Letter to Editor: Potential Formation of GSA at Fannin County High School

This is the text of a letter I sent to our local News Observer newspaper. There has been some controversy recently about a proposed GSA. I felt I had to respond to try to clarify what I believe are misrepresentations of Christian understanding in this area. It was published in the 30 October 2019 edition.

---


-->

Dear Editor & Fellow Subscribers:

I read with concern the letter by Lane Bishop about the proposed Gay Straight Alliance at Fannin County High School, as well as the following letters by John Sugg and Rebecca McKevitt. While I agree that many Christians have (and still do) unjustly discriminate against those with homosexual tendencies, that does not mean there is not a just discrimination in these matters. We need to discriminate having deep-seated homosexual attraction from acting on it. It’s not a sin to experience homosexual attraction. It would be a sin to act on that attraction.

Mr. Sugg is right to point out that there are plenty of other sexual sins, and that we ought to have an equal concern to avoid those and to speak against them as the occasion presents itself. However, he is wrong to suggest that because Christ did not use the term “homosexuality” that He never spoke about it and thus somehow considered our sexuality and sexual behavior unimportant compared to other concerns like social justice. It’s not an either-or proposition. We are called to personal holiness and also to charity. The two cannot rightly be separated.

Christ did in fact touch on the topic of sexuality and marriage explicitly. Anyone who reads the words of Christ (for example, Matt 5:27-32) can see that He clearly presumes heterosexual relations when speaking of sex and marriage. And when the Pharisees tested Him in Matt 19, He said, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (ESV)

So it is very clear that Jesus has a “traditional” view of sexuality and marriage and that marriage from the Christian point of view is between one man and one woman. It’s clear that no matter our subjective experience of our sexuality, that God has a definite purpose and plan in mind for human sexuality. We are male or female, and as far as sex is concerned, it’s intended to be expressed exclusively within a lifelong male-female mutual self-giving with openness towards the blessing of children. That is Christian marriage.

Mr. Sugg also rightly points out that we do not observe all of the Hebraic Law as recorded in the Old Testament, but that does not free us to willy-nilly choose our own morality. Most Christians make a distinction between ritual and moral law. Ritual law is always changeable, but moral law is immutable. And while the temporal (here and now) punishment for a given sin is changeable, changing or even removing the temporal punishment does not entail changing something that was morally illicit into something now morally licit.

As Christians, no matter what our stripe, we consider the entirety of Scripture to be the Word of God, not only the words of Christ. And all Christians up until very, very recently (historically speaking) have well understood that homosexual behavior is sinful, as is all extramarital sexual activity. That’s because Scripture is clear on the matter, as is Christian Tradition. Just because it may be possible to re-interpret Scripture to suit contemporary sensibilities does not make such eisegesis as viable an interpretation as what the Christian Church has held since day one. I have no doubt that the many pastors today who are complicit in misleading their flocks on this will be called to account on the day of judgment. (Jas 3:1)

None of this justifies hatred or mistreatment of those who believe they are or may be homosexuals. Proverbs 6:16ff names seven things that are an abomination to the Lord. A proud look. A lying tongue. A heart that devises wicked plans. And so on. I am sure most of us have been guilty of such sins and many others, and we no more deserve mistreatment or special condemnation than those who act on homosexual inclinations. The Good News is that Christ came to redeem us all, for all have sinned and fallen short of our calling to holiness. The right response to sin is repentance and throwing ourselves on the mercy of God, and urging others to do likewise. It is only by the grace of God that any of us are saved.

We need not fear having a GSA at our high school, should one be formed. As parents, if we’re doing our job right, our children will clearly know right from wrong in this area (which includes not mistreating those who are different from us). If we are counting on public schools to teach our children our morals, I think we will be in for a rude awakening. Especially at the high school age, we need to be equipping our children to bravely encounter a world that is often at odds with our morals and now more than ever needs strong, loving Christians who can compassionately share the truth of the Gospel without exchanging truth for a lie.

Sincerely,

J. Ambrose Little

Epworth

Responses to Cardinal Burke et al's Dubia

I figured I'd take a whack at responding to doubts proposed by Cardinal Burke and his three cardinal colleagues. This is how I imagine Pope Francis might answer, though I would not presume to actually speak for him or anyone but myself. My intent is to balance objective moral truth against the messy reality that is life, and I think that's really what Pope Francis is urging that pastors do. I think he's said as much on numerous occasions.

I will grant that I am no theologian or canon lawyer, and that my understanding of Catholic moral tradition is less than others'. Despite that, I think my answers are orthodox, even if not a wholly traditional Catholic approach. It's good to keep in mind that the discipline and application of definitive truth can change without necessarily doing damage to the truth. It tends to be a matter of personal judgment on whether a specific change incurs actual damage to the truth. They are not independent of each other, but they are not so bound up that it is impossible to change practice/discipline/law (as is manifestly evident from Church history).

