considering my comments on this thread above, it may surprise certain of you to learn that I have NEVER wanted the Catholic Church to institute “gay marriage.” In fact, I don’t want the Catholic Church to recognise serial monogamy in the United States, as practised by the Protestan majority, as what the Roman Church calls “marriage.” And I don’t even think that most American CATHOLICS understand “sacramental marriage,” the concept of which dates from a time when “companionate marriage” was not even a norm. In Roman Catholic sacramental marriage, the couple literally marry themselves to GOD first, and secondarily to themselves, for the primary purpose not of producing mere humans, but for the purpose of ensouling new members of the Body of Christ. THAT is so far removed from from what Prots and Americanized Catholics consider to be “marriage” that they cannot even recognise that what dominant American culture is calling the thing is actually a travesty of orthodox spiritual thinking on the subject. “Gay marriage,” by definition, cannot even enter the discussion, and the Catholic Church in America, if it actually stuck to its theology, would know that it had nothing to fear from the “gays” who wish to be legally married, and EVERYTHING to fear from the dominant Protestant culture’s interpretation of “marriage.”
And I think that it is extremely important to note THIS, because it is extremely significant and true:
The Church may not hate gays, but it does not want gay people to have any rights. It does not want gay people to be gay people. It wants closeted, celibate homosexual persons.
The Catholic Church has always preached that there is nothing shameful or undignified in suffering and that the suffering people of the world are, in a sense, united with Christ in His Passion. Well, who suffers more in a homophobic , phallocratic and sexist society than a minority who are, naturally, oriented affectionally toward their own sex? Do they suffer any less than the poor, or the crippled or the infirm, whom the Church has always glorified as sharers in Christ’s work of redemption? It seems to me, then, that if the Catholic Church were SERIOUS about its affirmation of the “dignity” of homosexual people, it would WELCOME their testimony and their open participation in the communal life of the “people of God,” rather than encouraging them to remain silent about their “intrinsically evil condition”—which then might be correctly understood as no more “intrinsically evil” than tuberculosis or polio—as, in other words, faultless, even if evil.
However, the Roman Catholic Church, because it is afraid of actually LIVING the Gospel message, in this regard, has always shied away from its sworn duty to OPENLY “minister” to gay folk, and prefers the furtive, undignified work of organizations like Courage, which en-COURAGES shame and secrecy.
Very well said digby.
Digby:
You have a slight misunderstanding here. The Church does not call homosexuality an “intrinsically evil condition”. Homosexual *acts* are called intrinsically evil. The inclination or desire to commit such acts is for that reason said to be an intrinsically *disordered* inclination.
OK, then an “intrinsically DISORDERED condition”–but no more “disordered” than chemical depression or diabetes is, and morally faultless. Your quibble does not, in any way, respond to my point that the Church, by refusing to publicly minister to “gay” people and encourage their “testimony” to the same extent as she DOES encourage the “testimony” of others united to Christ in His Passion, denies them dignity. Respond to my point, if you can.
Nickols,
What the heck is a “gay person” anyway? This fuzzy social/political construct is nonsense. People have a constellation of different sexual desires, and no one should be defined by them.
People who have varying levels of desire for the same sex cannot be grouped into a monolith. Some, like Mr. Fuchs, may be “out” and “married”, but many others reasonably see this desire as unnatural and don’t act on it.
People should be free of government intrusion in their private lives, with the “no harm” principle as the limit.
Beyond that, people and private organizations should be free to judge others’ behavior as they see fit. And we’re talking about *behavior* here, not so-called “orientation.” “Being gay” is not the same thing as “being black.” What “LGBT” activists really mean by “being gay” is DOING gay.
If a private employer doesn’t want to keep someone who engages in homosexual behavior on staff, the government has no business forcing them to do it. Contrary to “LGBT” activists’ belief, government isn’t the morality police. And the government has no business preventing people from boycotting that employer because of its refusal to hire people who practice certain behaviors.
James,
We all have our reasons for participating in a forum like this. For me it is the desire to see the actual, conceptual “mechanics” of idea-making and idea-application at work, and you can only see that by watching under a stressor like a heated conversation. I am being candid about this interest in mine, because I want to be crystal clear about the tenor of my response to you. Naturally, I disagree with you. But ironically I disagree even more in a way with digby with whom I also have some conceptual things in common. It boils down to, in digby’s case the desire to embrace the whole Catholic view of “suffering” and apply it to the gay case. When i started blogging on these issues I really had no idea that this “suffering” issues was such a live on for people. I lived my life quite happily as a gay man for a long time. It has been my anecdotal impression in life that gay people are generally happier than straight. I will quickly admit that part of this may be that I live in a rich city where life is pretty pleasant, and that gay people here may have some interesting benefits from the situation. Be this as it may, this has been my experience. (And I want to add just for clarity’s sake, that feeling happy does not mean not having had problems and trials, etc. Just that in general day-to-day life feels like a good thing and is a pleasure and rewarding.)
Well, I have found that modern Catholics are very interested in seeing their assumptions confirmed. Here is where I touch on your points, James. I agree in a way that people have the right to associate with whom they want. The employment issue is a more complex one than you are making it. But the right of association is a sort of bedrock. But that is not the same things as using one’s right of association to create metaphysical blight, as it were, in society based on the desire to see one’s “beliefs” confirmed EVEN AGAINST THE FACTS. To wit, I have encountered at this point in the blogosphere an endless parade of people who are really willing to descend to the more vile Schadenfreude level to ascribe to me and others gay people what they believe must be the case: massive unhappiness, despair, yadda yadda yadda. I cannot tell you how disgusting their whole impulse seems to me. But even worse it shows a tendency to delusory thinking that is very troubling in a tradition that once seemed to have a lot of smart people in it.
I have to be candid with you and say that your viewpoint seems to me a soft version of that same delusory mode. Your whole view enunciated here is based utterly on a notion of right and responsibility developed by the Enlightenment. And yet you display as well the delusory desire of so many modern Catholics to NOT see themselves as indebted to what is now a hoary mantra for them in calling it “the so-called Enlightenment”. One wants to be polite as one can be, but it just makes the Catholic side seem lost in a la-la land, and none too bright or coherent or honest.
Peter Paul, I’m very happy that you’re happy, but I have known many “gay” folks who were utterly miserable because of their exclusion from their traditional faith-group. Of course, during my time in the United States (where I never want to dwell again) I lived in the so-called “heartland,” where there is massive public obloquy for “gay” folks. And, perhaps, you might even be happier if you, too, might be welcomed, along with your “husband,” into a non-virtual community, wherein those unhappy moments you mentioned could actually be celebrated as opportunities for spiritual evolution and growth. I don’t want to come across as someone who thinks that all of “gay” life is tragedy, either, but doesn’t that make sense?
digby,
The part that makes sense is that there are parts of this country, and of course all the others too, where being gay would be terribly difficult. No offense, but …..duh! Why do you think gay people have always been happiest in cities. I have to say I feel pretty well integrated into the community. So I don’t get that point of yours. But I think what you mean is that I don’t have the realistic option of being a part of the faith community that I was raised in. And I think that is your real point. On that point my personal situation may be — admittedly — a bit different from other gay Catholics. It is a moot point for me precisely because I do not believe anything about it at this point. And I feel zero nostalgia for it. I don’t force my a-vert (is that a word? –what’s the opposite of “revert”?) on others. In fact I feel I have constantly interacted with Catholics. It is just sociologically people outside the Catholic domain just seem cheeriier on the whole. Just an observation. Yet I do feel a strong kinship culturally with Catholics. And I am 110% sure that I appreciate historical Catholic artistic culture better than 99. 99999999% of living Catholics. I have literally never felt for one second sorry that I was gay. I am pissed sometimes that I have to deal with a limited amount of misunderstanding based on being gay. But really –thankfully– that has been pretty small. The truth is — and I am almost sheepish about admitting it– I have really encountered more in-my-face discrimination for not liking Madonna-type music (and her descendants) from other gay people who think I just the most uppity snob, than I have from straight people for being gay. I have been in a loving relationship for more than 25 years. Life doesn’t get much better on this planet than to have someone to love you with all your quirkiness. And I definitely qualify as quirky. But at least I know it!
Well, Mr. Fuchs, at least we agree on Madonna/Lady Gaga stuff. A Catholic friend of mine and I always say we like very much gay people who abjure a lot of the trash and tackiness of the gay subculture (and straight culture as well, it must be admitted). I think too many gays, in their rebellion against societal mores, threw out the baby with the bathwater and rejected anything traditional. Of course, they no longer need be in rebellion now that contemporary society and culture have caught up with them. They, it must be said, have now become part of the Establishment.
James,
I had to blink, because I really could have written the exact words you did. Except that after the last word “Establishment” I would have added a comma and then “some of which is itself devoted lamentably devoted now to the promotion of cultural junk.”
Folks, I think it best if we let this conversation die down.
My post has as its interest treatment of gay and lesbian persons, and I approach the question from the perspecitve of the rights and dignity owed to such persons.
I realize that some people have moved this conversation in the direction of the morality of the expression of homosexual behaviour (but that is not what this conversation is about), and others have used this conversation as an opportunity to highlight the ways in which they perceive the Church to have failed gay and lesbian persons (and that is also not really what the conversation is about). Those are separate conversations which I have let begin here, but I suggest moving back to the original post, or taking those conversations elsewhere. Thanks.
Kelly,
The problem, as I’ve mentioned a few times already, is that the term “gay rights” is generally viewed to be a comment on “the morality of the expression of homosexual behaviour,” by most everyone involved in the debate including both those in favor of expanding gay rights and by those opposed. Gay advocates use the language of “gay rights” in order to achieve rights and benefits which sometimes are a tacit approval of the morality of the homosexual behavior, and when the Church acts in ways that critics perceive as having failed gay people, it’s because the Church is cautiously trying to avoid condoning homosexual behavior.
Your distinction between treating someone with dignity and without discrimination, while not condoning an immoral act, is very important. But it is not only often misunderstood and ignored by many in the debate, it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be becauase it is sometimes very difficult to apply in practice (ie, the Catholic school firing the teacher in an open homosexual relationship — unjust discrimination or not?).
Thales, I read your comments. I’m aware of what you’ve now mentioned several times, but I think it’s a bit of a false construct you promote. Gay persons wanting to serve in the military, for example, aren’t seeking a sanctioning of their sexuality or behaviour. They are seeking to not be discriminated against on the basis of such sexuality and behaviour. They would have the expectation that disruptive behaviour among homosexual persons in the military be treated in the same way that disruptive heterosexual behaviour would be treated. That is a reasonable expectation…
Kelly,
I wasn’t talking about gays in the military. I’m making a comment about the larger debate. I’m with you on the principle that it’s reasonable to think that “disruptive behavior among homosexual persons can be treated the same as disruptive behavior among heterosexual persons” but that doesn’t go to the larger and thornier questions such as, for example, whether recognizing same-sex marriages is a tacit condoning of the morality of the expression of homosexual behavior, or whether a Catholic school can fire someone for being in an open homosexual relationship.
Thales, I understand your argument.
Your dropping the generalization that “term ‘gay rights’ is generally viewed to be a comment on ‘the morality of the expression of homosexual behaviour,’ by most everyone involved in the debate including both those in favor of expanding gay rights and by those opposed,” and I have given you a very specific example that your generalization cannot sustain.
The problem, as I’ve mentioned a few times already, is that the term “gay rights” is generally viewed to be a comment on “the morality of the expression of homosexual behaviour,” by most everyone involved in the debate including both those in favor of expanding gay rights and by those opposed.
No, it is not.
In the civil sphere and outside theological discussion, it is general used to refer to the civil status of gay and lesbian people. It means gay people’s “rights” in civil society, not the metaphyiscal “right” to perform a particular act without sin.
Gay advocates use the language of “gay rights” in order to achieve rights and benefits which sometimes are a tacit approval of the morality of the homosexual behavior, and when the Church acts in ways that critics perceive as having failed gay people, it’s because the Church is cautiously trying to avoid condoning homosexual behavior.
Okay, there is the argument. If we repeal sodomy laws don’t allow bosses to strip away gay people’s jobs from them, some (including the Catholic Church) say that this is tacit approval of homosexual acts. In other words, everyone who supports not making gay people subject to these criminal or economic sanctions is supporting same sex whoopie.
For those who want to defend that proposition, I am happy to have that discussion with them.
the Catholic school firing the teacher in an open homosexual relationship — unjust discrimination or not?
How about using a real life example rather than a made-up one? Firing a person because they are gay working as an ironworker, fast food clerk, hod-carrier, or bank teller? Agree with the gay rights movement this is unjust or with the Catholic Church that it is not?