Traditionalists/conservatives tend to err on the avoid changing things to be safe side of things; progressives/liberals tend to err on the side of being more concerned with contemporary adaptation in the hope of addressing new challenges (perceived or real). Where one falls on this tends to be a spectrum and not a binary, and I am certainly somewhere in between.

The proposers of these doubts suggest that they can be answered in a simple yes or no; however, they take pains to preface and then elaborate on each of them. While theoretically such questions can be answered yes or no, I do not think it is reasonable to expect a simple yes or no, nor have I bound myself to that stricture. In fact, I would say that simply answering yes or no, especially given the way the questions are asked, can easily lead to faulty interpretations and actions, based on such a simple answer. I suggest that expecting a simple yes or no puts the power in the hands of the question framers, and so it would not really be appropriate for the CDF or Pope Francis to answer with a simple yes or no.

If I had to guess why no answer has been given so far, it is because the Holy Father well knows that no matter what answer he gives, even with clarifications, it will only engender more debate, debate which I'm sure he feels has been given due space in the synods leading up to Amoris Laetitia. The contemporary Church is not given to expressions of anathema sit, and even/until an actual ecumenical council were called (and warranted) to address these concerns, no matter what the Pope teaches, there will be dissenters and differing interpretations and applications of laws. When Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were in office, we had plenty of "confusion" and dissent in the Church; those who pretend that Pope Francis is new in this way, only think so because it is now their positions which are challenged.  The Church always has had and will always have its share of dissenters and divergences of opinions and interpretations.

And as we have seen with even ecumenical councils, there remain dissenters even after those definitive gatherings. So the fantasy that a clarification by Pope Francis on these items would end differing opinions, create unified pastoral guidance, etc. is just that--a fantasy. Suggesting that his not doing so is somehow indicative of his intention to signal approval of heresy is simply outrageous and is bitterly ungenerous, presumptuous, and potentially sinful in itself.

I welcome thoughtful dialogue on the answers below. But if you start out by telling me I'm a heretic, or if you simply assert that my answers are heretical or unorthodox or not Catholic or anything along those lines, be prepared to be ignored. If, however, you want to argue for alternative positions or point me to some definitive teachings that seem to call my answers into question, I will gladly consider those. My desire is always to remain faithful to God and his Church.

Know that I do not consider canons or prior legislative texts or this or that Vatican congregation or this or that bishop, cardinal, or pope weighing in on something as de facto infallible or irreformable (again, in keeping with Catholic Tradition). Not even everything in our current Catechism is infallible or irreformable or not subject to further discussion and development. That is to say, if you use a text to support your position, be prepared to surround it with argumentation as to why you think it is authoritative in the context and how it supports your view. Proof texting, even from Scripture, is an impoverished practice in such dialogue.

Now onto the dubia...

DOUBT 1) It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

I ANSWER THAT given sure knowledge of the specific conditions enumerated here, particularly definite knowledge of the validity of a prior union and no intention of living in continence in the new union that is acknowledged to be adulterous, it would not be appropriate to absolve such a penitent. It is a given that Divine law requires a repentant heart for forgiveness.

It is possible to absolve, however, if the validity of prior unions is uncertain (or even doubtful). This is particularly true if the new union appears more likely to be valid than prior unions, even if if has yet to be adjudicated as such.

It may also be possible to absolve if the penitent clearly expresses a firm intention to amend his life, even if it seems unlikely he will be able to do so (and even if he has a history of not being able to do so), particularly in situations where, as Pope St. John Paul II wrote in Familiaris Consortio, 84, taking the objective actions necessary to prevent future sin would involve committing new injustices or would otherwise be impracticable. The pastor should be generous and supportive of the intention, whatever doubts he may have.

In certain cases, it may be that the penitent cannot honestly apprehend that his new situation is sinful, perhaps due to serious personal doubts of the validity of the prior union (even having tried to adjudicate nullity without success) or failure to apprehend the true nature of marriage even now (which should cast doubt on validity of either union). These could be a defect of knowledge and, consequently, of full consent. Pastors should endeavor to determine if such is willful ignorance or a defect in intellect or some other mitigating factor, always with a preference for generosity if the penitent displays honest intention to live a holy life and grow in sanctification, accompanying and guiding the penitent toward that life.

In all cases, the pastor should counsel according to the teaching of the Church to help the penitent correctly discern his situation, encourage and help the penitent to seek a decree of nullity if possible, and offer practical advice to help the penitent avoid sin.

DOUBT 2) After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

I ANSWER THAT, yes, there are indeed absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts (and as such objectively, intrinsically evil acts do definitely exist). Murder. Adultery. Blasphemy. Idolatry. And so on.