Kelly,
I don’t follow. There’s lot of particular specific examples of “good” and valuable rights that can be included in the phrase “gay rights” that we would all agree on, like the right to not be burned at the stake for being gay, or the right not to be tortured. That’s doesn’t mean my generalization is invalid.
Kurt,
it is generally used to refer to the civil status of gay and lesbian people … which can be (and often is) a comment on their moral status. In the civil sphere, the law invariably legislates someone’s moral view. That’s just what the law does. No theological discussion here.
For those who want to defend that proposition, I am happy to have that discussion with them.That’s why I suggested the Catholic teacher example. Go ahead, start it off.
How about using a real life example rather than a made-up one?
Huh? This is a real-life example. Also, the examples you give are more “gray” — I always find it easier to start with more clear examples (where the issues are more stark and evident) before moving to the gray ones.
… which can be (and often is) a comment on their moral status. In the civil sphere, the law invariably legislates someone’s moral view. That’s just what the law does. No theological discussion here.
I’m familiar with the argument that we can’t decriminalize homosexual behavior or to prohibit job discrimination because that is giving moral approval to gay behavior. I don’t accept that viewpoint, but I at least appreciate the clarity as to what gay rights opponents are really all about.
This is a real-life example. Also, the examples you give are more “gray” — I always find it easier to start with more clear examples (where the issues are more stark and evident) before moving to the gray ones
No proposal for gay rights has ever tried to take away the right of Catholic schools to hire who they wish. Every version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has exempted Catholic schools as have all state and municipal legislation.
Yet there is very real job discrimination, which to me seems the place to start.
Kurt,
Your question about job discrimination is only the tip of the iceberg, and one that I don’t think we have the space or time here to fully discuss. Part of the problem is that I don’t know what your premises are and where you’re coming from. You say that “No proposal for gay rights has ever tried to take away the right of Catholic schools to hire who they wish” and you talk about the exemption for Catholic schools. Okay, fine. But that doesn’t address the issue, and I still don’t know where you stand. So the question still remains: do you think that this exemption for Catholic schools is a good policy or a bad one? If you think it’s acceptable, then what about a Catholic owner of a private daycare? Or a Catholic owner of a studio that does wedding photos? Or a Catholic owner of a rental hall? Or a Catholic owner of some other business? Is there a distinction between a Catholic school, a privately-owned daycare business, or an owner of a wedding reception hall, or some other business? Are some of these unjust discriminations and some aren’t?
If on the other hand, you think that it is bad policy to let Catholic schools decide who they hire and “discriminate” against open homosexuals, then we’ve got an entirely different discussion on our hands — we’d have to go back to basics about religious freedom and a host of other issues, in order for me to convince you otherwise.
And then there’s all kind of other questions, like whether you think it’s wrong to fire someone because he has red hair or because he has buck teeth. Is that unjust discrimination in your mind? Are these different from sexual orientation? If so, how? Even if it is unjust discrimination, should that be prohibited by law?
In short, there are tons of complicated issues here, and since I have no sense about your principles and where we share common ground, I think a discussion at this point will be us talking past each other.
Thales,
From what I understand, you are not a liberal, so it is probably very unfair of me to expect you to have detailed knowledge of what we liberals have consistently stood for as we led the efforts for civil rights and non-discrimination legislation starting with the effort that lead to our success in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I can absolutely assure you that American liberals and gay rights proponents (including myself) still use the Civil Rights Act as our model. Yes, Catholic schools have been exempted from this law and every federal employment discrimination bill introduced by a liberal or pro-gay rights member of Congress. Were there a single deviation from this in just an introduction of bill, I really wouldn’t consider that a reason for concern, but even that has not happened once. Therefore, among those of us familiar and committed to civil rights laws in this country, raising coverage by Catholic schools is considered a Red Herring.
then what about a Catholic owner of a private daycare? Or a Catholic owner of a studio that does wedding photos? Or a Catholic owner of a rental hall? Or a Catholic owner of some other business? Is there a distinction between a Catholic school, a privately-owned daycare business, or an owner of a wedding reception hall, or some other business? Are some of these unjust discriminations and some aren’t?
We do have in the Civil Rights Act and the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act an exemption for small business. A national chain of daycare centers, the rental office of Carnegie Hall and a photography studio with hundreds of employees would clearly not be exempt. I simply reject the assertion that someone’s private, commercial employer has the right to try to cause economic harm to a worker in order to enforce the boss’s notion of personal morality. There is a theory that God has placed every boss in a rightful position of authority over his workers and that obedience to the workplace boss is obedience to God. It is not a theory I accept.
And then there’s all kind of other questions, like whether you think it’s wrong to fire someone because he has red hair or because he has buck teeth. Is that unjust discrimination in your mind? Are these different from sexual orientation? If so, how? Even if it is unjust discrimination, should that be prohibited by law?
I do think it is unjust to fire someone based on these physical characteristics, although I support an exemption in law for Catholic schools. And I think for a boss to call a worker into his office and tell him he is fired because the worker has been sinfully miserly in his charitable giving is also unjust, even while accepting the sinfulness of miserliness and our moral obligations to help the poor. The issue is not the sin of miserliness, it is the proper role of a boss in running the lives of his workers.
Kurt,
Why do you keep on saying that the case of Catholic schools terminating an openly homosexual employee is a red herring? It’s clearly not. It took 10 seconds of time, and my first Google search entry turned up this:
http://news.change.org/stories/benedictine-university-its-moral-for-catholics-to-fire-gay-people
Sure, the law currently permits it, but as the article shows, increasingly, people think that the law shouldn’t. If we’re going to have a discussion, the issue of whether Catholic schools should be permitted to terminate an open homosexual must be addressed, because if we can come to an understanding of the principles behind this policy (both in favor and against), then we can apply these principles to the more gray examples of other types of employers terminating gay employees. And since I still don’t know whether you think that such a policy is a good idea or not, I can’t address the other cases of termination I’ve mentioned. From your statement that “I simply reject the assertion that someone’s private, commercial employer has the right to try to cause economic harm to a worker in order to enforce the boss’s notion of personal morality”, I’m guessing you think the current policy for Catholic schools is actually a bad idea. But your statement illustrates also that you’re overlooking issues of religious freedom and an actor’s conscientious objection to cooperation with evil, not to mention an understanding of the Catholic school’s reason for such a policy (hint: it’s not to cause economic harm in order to enforce its own version of morality on someone). My point is that I’m afraid that we are still talking past each other because we don’t have a common understanding of the premises and first principles that we’re coming from.
Finally, in your last paragraph, you failed to address my main question which has huge implications for this issue. The question is: okay, let’s grant that such terminations are unjust, but should they be prohibited by law? (For example, there may be good reasons not to prohibit certain unjust terminations by law, due to concerns for freedom of association or freedom of religion. Our society often accommodates practices with which the majority disagrees, due to a greater respect for freedom of conscience.)
Why do you keep on saying that the case of Catholic schools terminating an openly homosexual employee is a red herring? It’s clearly not…Sure, the law currently permits it, but as the article shows, increasingly, people think that the law shouldn’t.
The article does not show that. Nowhere in the article is there a call for any change in the law. In the case of this independent Catholic university, they had a written, voluntary policy of non-discrimination against gays and lesbians but then fired (actually demoted) a lesbian employee. The reaction from fair-minded people was not a call for a legislative change but an appeal to the university not to lure honest gay and lesbian professionals to take a job at the university under a promise not to discriminate and then snatch away a person’s job after they have been tricked and lied to in the original job offer.
If we’re going to have a discussion, the issue of whether Catholic schools should be permitted to terminate an open homosexual must be addressed, because if we can come to an understanding of the principles behind this policy (both in favor and against), then we can apply these principles to the more gray examples of other types of employers terminating gay employees.
Why does the discussion have to be that way? It never has before. All of our employment rights legislation has exempted the Catholic Church and other churches. We didn’t start the discussion of the rights of workers to organize unions with the unionization of Church employees and then move on to private employers. We didn’t discuss gender discrimination first with the Church and then the private sector.
And since I still don’t know whether you think that such a policy is a good idea or not, I can’t address the other cases of termination I’ve mentioned.
I have repeated stated my personal support for the model of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 which exempts churches. You refuse to accept it. Tens of millions of LGBT people can sit around and wait for job protection because you can’t accept the consistent practice of employment rights law that neither I nor any other significant element is proposing we deviate from. This is the Red Herring.
From your statement that “I simply reject the assertion that someone’s private, commercial employer has the right to try to cause economic harm to a worker in order to enforce the boss’s notion of personal morality”, … your statement illustrates also that you’re overlooking issues of religious freedom and an actor’s conscientious objection to cooperation with evil, not to mention an understanding of the [bosses?] reason for such a policy (hint: it’s not to cause economic harm in order to enforce its own version of morality on someone).
I apologize for the edits above but since I have repeated answered the questions of Catholic schools in my personal support for the model of the Civil Rights Acts of 1965, I can’t imagine what purpose there is to again repeat what has been said so many times. So, as to categories of employers covered by the Civil Rights Act, yes, I reject the legal right of a covered employer to try to advance his (even conscientious and sincere) objections to an employee’s personal morality by using the threat of economic harm to attempt to get a worker to conform with the boss’s standards of personal morality. Taking away someone’s job is to cause them economic harm. It is simply an improper role of a boss over an employee’s personal life.
Finally, in your last paragraph, you failed to address my main question which has huge implications for this issue. The question is: okay, let’s grant that such terminations are unjust, but should they be prohibited by law? (For example, there may be good reasons not to prohibit certain unjust terminations by law, due to concerns for freedom of association or freedom of religion. Our society often accommodates practices with which the majority disagrees, due to a greater respect for freedom of conscience.)
I have been very clear, but I will restate it again. I support the enactment of ENDA which will add sexual orientation as a protected category under the Civil Rights Act of 1965. That would not affect churches including the Catholic Church. It would mean that for most for-profit, private sector companies (but with a small business exemption), a boss who believes that homosexuality is immoral would not have the legal right to fire a subordinate employee for that reason. And I reject that idea that bosses in companies covered under the Act are “cooperating with evil” because of the personal sexual behavior of their workers. That is a form of paternalism that I find deeply offensive.
Kurt,
Let me try again. Okay, so churches are exempt in employment rights legislation. But why is the law that way? Is there a good reason for it? I’m asking because I’m trying to get at the underlying principle for why we have the law that way. If there is no good reason for the law, but it is just a mask for discrimination by churches, why not change it?
Now, either you acknowledge that there are good reasons for society to recognize an exemption for churches, or you don’t. At the moment, I don’t know where you stand. If the former, then we could have a conversation about these good reasons, and then we could move on and discuss whether it makes sense to apply these reasons and extend similar exemptions to Catholic businesses, or Muslim employers, or whoever — maybe it wouldn’t make sense to extend exemptions, or maybe it would, who knows?– but at least we could have a conversation about it. If the latter — that is, if you don’t see any good reason for society to recognize exemptions for churches in employment rights legislation–then it’s impossible for me to talk to you about other non-church situations; instead, we’d have to step back, and I’d have to convince you that there are good reasons to have exemptions for churches in employment rights legislation.
If you don’t want to talk about the underlying principles for exempting churches from employment rights legislation, then we’re at an impasse and this conversation can go nowhere.
Let me try again. Okay, so churches are exempt in employment rights legislation. But why is the law that way? Is there a good reason for it? I’m asking because I’m trying to get at the underlying principle for why we have the law that way.
We have a long history in this country of liberal advocacy for civil rights legislation. As a liberal who has been involved in these efforts at various times I am happy to try to explain the consistent principles in which this legislation has been based on, and what is generally accepted as a settled matter.
In efforts to pass laws ensuring that workers would not be subject to racial and other forms of job discrimination, it has also been recognized that good public policy is best served by an exemption for religious institutions. The principle here is that, respecting freedom of religion, the State should not be regulating churches and that enforcement of employment discrimination laws is a form of State regulation. I should note this is a principle not unique to job discrimination law. Under our legal system the law is most reluctant to interfere in religious organizations on a variety of matters in which the general public is subject to the law. In my own neighborhood, a Protestant church was running a commercial parking lot in an area where the zoning did not permit it. They were advised (correctly, under law) that if they declared this to be a “ministry” the courts would not second guess their assertion.
While the federal government should not regulate churches, the government does have the authority to regulate private employment. Therefore an employer engaged in interstate commerce cannot claim that his personal religious beliefs (however sincere) exempt him (or his company) from laws banning racial discrimination. While our country has a long history of the exemption of churches from government regulation, our legal system has generally not recognized a personal exemption from law based on a religious objections, be it paying taxes, not speeding on the highway, or wearing clothes on the street.