It is not, however, an objective fact that someone who has been married was definitely validly, sacramentally married. The fact of an ecclesiastical legal system and tribunals that adjudicate the validity (or nullity) of marriages is sufficient evidence of this, as is Church teaching on what is necessary for a valid marriage to occur in the first place.

Given this, it is possible for someone to objectively be in a second union without, by virtue of that objective fact, committing adultery. And given the known terrible state of catechesis today coupled with secular cultural norms that directly contradict a Catholic understanding of marriage and sexuality, not to mention a growing understanding of human physiology and psychology, it is reasonable to be more uncertain in contemporary times that all, or even most, marriages--even those celebrated in Catholic churches--are valid. In short, it is not a safe assumption that someone who is remarried is, by the simple fact of being remarried, committing adultery, and more than that, it is arguable that this is more doubtful today than at any point in Christian history.

On the other hand, there are still objective actions that can be assumed to be adultery, such as sleeping with someone who is married without being in any form of marriage with that person. The distinction here is between a married couple where one of the individuals is divorced and remarried, versus two people having sex outside of marriage, with one or both being in a marriage (confirmed to be valid or not). It is beyond a doubt in the latter case that such is extramarital sexual relations, without regard to determining the validity of the prior or current marriage. So cohabiting unmarried people who engage in sex, those having sexual affairs, keeping a mistress, etc. would fall under the objective adultery category.

DOUBT 3) After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

I ANSWER THAT it is still possible to affirm this when the sin in question is public and indisputable, for example, in the case of a politician repeatedly, obstinately pursuing governmental policies that promote an intrinsic evil. However, in the case of adultery (and sex in general), which is by nature private, we cannot assume, even by the nature of a public commitment such as marriage, that adultery is habitually occurring by the simple fact of persons living together (married or not). This is as true for a minister of Communion discerning the application of Canon 915 as it is for any lay person observing another.

However, if adultery is determined publicly and an individual publicly manifests an intent to continue in that sin, a minister of Communion could infer an objective situation of grave habitual sin and act accordingly by applying Canon 915. This seems like it would be rare. Most people do not affirm adultery publicly. It is arguable that if a person, say, prominently were to keep a mistress, then Canon 915 could apply, even if the person did not explicitly affirm that adultery because the nature of keeping a mistress is that it is an actively sexual relationship, as would typically be an affair. In such cases, there are no other reasons for two unmarried people to be together.

On the other hand, a remarried (or even cohabiting) couple may have other practical reasons to to remain together, and assuming the relationship is adulterous is less of a reliable assumption than in these others. This is not to say that it is not reasonable to think that such a relationship is sexual, only that it should not be assumed that it is with regards to the application of Canon 915 or a general perception of an objectively adulterous situation. In short, unless they express in private to a minister or in public that they are living as man and wife, one should be willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.

What should be obvious is that pastoral discernment is still required even when one may suspect grave sin and that in general both clergy and laity should not presume sexual sin simply based on external circumstances alone. And the public act of refusing Communion should be based in a commensurately public grave sin. It is better, in most cases, to counsel such persons privately to discern whether or not to approach the sacrament, as is the clear intent of St. Paul in 1 Cor 11.

DOUBT 4) After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

I ANSWER THAT yes, one ought to regard that teaching as still valid. No matter the mitigations of personal circumstance that diminish culpability, an objectively evil act can never be transformed into a morally acceptable choice much less a good, considered in itself. It's worth noting that this does not mean that other goods cannot accidentally accompany or follow as a result of objectively immoral actions, but such goods do not change the nature of the evil act in itself.

Amoris Laetitia 302 does not seek to countermand this teaching. Rather, it calls to mind the well-established distinction in Church teaching between objective grave sin and subjective mortal sin.

DOUBT 5) After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

I ANSWER THAT it is not the role of conscience to make an act moral or immoral. It is the role of the conscience to discern the path of good from the path of evil. Amoris Laetitia 303 suggests that it further can discern the best that a specific person can do in a specific situation. This is no commentary on the objective nature of the acts in question. It is, rather, a recognition of the limitations of the person in question to choose the good, i.e., to maximize the good and avoid the evil in as much as a person can. It, in itself, does not determine whether or not such an action is actually good or evil; it can only determine what is in its best judgment the best path.

We're Not Anti Choice and They're Not Pro Abortion

I know it is preposterously optimistic to hope that people on the different sides of the abortion debate can ever work together to end abortion (or at least make it rare).  But hey, at least some of us want to try, still. I think that starts with reducing polemical rhetoric, increasing mutual understanding, and searching for common ground to build from.

I grew up in the staunchly pro life Bible belt. I was raised pro life. I was surrounded by pro life people, i.e., evangelical Christian Republicans mostly, and I converted to Catholicism at twenty-two. I consider myself absolutely pro life, in the most "extreme" (i.e., consistent) way possible--from conception until natural death. I make no exceptions for rape or incest (why impose the death penalty on a child for the sin of a parent?). I am even for the abolition of the death penalty.  I am opposed to euthanasia. I am for welcoming and being open to children and large families (and practice that--we now have six).

I think these positions are demanded by a consistent pro life ethic, and defensible without relying on religious rationale, although they are certainly strengthened by Christian, Catholic faith. We also need to structure society as much as we can to minimize cases where people feel that taking life is a good choice. I do not see these as an either-or proposition--we can make the right to life inalienable and compassionately help people in need. We must.

I published my first pro life article in 2004. I wrote in 2008 on how I prioritize life and related issues in deciding whom to vote for. I've written my Congressman. And written here and here and here. I have had innumerable conversations on social media, email, and in person defending and advancing the pro life position. I teach my children to be pro life. I have voted for many pro life candidates, with that issue playing a big part in my choice. I contribute bi-weekly to the Blessed Margaret Home for Crisis Pregnancies. (I note that to advertise the good work they do and suggest others consider supporting them or similar homes. As one of my pro choice friends said recently--that should be something even pro choice people can get behind.)

There should be no question that I am staunchly pro life. I live it. I speak it openly and publicly.

Not Anti Choice
All that said, I am not "anti choice." Putting restrictions on abortion and, ultimately, making it illegal, does not remove a person's free will to choose. We have all kinds of laws, and people still choose to break them, with varying degrees of knowledge and consent. We have oodles of legal groundwork for what it looks like for abortion to be illegal--the women are not punished by those laws, and they certainly still made the choice to abort, even when it was illegal.

A person who is pro life is no more "anti choice" than is a person is who thinks that pedophilia, rape, or murder should be illegal. On important issues, society has to draw the line and say "this behavior is not okay." And come on, riding a bike without a helmet and speeding is also illegal--talk about being anti choice... Abortion takes the life of a human being. It should not be legal. It should not be an inconsequential "choice." By wanting to make it illegal, pro life people are saying that this is a line that should not be crossed--even knowing that some people will still choose to do it.

Not Pro Abortion
Similarly, I'd like to address my pro life friends who tend to like to use the term "pro abortion" to apply to anyone who is pro choice. (I admit to doing that myself--to make a point.) "Pro abortion" is a polemical choice of language. It does not accurately reflect the view of most of the people to whom it is applied.

Some claim that "pro choice" means a choice for abortion.  But the CDC says that in 2012 (the most recent data we have), "the abortion ratio was 210 abortions per 1,000 live births." That means that roughly 2 in 10 women chose to abort. So factually, the claim is false. Women currently have the legal choice to choose abortion, and 80% choose life (as of 2012). I don't know what the ratio was prior to Roe vs. Wade, but I suspect it wasn't a lot different. People in desperate situations often still choose to break the law if they feel they need to.

Even if you're not direly poor, carrying a baby to term, giving birth, and being responsible for it for life is a big deal. I don't care how wealthy you are, that's a big life change--real pain, potential impact to your livelihood/ability to work, and years of responsibility. For the vast majority, it's not a flippant choice to make at all. Even choosing to give a child up for adoption is not an easy choice, even though it may be the best choice. I feel like in all the emotional fervor of the pro life movement, we often lose sight that abortion is by no means a choice that most women freely want to make.

According to this Pew 2016 data, only 15% think abortion is morally acceptable, while 56% think it should be legal. That means that by far, most do not think abortion is good--they are not for (pro) abortion, but they think it should be a legal option. Again, the data contradict the claim that being pro choice is being pro abortion. We know that such truly pro abortion people exist, but they are a small minority of pro choice people.

Also, it is noteworthy to see that while 56% think abortion should be legal, a full 80% actually act pro life and choose life. That's a good thing. Can you imagine if everyone who thought abortion should be legal actually chose abortion? That'd be almost 3x as many abortions per year. Thank God that people act more pro life than they vote.

The Impasse
Now, the Catholic bishops in the U.S. have made it abundantly clear (in line with the universal Catechism of the Church and unbroken prior teaching going back to apostolic tradition as seen in the Didache) that formal cooperation in abortion is objectively, intrinsically, gravely evil. On that, someone who is faithful to Catholic teaching and practice cannot disagree. We will never be able to turn a blind eye to abortion. We will never be able to see it as a morally acceptable choice, so the case is very strong to make it illegal in our view.

Data for abortion mortality show that legalizing abortion led to less danger for those women who will choose to do it whether or not it is legal. It is difficult to reconcile that with criminalizing it again--nobody wants women to be endangered. But I admit that I find it more difficult to reconcile keeping something legal that is the (often brutal) murder of an innocent child. That people will choose (even under duress) something that endangers them does not mean, in itself, that it should be legal--especially when the chosen action results in the murder of another human being.