In the case of business practices, such as employment discrimination, it would even be a harder case. Be it a matter of a company, a partnership or even an “S” corporation, the actor prohibited from discriminating is not any natural person but the business. Even those persons with what I find to be the sick and perverted theory that their religious faith requires them as a worker’s employer to punish moral degenerates by firing them, it is not them but the company that is employing a gay person (or Black, or Catholic or whatever their objection is). A legal fiction yes, but a legal fiction they take advantage of for purposes of liability and taxes and other matters to their advantage. (Remember, a person hiring the neighbor kid to mow the lawn is not subject to the Civil Rights Act and would remain free not to hire gays under the proposed ENDA).
It is essential, it seems to me, to distinguish between “homosexual persons” and gay people. Gay rights are for people who self-identify as gay, who accept their sexual orientation, and have no more feeling of guilt in engaging in homosexual acts as heterosexuals have in engaging in heterosexual acts. (Which does not mean “anything goes” for either gay people or straight people.) If, as the Church wants, we had only closeted, celibate homosexual persons, there would be no gay-rights movement. The rainbow flag is not something closeted, celibate homosexual persons would embrace, nor would the Church want them to. The Church does not use the word “gay” in official documents, and neither does the major Catholic homosexual support group Courage.
If you’re talking about gay rights, you’re talking about gay people. You are talking about people who don’t accept the teachings of the Church that homosexuality is disordered and that homosexual acts are gravely depraved. You are talking about people many (but not all) of whom engage in sex with same-sex partners and claim a right to do so.
The command to refrain from “unjust” discrimination against closeted, homosexual persons does not place any kind of burden on Catholics. It has little if anything to do with supporting gay rights.
Archbishop Dolan said the following a few months ago:
As I argued at the time, this was disingenuous. The Church has opposed any and all anti-discrimination laws for gay people. The Church does not recognize the right of gay people to exist.
I hope that David Nickol and others will be able to agree with me on this point: as far as a general, abstract principle is concerned, the Catholic Church has never conditioned her concept of inherent human rights on her evaluation of the morality of the actions of the human beings who possess those rights. Reflecting the words of Jesus himself, the Church has always acknowledged that God makes the sun shine and the rain fall on the good and the bad alike (Mt 5:45). Granted, Catholics have violated that principle in practice (no shock), and the Church’s teaching authority (like the human rights philosophy of what is called the Enlightenment) allows restrictions on the exercise of rights when the common good genuinely demands such qualifications (Dignitatis humanae, section 7). As for the human rights of persons with same-gender attraction, I respectfully suggest that, regardless of whether or not those persons are trying to live in accord with the Church’s teachings on chastity, or whether or not they disclose one aspect of their life situation, the concrete implementation of those rights is subject to both the common good and what the Church calls “political prudence” (CCC 2109).
Stephen,
I am afraid I can’t agree. The following is from SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS, The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, July 22, 1992:
Here’s another paragraph from earlier in the same document:
I think basic human rights include the rights to shelter, and it appears to me that the Church is saying that homosexual couples may be discriminated against not merely when it comes to public housing, but also commercial rentals. I can only presume that, say, a lesbian couple with two children is not entitled to live in public housing or in a commercial apartment building, even if they are model tenants, because they are taking up space that should be reserved for “genuine families” and because by living together in a same-sex relationship they are engaging in “objectively disordered external conduct” which landlords have a right to prevent from happening in their apartment buildings.
I do not believe that the 1992 CDF document makes it absolutely impossible for a conscientious Catholic legislator to vote for a bill that would, on the basis of the Church’s concept of human rights, have the primary effect of merely prohibiting unjust discrimination in housing and employment against persons with a same-sex attraction. The exact wording of any bill on this–or any other–topic is crucial. We should note the open-ended, tentative nature of the phrasing of the CDF document. Nowhere does the document state: “No anti-discrimination legislative language can ever satisfy the Church’s legitimate concerns about protecting the common good and upholding her teachings on marriage and chastity.”
I do not believe that the 1992 CDF document makes it absolutely impossible for a conscientious Catholic legislator . . .
Stephen,
It is crystal clear to me that the Catholic Church opposes in principle gay rights legislation. As someone trying to put up the best defense of the Church’s position, it may be of some comfort to you that there is no unequivocal, infallible document forbidding a legislator from voting for any conceivable bill that protected gay people in some way. However, with all due respect, I think you are grasping at straws. I challenge you to read the major documents from the CDF and the American bishops regarding homosexuality imagining you were gay yourself and see if you find anything at all sympathetic in them. When I say “gay,” I do not mean a closeted “homosexual person” committed to lifelong celibacy. Imagine you are Ellen DeGeneris, or Rosie O’Donnell, or Neil Patrick Harris, or Jodie Foster, or Barney Frank, or Ricky Martin, or David Sedaris. The Catholic Church is opposed to “gay rights” as a concept, because homosexual behavior is “behavior to which no one has any conceivable right”:
Stephen O’Brien,
You wrote: ” the Catholic Church has never conditioned her concept of inherent human rights on her evaluation of the morality of the actions of the human beings who possess those rights.”
Now the first thing is that the Catholic Church’s acceptance of “inherent human rights” is a comparatively very late matter in its existence. But even if we were to stretch and read this notion as adumbrated in past theological concepts, there are flat contradictions to your word “never.” I assume you would not disagree that the right to not be falsely imprisoned, arrested, or even tortured is an “inherent human right.” The question would be per your schema, was there a time when such was contingent on mere actions of the person rather than on on the intrinsic morality of a disposition or active intent. Well, in fact even here there are a vast number of examples. Let me use — on purpose — the most dramatic and colorful to make the point. If while being interrogated or tried by the Holy Office a prisoner said or did something that was clearly meant only to exculpate himself/herself would there never have been a case where such was accepted as truly indicative of a internal disposition. History indicates this was a rather routine occurrence in fact. Never say never when it comes to something this old.
Kurt writes, “The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (as well as similar legislation at the state level) has been opposed by our bishops. All versions of this legislation exempted Catholic schools and other faith based organizations as well as small businesses but for the remainder of general employment, prohibit bosses from firing someone because the worker is gay or lesbian.”
The point of my comment was to point out the distinction between inclination and act. Firing someone (for example) for having a condition is bigotry. Firing him for what he does, is not.