On the flip side, pro choice advocates have shown little, if any, willingness to budge. And it seems even in recent years that this conflict has only increased antipathy towards the pro life cause while at the same time galvanizing the pro choice folks and even making their positions more extreme. What are we to think when the "and rare" qualifier is abandoned from "safe, legal, and rare"? Clearly, this culture war has only resulted in greater polarization and impasse. And I can't deny I think it's largely due to the posturing and pandering of politicians.

Reconsidering the Focus of Pro Life Action
Pro life advocates often use rhetoric that makes it sound like that by making abortion legal, we essentially created the problem of abortion. "By not criminalizing it, we are killing N number of babies every year/minute." I have even thought and argued that in the past. But as I learned more, I discovered that not only has this evil always been with us (which of course I knew) but also that the numbers have always been high. Indeed, data show that restrictive laws do not correlate with low numbers of abortions.

While I do not agree with the fallacy that essentially says we should make murder legal because people will do it anyways, the numbers do indicate that our efforts to criminalize abortion would not have a significant effect on the actual number of abortions. And it's certainly not as if criminalizing it will reduce that number to zero, as is implied by the rhetoric. So this argument that often pushes people into prioritizing voting for pro life politicians based on these numbers doesn't hold up. People even use this argument to justify voting for Trump, which is unfortunate to say the least, considering everything he has going against him from a moral/common good point of view and that he appears to be only nominally pro life.

Again, that doesn't mean we should keep something that is intrinsically evil legal. It just means we need to put the practical impact of the laws in perspective. It seems that the terrible numbers of abortions will not be greatly impacted by criminalization. Proportionally, then, the common pro life argument that this issue is far more urgent than others does not appear valid. And in the last twenty or so years, even while legal, the numbers have been dropping. Each side has their rationale for that drop. I suspect it is a combination of many factors, not the least of which are pro life awareness efforts and efforts to help women in crisis pregnancies.

Another observation is that in the pro life movement, there is a lot of focus on overturning Roe vs. Wade. But even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, that doesn't guarantee each state would criminalize it (indeed some states had decriminalized it before then), and even after 40+ years of trying, we still haven't managed to reverse it. We still today have a majority of people who think it should be legal. Something isn't working, and not for lack of trying!

I am anything but a pro abortion apologist (as I doubtless will be called by some for posting these thoughts), but I think we pro life people have to consider these data. So, so, so much energy and passion is invested in this war to reverse Roe vs. Wade and re-criminalize abortion. We do this for good reason--abortion is intrinsically evil; it is at least as evil as any murder and even more repulsive given the circumstances of it being a defenseless baby in its mother's womb. But given the considerations above, is focusing so much on criminalization still the best way we can fight this evil?

Without giving an inch that it is intrinsically evil, could we shift more of our energies to 1) something that has a greater chance of actually happening and 2) has a more immediate, significant impact on making abortion rare? Like fighting the things that cause women to feel they need an abortion? Like enabling women to feel they have a real option to choose life? Like evangelizing our culture so that even more women will choose life? At this point, are we maybe working against ourselves to focus so much on criminalization? It seems to be the epicenter of polemical divisions that prevent us from working with others to truly make abortion rare.

For the record, I do not want to downplay the immense efforts that many pro life persons make in concretely helping women and educating the populace on abortion-related issues. I literally support them. But I am thinking particularly of our political efforts, which are front and center right now. Is it possible that, in politics specifically, we've let ourselves be manipulated into letting criminalization shape our thinking so much that we are spending too much of our energies there when they could be better spent in other areas? Is it possible that it is suboptimal to think of being pro life as primarily voting for people who will work to criminalize abortion? Have those we voted for to that end delivered on that promise? Have they and we neglected other considerations that could more effectively, actually reduce abortion, not to mention other issues of grave importance? What more should we look for in a pro life platform and political action?

This is not a call to surrender. It is a call to reprioritization and a call for honest reflection on what our current strategy has done and not done and probably will or won't do in the future. It's a call to think more about how--if we really do care about all these babies and all those women--we can really, actually save and help them.

Some Questions for Pro Choice Folks
For those who are pro choice, given that so few believe it is an acceptable moral choice, how do you true that up with thinking it should be legal? Isn't something off in our society when it is illegal to drive a car without a seatbelt, but it is legal to kill an unborn baby? What restrictions on abortion might be acceptable restrictions? What can you do--assuming you think it should remain legal--to help society not become numb to the horror that it is? What can you do to educate people about the terrible realities, including the emotional pain that haunts most women for life? Would making it illegal help people to understand the severity of the evil? What can you--we--do to help enable women to choose life?

I also know there are those who really see nothing wrong with abortion, who don't think it is killing a human person. Even for those, surely we can agree that even just considering the often negative impact on the women who have them, it's not a good thing. And can you be absolutely certain that it is not a human person deserving of equal protection? Is it worth taking the risk given that it might be a human person? Seems to me that it's still safer and better to work to reduce abortions.

Can We Work Together?
To all, the common ground seems to be fighting the causes that lead to the perceived need for abortion, educating people on the realities of abortion, and ensuring that we have social structures and services to help women who find themselves in crisis pregnancies--to help them choose life. It's a tall order, but it touches on so much that could be better in our society. I think it's worth the effort.

Sheltering, Brainwashing, Meh

My atheist colleague at work today said something interesting today. He said, "I have a beef. I don't know how they do things these days, but when I was growing up, they acted like there were only Catholics. And where I grew up, it was very monoculture--bunch of white French Canadians. It wasn't until I grew up that I started hearing about this Jewish thing, then that Hindu thing, and so on, all these other things. Doesn't seem right to me to do that to kids..."

Okay, so it's not an exact quote, but that's the basic gist of it. The beef, I guess, is another way of stating the common atheist complaint that religious parents brainwash their children. I'm sure that some do, to an extent, though I don't agree with the characterization of teaching your children your beliefs, in itself, as brainwashing (at all).

In any case, I'm not commenting on his particular experience because I just don't know, but it does highlight a potential problem for religious parents (and religious educators). The problem is not so much that we need to worry about brainwashing, per se, but rather that we need to guard against leaving our children so ill equipped that when they do get more exposure to the broader world and its many different philosophies and ideologies. We need to ensure that they have enough grounding in the faith that they are not swept away in whatever wind happens to catch their sails.

If my colleague had received a better religious education, one that included awareness of other points of view, along with help to think critically about them, as well as understand the criticisms of his own faith and the defenses of those criticisms, he would have been better prepared and, I dare say, might still be Catholic. That's not to say that no one who well understands the Catholic faith would turn to atheism; however, I am saying that most people who turn away from the faith do so based largely on misconceptions or just some bad experience/ill will towards someone they perceive to be an exemplar of those who follow the faith.

We can only do so much about the latter--try to be good exemplars ourselves; however, we can and should minimize people leaving the faith due simply to being poorly prepared or misinformed. This doesn't mean we treat all viewpoints as equally valid, nor that we don't teach our children the faith, nor that we expose them unnecessarily before they are ready, but sheltering only goes so far.

At the end of the day, our children are their own selves. They will be responsible for the free choices that they make, and just like we work to prepare them academically, socially, etc., we need to prepare them philosophically and theologically. We can't do this by pretending that other viewpoints don't exist or by shying away from hard questions and providing slippery easy answers that gloss over difficulties. They will face these at some point, and if we don't help prepare them, we are at the very least in part responsible.

Conservatives Care for the Poor and Needy, Mr. Colbert

I watched The Colbert Report when it first aired and have watched many, many episodes since then. It's funny. Even when I disagree with him, I can't deny that it is funny. I also give him credit for not being mostly obnoxious, unlike other comedians in the same vein/political outlook (Stewart, Maher, etc.). And hey, I can't deny that it's nice to have such a popular guy in showbiz who I believe does truly try to live his Catholic faith faithfully.  But as a rule, he is of the politically traditional (if I may use that word in this context) Catholic Democrat type.  This quote that was recently shared on G+ illustrates it:

This was said in response to a Dec 2010 column by "Papa Bear" (as his character lovingly refers to Bill O'Reilly). You can catch the segment this is taken from here. Doing so better situates the quote above for the criticism I offered on G+, which you can read at the link above. Colbert in this segment specifically, if satirically, positions Jesus as a liberal Democrat. I was taken to task for making a political generalization related to this myself. So I thought I'd point out the context and expound more here to show where my comment was coming from.


Colbert's The Colbert Report corpus related to this topic speaks for itself. He takes every opportunity to distort and mock conservative (Republican) positions on social matters while presenting the liberal (Democratic) positions as the blessed and holy way. The whole show, in its very fundamental, satirical conception, is intended specifically for this purpose (and to make money). His statement above fits right in with all that, and his intent is here, again, to distort a conservative position rather than engage with it fairly.  Of course, doing so wouldn't be funny and wouldn't please his audience, so he can't afford, quite literally, to do that.

Colbert is selective in his biblical references. St. Paul said, "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness ... If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." The context of that passage is specifically about humans living in community, that is, in society, and is explicitly a command from The Apostle using his Apostolic authority quite directly ("in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ").

On the other hand, the passages that Colbert alludes to have to do with individual works, freely chosen as a way to personal holiness and perfection.  In the segment, Colbert quotes Matthew 5:40; the context there is Christ contrasting the "eye for an eye" mentality of equal retribution for wrongs. Christ, in contrast to eye for an eye, teaches a giving mentality; that is, he is illustrating with some concrete examples that it is more blessed (this is in the context of the Sermon on the Mount--the Beatitudes) to respond with generosity, even when we feel we are being put upon or wronged in some way.  The context is not a command for how we must live together in society but rather an exhortation to personal perfection.