Thus, if an employer were to refuse to hire a black person because he believed blacks were more likely to steal, that would be bigotry. But refusing to hire a black person who admits that he steals, would not.
Many people here seem unwilling to make this distinction with regard to homosexuals. You must either be for “gay rights”, as a whole, or be a bigot. I don’t accept framing the debate in those terms. A Catholic school should no more be forced to hire an openly practicing homosexual than an openly practicing adulterer. And any other Catholic employer, or landlord, should have the same right to distinguish between someone who may have a certain inclination, and someone who openly acts on his inclinations in ways that violate the moral law.
Agellius,
Please see my message directly above yours in which I quote the CDF saying, “There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.” They are talking about sexual orientation, not sexual behavior. It is not, according to the Church “unjust” discrimination for a Catholic school to refuse to hire a celibate homosexual as a teacher or a coach, or for the military to bar closeted, celibate homosexuals from military service. The Church permits discrimination based on orientation alone in these and other cases (and of course in ordaining priests).
It brings to mind the attempt by so many to frame the abuse scandal in terms of homosexuality rather than pedophilia and abuse of power. George Weigel’s respons to the John Jay report last spring is a striking example. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/267600
David writes, “Please see my message directly above yours in which I quote the CDF saying, …”
I never claimed to be arguing on behalf of the CDF.
You must either be for “gay rights”, as a whole, or be a bigot. I don’t accept framing the debate in those terms. A Catholic school should no more be forced to hire an openly practicing homosexual than an openly practicing adulterer. And any other Catholic employer, or landlord, should have the same right to distinguish between someone who may have a certain inclination, and someone who openly acts on his inclinations in ways that violate the moral law.
There have been no proposals to take away the righ tof Catholic school to hire who they wish.
The social discussion would be to your second proposition, in which you call upon bosses and landlords to be arbittrator’s of their employees and tenants personal morality.
I suppose you would give a Unitarian employer the right to fire an anti-gay conservative Catholic and a Quaker landlord to not rent to a Servicemember.
Kurt writes, “The social discussion would be to your second proposition, in which you call upon bosses and landlords to be arbittrator’s of their employees and tenants personal morality. I suppose you would give a Unitarian employer the right to fire an anti-gay conservative Catholic and a Quaker landlord to not rent to a Servicemember.”
I think your comment is a perfect illustration of where we’re talking past each other: It’s not clear whether we’re arguing from the principles of Catholic morality or secular democracy.
Where I’m coming from, I would not give a Unitarian employer the “right” to fire a conservative Catholic (leaving out the “anti-gay” part — whatever that means) on that ground alone. Because there is nothing immoral about being a conservative Catholic. Similarly, from the perspective of Catholic morality, there is nothing wrong with being a servicemember. However there is something wrong with being a practicing homosexual, or for that matter a heterosexual fornicator or adulterer, so I would give employees and landlords the right to decline to employ or rent lodgings to the latter. I don’t consider this unjust discrimination, because it’s aimed not at the person but at his behavior.
If the logical conclusion of this is that Catholic morality wants to forbid people from being practicing homosexuals or heterosexual fornicators or adulterers — well, yeah. It does. That is not hatred of the sinner, but of his sins. Catholic morality would not have the homosexual or the fornicator be homeless, but chaste. There’s nothing hateful about that.
A right of landlords and employers to refuse to hire or lodge persons for moral reasons, does not amount to hatred or bigotry of a particular class of unrepentant sinners: It would not be based on bigotry towards homosexuals in particular since it would also include fornicating heterosexual couples. (Granted that if a landlord or employer excluded active homosexuals but not heterosexual fornicators, that would appear as a particular dislike of homosexuals.)
(BTW, if such a right were granted to landlords, would VN bloggers be rallying around the cause of human rights for heterosexual fornicators?)
If we are discussing what should be allowed from the perspective of secular democracy, admittedly the issues are different. The answers would depend on what moral principles are alleged to undergird secular democracy. However as far as I know, there are no moral principles undergirding secular democracy per se: The moral principles of a secular democracy are presumed to be those of the majority of its citizens. Again the democracy adopts the morals of its citizens: If it’s the other way around, that the citizens must adopt the morals of the democracy, then it would seem not to be “government by the people” at all.
As a Catholic citizen, I have the right to base my understanding of rights on Catholic moral teaching, and to try to persuade others to do the same. The principles of secular democracy do not forbid my doing so — or if they do, they are unjust and therefore non-binding upon me as a Catholic.
P.S. I’m perfectly willing to admit that our society, historically, has been harder on homosexuals than on heterosexual fornicators and adulterers. If it were up to me, it would be otherwise.
In regard to the very last comment made by Agellius, I agree. Both society and many vocal factions within the Catholic and especially the broader Christian community seem to have a special animus for gays. When is the last time you saw a protester holding a sign saying “God hates adulterers”? A quick google search should net you lots of examples of the ubiquitous “God hates Fags” signs and commentary from so called Christians
It’s not clear whether we’re arguing from the principles of Catholic morality or secular democracy.
Its very clear when the discussion starts with references to the United Nations and the U.S Department of State.
Where I’m coming from, I would not give a Unitarian employer the “right” to fire a conservative Catholic (leaving out the “anti-gay” part — whatever that means) on that ground alone. Because there is nothing immoral about being a conservative Catholic. Similarly, from the perspective of Catholic morality, there is nothing wrong with being a servicemember. However there is something wrong with being a practicing homosexual, or for that matter a heterosexual fornicator or adulterer, so I would give employees and landlords the right to decline to employ or rent lodgings to the latter. I don’t consider this unjust discrimination, because it’s aimed not at the person but at his behavior.
This whole thread has basically repeated the Catholic discussion on freedom of religion particularly from Pius IX to the silencing of John Courtney Murray. A Unitarian may not act against those whom he judges as immoral homophobes, but the State should enable a Catholic landlord or boss to act against a worker or tenant who violated Catholic standards of personal morality. The reason being is that the Catholic Church has the truth and the Unitarian is in error, and “error has no rights.”
Therefore, the following proposition condemned by the Pope, remained matters no good Catholic can embrace:
In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.
Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.
Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism
Roma locuta est, causa finita est
Peter Paul, I am happy for you that you have found love in a world highly populated with people who live under the influence of repression, denial, dissociation, rationalization, projection, etc. which supports their primitive underlying fear of others who threaten their sense of self and God.