Colbert also alluded to the story of the rich young ruler, in Luke 18 as further evidence to contradict O'Reilly. Here again, the context is important. This is an individual who comes to Christ to ask, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" As with the woman at the well and as with the scribes and Pharisees seeking to stone the adulteress, Christ, being God, sees into these individuals' hearts.  With the young rich man, he pulls out the thing that was keeping him from the path to life--his attachment to his wealth. Christ's directive was to him as an individual; it is not meant as a blanket command for every person, much less as a guide for how to structure society here on earth.

And if Colbert is so hip to Christ's words here, it does beg the question, why hasn't Colbert sold all that he has and given it to the poor? He is, self-admittedly, a rich man.  His own way of life belies the flaw in his argument. Because he well knows this passage is not intended to be taken in the rhetorical way that he is using it in his argument.

So how did Christ relate to this world? Did he come to give us a guide to how to structure our society, i.e., our government? When questioned at his trial by Pilate, what did he say? "My kingdom is not of this world." As Colbert rightly noted, Christ could have come down off the Cross. He could have set up an incontrovertible temporal kingdom and ruled with a Divine iron fist to enforce truly "Christian" behavior. But he didn't. Why?

Because Christ--being God--is big into personal freedom. Of all beings, God could force every other creature to hum along in perfect tune if he wanted to. So we can obviously read in God's refusal to do this that he values letting we humans exercise our free will, he values each of us choosing to exercise authentically free faith, hope, and love. And it is the last of these freely exercised virtues that Christ exhorts us to in speaking of generosity with the poor. But it is always a free, personal, individual generosity; never forced.

Christ tells us in Matthew 5 that the way of individual perfection is that when someone asks me (as an individual) for help--or even when they try to take from me--that I should respond with generosity.  He does not, by this, say that I should force others to give. The typical liberal Democrat philosophy fails on this point. It fails by presuming, contra God's own example, to enforce individual perfection through external means. However, conversion and individual perfection always start on the interior as motivations of the heart in response to God's free gift of grace.

The typical liberal Democrat philosophy also fails on holistic, contextually situated adherence to Scripture. In addition to the passage from St. Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians quoted above, The Apostle also directs, in his second letter to the Corinthians (again, precisely in his Apostolic role in setting up and ordering Christians communities), "Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." I couldn't have said it better.

There is no foundation in Scripture for taxing anyone (much less the rich, specifically or disproportionately) in order to provide for the poor. Taking care of the poor and needy, while a central tenant of Christianity, is always directed as a free choice of individuals, not a principle of civil government. Christian communities are directed to provide this care, but their means for doing so comes from the free participation of the Christian members.

Further, there is specific direction by St. Paul to not provide for those who do not work (those who are "idle"--a concept that is more than simply not working, to be clear). God is not unjust. He does not command or force us to give more than we can. He does not make us care for those who can rightly and justly care for themselves. The initiative towards the poor and needy is always towards those who are authentically poor and needy, not those who are idle. There are conditions, contrary to what Mr. Colbert asserts, and the conditions are found in justice.

The challenge for us is to be animated by a principle of generous charity while not impoverishing ourselves. It would not, for instance, be just for the provider of a family to forsake providing for his or her family and impoverish them so as to care for the poor and needy around them. Nor would it be just for a debtor to forsake his debts to give to the poor.

Some few are called to individual total self-impoverishment (the rich young ruler, St. Bridget of Ireland, St. Francis, and others, for example), but not all. And those who are called must respond in individual freedom, not coercion, and justly in regards to their obligations.

In as much as our government does provide for the poor, it must be done so justly--especially given that  its means for doing so comes from coercion (i.e., taxation). The government in these cases has a stricter duty to ensure that only those who are truly needy receive such assistance. It would be unjust for the government to be animated by an uncritical principle of generosity.

And therein lies another flaw of government care for the needy--the duty for just distribution is greater and therefore requires more overhead to ensure it, inevitably reducing what can actually be given to the needy. This is also why caring for the poor should be as local as possible, as personal and as individual as possible--because by being so, it is much easier to both discover the need and to know that the need is authentic and does not come from idleness.

All of this is in pretty stark contrast to the typical liberal Democrat presumption that the government, especially the federal government, should be tasked with caring for the poor and needy.

And about Colbert's caricaturing conservatives (and he is by no means alone in doing so) as selfish and uncaring for the poor and needy, there have been studies that show either that conservatives give more to charitable causes or, at least, equally (depending on the study). The concrete data proves the caricature wrong, in addition to the theoretical and Scriptural exploration above.

So, Mr. Colbert, who is "factually incorrect" and "borderline heretical" in this matter? It seems to me that your position is more correctly characterized that way than O'Reilly's. More than that, in caricaturing your political opponents as you have, you are guilty of violence to their characters and to the truth.