Thanks Ronald, let me quote again a line I love to quote from Delores Claiborne: “Sometimes, Delores, you have to be a high-riding bitch just to survive.”
Digby writes, “Your quibble does not, in any way, respond to my point …”
I think it is not a quibble, but an extremely important distinction, to say that acts are evil but involuntary conditions are not.
You write, “… the Church, by refusing to publicly minister to “gay” people and encourage their “testimony” to the same extent as she DOES encourage the “testimony” of others united to Christ in His Passion, denies them dignity. Respond to my point, if you can.”
I would like nothing better than to respond to your point, but I’m finding it hard to be sure what it is.
In putting “gay” in quotes, are you intending to refer to homosexuals who are openly and actively putting their homosexuality into practice, and who consider it normal and natural to do so, and therefore have no intention of repenting of it? If so, when you say the Church refuses to minister to them, do you mean the Church refuses to accept them as they are, but instead insists that they must repent of their sin and resolve to sin no more?
Assuming those two statements express your position accurately, I answer that the Church treats every other kind of mortal sin the same way: When you’re guilty of a mortal sin, you must repent and resolve to commit that sin no more. Until you do, you are barred from Communion. If your sin is of a public nature, i.e. you’re going around telling people that you fornicate, and you’re proud to be a fornicator, and you demand to be accepted as you are, then in addition to being denied communion, in many places you also would not be considered suitable for positions of public ministry, etc. (And of course, a special Fornicators Pride Mass would be out of the question.)
On the other hand, if all you’re saying is that the Church refuses to ministor to people who have homosexual inclinations, I would simply contend that that’s false.
Your disingenuousness masks your repulsions and your gross homophobia, Agellius, so let me make it as simple as I can so you can’t squirm away from that obvious attitude again: “homosexuality” is not one thing, but a term MADE UP in the early 20th century by the “witch doctor of Vienna,” among others, to describe a multitude of NATURAL inclinations and affections, all of which contribute to romantic feelings for members of one’s same sex, which is why I put “gay” and even “homosexual” in quotes.
A natural physical weakness, like multiple sclerosis or diabetes, is morally neutral, even if it is an “intrinsic” whatever. People suffering such disabilities are welcomed in parishes and churches. What they DO with multiple sclerosis or diabetes may, indeed, be “evil,” but they themselves are NOT, so when they testify to their sufferings and recount what they’ve experienced and how they’ve been responded to by others, on account of their disabilities, they are heard, and their sufferings are borne by the whole “People of God” PUBLICLY. Ministering secretly to spastics and diabetics would be no “ministering” at all; instead, it would be condescending and disdainful—in other words SHAMING.
You seem obsessed with “acts” and to be completely unmoved that none of the PERFECTLY NATURAL (i.e. morally neutral) inclinations that result in “romantic attractions to members of one’s same sex” are ever going to go away. They are innate, and, as an innate condition, they must be considered PART OF GOD’S plan for those individual persons. You seem to have a blind eye (doubtless caused by your afore-mentioned gross homophobia) for the fact that, in terms of potential “heroic sanctity,” one generally rises by that by which one fell–that is, in this case, that “homosexuality” may be a sign of God’s particular grace for some individual, and that, obviously, should be CELEBRATED by the “People of God”–not silenced by them, and, as for sin, it’s always individual–that is, contextual and conditioned by one’s circumstances. The Church can keep her position that sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus or whatever operose “acts” are all “sins,” under most circumstances, and still OPENLY celebrate and embrace those whose very “romantic affection” for members of their same sex could just as easily eventuate in chaste lives of heroic sanctity through self-sacrifice for the people they love, and through their love of members of their same sex, for the whole community of Christians, and, then, for the whole world.
Your contention that the Church already does something like this is the kind of vile hypocrisy that is prompted by loathing.
Do you wish to see a clear example of unjust discrimination against people with same-gender attraction–an example which, in my view, should be rejected by all Catholics on the basis of the Church’s official teaching in CCC 2358? Please read this report:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12659
I have posted the following comment on my Facebook page:
Australian Bishop Kevin Manning is correct, and his argument is unanswerable. If he is wrong, then, logically, every child of parents living in marriages that are invalid according to Catholic standards, or in non-marital relationships, has to be denied admission to Catholic schools. Some Catholics may think that they are both defending the Faith and helping people who fail to live up to it, whereas those misguided Catholics are actually alienating people from the Faith unnecessarily and also hurting people. Let us not hurt people, especially children. I am glad that Bishop Manning is seeking a statement of support from the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference.
Thanks Stephen. A spark of light.
One last point: I think it would behove all the commentators here to contemplate this poem, by John of the Cross:
The Dark Night of the Soul
By John of the Cross
From: THE COLLECTED WORKS OF ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS, translated by Kieran Kavanaugh, OCD, and Otilio Rodriguez, OCD, revised edition (1991). Copyright 1991 ICS Publications.
1. One dark night,
fired with love’s urgent longings
- ah, the sheer grace! -
I went out unseen,
my house being now all stilled.
2. In darkness, and secure,
by the secret ladder, disguised,
- ah, the sheer grace! -
in darkness and concealment,
my house being now all stilled.
3. On that glad night,
in secret, for no one saw me,
nor did I look at anything,
with no other light or guide
than the one that burned in my heart.
4. This guided me
more surely than the light of noon
to where he was awaiting me
- him I knew so well -
there in a place where no one appeared.
5. O guiding night!
O night more lovely than the dawn!
O night that has united
the Lover with his beloved,
transforming the beloved in her Lover.
6. Upon my flowering breast
which I kept wholly for him alone,
there he lay sleeping,
and I caressing him
there in a breeze from the fanning cedars.
7. When the breeze blew from the turret,
as I parted his hair,
it wounded my neck
with its gentle hand,
suspending all my senses.
8. I abandoned and forgot myself,
laying my face on my Beloved;
all things ceased; I went out from myself,
leaving my cares
forgotten among the lilies.
I love it Digby!
digby,
Excellent idea, this poem makes a point. And let us just sharpen that point. In the Spanish “I went out unseen” is “Sali sin ser notada’ notice the “a” at the end of of “notada” indicating “feminine”. Saints put aside machismo for truth.
Digby…
You write, “Your disingenuousness masks your repulsions and your gross homophobia, Agellius, so let me make it as simple as I can so you can’t squirm away from that obvious attitude again: …”
Is it just me or is it getting warm in here? : )
You write, “A natural physical weakness, like multiple sclerosis or diabetes, is morally neutral, even if it is an “intrinsic” whatever. People suffering such disabilities are welcomed in parishes and churches. What they DO with multiple sclerosis or diabetes may, indeed, be “evil,” but they themselves are NOT, so when they testify to their sufferings and recount what they’ve experienced and how they’ve been responded to by others, on account of their disabilities, they are heard, and their sufferings are borne by the whole “People of God” PUBLICLY.”
I agree.
You write, “Ministering secretly to spastics and diabetics would be no “ministering” at all; instead, it would be condescending and disdainful—in other words SHAMING.”
Did I suggest that anyone should be ministered to secretly? Although on the other hand, most of the direct ministering that is done to me on account of my own sinful inclinations is done in private. (Thank goodness, since I’m not proud of them.)
In any event, for the sake of making proper distinctions, neither multiple sclerosis nor diabetes constitutes an inclination to do something that is intrinsically evil.
You write, “You seem obsessed with “acts” and to be completely unmoved that none of the PERFECTLY NATURAL (i.e. morally neutral) inclinations that result in “romantic attractions to members of one’s same sex” are ever going to go away. They are innate, and, as an innate condition, they must be considered PART OF GOD’S plan for those individual persons.”
I don’t dispute that allowing someone to suffer from homosexual inclinations may be part of God’s plan for some people. Whether such inclinations never go away, I don’t claim to know one way or another with certainty.
You write, “You seem to have a blind eye (doubtless caused by your afore-mentioned gross homophobia) for the fact that, in terms of potential “heroic sanctity,” one generally rises by that by which one fell–that is, in this case, that “homosexuality” may be a sign of God’s particular grace for some individual, and that, obviously, should be CELEBRATED by the “People of God”–not silenced by them, and, as for sin, it’s always individual–that is, contextual and conditioned by one’s circumstances.”
I’m not clear what, specifically, you are saying should be celebrated. If you mean the fact that someone struggled against and overcame a lifelong series of temptations to intrinsically evil acts, of course I would agree that that should be celebrated. However I don’t think the temptations themselves should be celebrated.
I have heard speakers at Catholic conferences who talked about having overcome addictions to drugs and sex. I think such persons should be applauded, and absolutely should share their stories for the edification of others, if they are so inclined (or keep them private if they choose). But obviously, that doesn’t mean that the urge to indulge in harmful, addictive drugs or illicit sex should be celebrated as such, even if it was the cause of someone’s having had to struggle and eventually emerge victorious.
You write, “The Church can keep her position that sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus or whatever operose “acts” are all “sins,” under most circumstances, and still OPENLY celebrate and embrace those whose very “romantic affection” for members of their same sex could just as easily eventuate in chaste lives of heroic sanctity through self-sacrifice for the people they love, and through their love of members of their same sex, for the whole community of Christians, and, then, for the whole world.”
Of course the Church should welcome and embrace all sinners. And then having welcomed them, reprove and correct them where they are in error, in order to set them on the path to virtue and holiness. And all this regardless of what particular sins are involved. I assume we agree on this.
You write, “Your contention that the Church already does something like this is the kind of vile hypocrisy that is prompted by loathing.”
Here you’ve lost me. Are you saying the Church does not welcome homosexuals? I’m quite sure that I have heard priests say from the pulpit that ALL are welcome; that all have sinned and are in need of the mercy of God, and therefore we may judge no one; that homosexual persons are to be treated with respect and dignity and, above all, charity; that in the words of St. Augustine we must hate the sin but have love the sinner. If your experience has been different, I’m sorry to hear it.
But as far as hypocrisy and loathing, truly I am at a loss to understand your meaning. I have known many homosexuals, and to the best of my memory have hated none of them. One of them happens to be my stepbrother, and in fact I’m going to his house for dinner tomorrow. But of course if I’m a hypocrite, you would expect me to say something like that. : )
Can you tell me where, exactly, you think we’re disagreeing? It seems we both affirm the Church’s teachings on sexual morality; I assume we agree that sinners of every stripe (though not sin per se) should be welcomed in the Church and ministered to; and that persons in a state of mortal sin may not receive Communion. Do we agree that people who are engaged in public immorality (by which I mean their immorality is publicly known and neither denied nor repented of) should not hold positions of authority in the Church?
Do we agree that calling something a sin is not the same as hating a person who commits that sin? I know that my niece is guilty of fornication, since she has a baby but is unmarried. If I say fornication is a serious sin, and therefore must not be celebrated nor practiced openly and unrepentantly in the Church, does that mean I hate my niece?
If we don’t disagree on any of those points, can you tell me specifically what you think I am advocating that is wrong?
I wish to direct this late comment to Kelly J. Wilson, David Nickol, and all the other participants in this discussion.
It seems to me that Cardinal Basil Hume’s 1997 statement entitled A Note on the Teaching of the Catholic Church Concerning Homosexuality is one of the best Catholic presentations on this subject. I think that section 15 is especially helpful:
“Nothing in the Church’s teaching can be said to support or sanction, even implicitly, the victimisation of homosexual men and women. Furthermore, ‘homophobia’ should have no place among Catholics. Catholic teaching on homosexuality is not founded on, and can never be used to justify, ‘homophobic’ attitudes. Even if homosexual people are unwisely tempted to act in a provocative or destructive manner this does not justify ‘homophobic’ attitudes or reactions.”
Here is a link for the entire document:
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/content/download/2194/15199/file/Teaching%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church%20on%20Homosexuality_1997.pdf
I respectfully suggest that all people, regardless of their agreement or non-agreement with Catholic teachings on chastity, can and should unite in condemning homophobia in the same sense in which the above statement denounces that form of hatred. We should all cooperate to prevent a recurrence of the tragic death of Matthew Shepard.
I was also pleased to note that Cardinal Hume understood the 1992 CDC document in the same open-ended sense in which I interpreted it in my exchange with David Nickol. In section 13 of his statement, the cardinal clearly envisioned the possibility of anti-discrimination legislation that Catholics could conscientiously support.
Well, here is where we’re “disagreeing,” Agellius–and I guess, from what you write above it is only HERE, but “here” is very, very important, because you are apparently completely unwilling to consider where THIS comes from, in terms of Roman Catholic religious training:
If your experience has been different, I’m sorry to hear it.
Yes, indeeed, my “experience” HAS been very, very different from yours!