Conservatives have good, solid foundation for their political views, and as I read it, they are actually more Scriptural and Christian, not less, than the typical liberal Democratic view, both on this issue and other social issues for sure.  Caring for the poor and needy does not have to be done through government, and it seems to me that not only does it not have to be but quite possibly it shouldn't be. This is not a matter of selfishness but rather of disagreements about right and just political ordering.

Chillin

People have been emailing me, asking why, why haven't I blogged the last couple days. I'm sorry fans, but I've just been chillin with the fam. (I kid, no one noticed. ;) ) But since I am supposed to be doing this--just a few more days, and then I'll give you a real break, I promise.

Actually, yesterday I was staring at the screen, the empty blog post window, with hands on keyboard, but I just couldn't think of anything to say. I am in fact having the same experience right now; hence this blather. Last night I was going to blog, but then I started holding Iain and fell asleep on the couch. Next thing I knew, it was bedtime.

So this is what I gotta say today: take some time and go spend it with your family. Peace!

Unto Us a Child Is Born

Apologies for not blogging yesterday (I'm sure you're really disappointed ;-) ). I excuse myself for having a very busy day at work and then having to get to bed way early for a ridiculously early morning today at the hospital.

The midwife asked us to get there at 6a, and we managed (almost). Turns out, it seems we probably didn't need to be there that early, but c'est la vie. To make a long story short, our fifth child was born today at 14:55 EDT. He's a boy: Iain Hamish Gregor, weighing in at nine pounds even and twenty-two inches tall (or long, depending on your perspective). Baby and mom are doing well, resting.

Here's his first pic:

Friends and family are welcome to see more, including vids, in our Iain's Birth set at Flickr. I'll be adding to it as we take more in the next few days most like.

Peace out! :)

What If My Child Were Gay?

A fellow Catholic I know on G+ was recently asked the following:

I know you are pro-life and anti-gay, so I'm curious: If your wife (if you have a wife, if not, pretend) were pregnant and it was determined that your unborn son is genetically gay. Would you raise the gay child or abort the pregnancy?

Read his response. I agree with it. Of course I wouldn't abort the child. Should go without saying...

So, what if my child were gay?

Even if there is a genetic cause to homosexuality, it would still be something that potentially prevents my child from having the full range of human life available to her (particularly, expressing love in natural marriage, procreation, and child rearing). Add onto that the extra challenges that come with being homosexual, and I just do not see the sense in simply accepting my child's situation--I would do whatever I could to give her those options and avoid the extra heartache, whether through natural or supernatural means.

I just don't see a justification for 1) treating homosexuality as a reason for disgust or, worse, hate or, conversely, 2) why it should be accepted as a desirable "alternative" condition. Both are two polemically wrong responses to what should be treated with the deepest personal care. The best response is for the person to be loved completely and helped by all means possible, just as you would with any difficult condition, genetically caused or otherwise.

It may be that person doesn't want such help or love, but that, too, is no reason to either hate them or to just accept it. People do all sorts of things that we may think aren't good for them, and our response should be compassionate care for them and still reach out in love and try to help them.

Of course it can be argued that my idea of the ideal fully human, sexually active life is constrained. I readily admit that point--I am not of the opinion that all forms of sexual expression are equally good for a person. Even within heterosexual marriage, not all forms of sexual expression are equally good, or even good at all. I also don't think that all forms of religious expression are equally good. If my child decided she felt inclined to Buddhism, I wouldn't think that's just okay either.

That doesn't mean I love her any less. That doesn't mean I treat her with disrespect. That doesn't mean I contemn her or ostracize her from the family. In fact, my reason for objecting is based in love--because I think she's doing herself some harm, so treating her in a mean way would make no sense. I totally don't get parents who disown children who don't follow their wishes; talk about not understanding what being a parent is about.

It's not that I haven't tried to understand the other viewpoint on this issue. I've actually given it quite a lot of thought over the last 15 or so years, since it first came across my radar as a college student. I don't know yet if any of my children will feel so inclined; I do have a family member who identifies as homosexual. I have had homosexual friends and co-workers, and doubtless some that I am not aware of. I am not anti-gay, though certainly those people do exist, and we should be concerned about them. We should not tolerate real hate towards homosexuals.

Take this article from UC Davis that gives some history on how homosexuality has been treated in regards to mental health. The concern seems to be with showing that homosexuality isn't the cause of other pathologies, that it doesn't prevent one from being a functional adult, etc. Similarly, the linked article covering changing sexual orientation seems intent on discrediting those attempts--it seems to take as an assumption that it shouldn't even be tried.

Naturally, if you don't see homosexuality as a pathology, then you would see things from the bias clearly represented in those articles. But in order to not see it as a something that should be treated medically, it seems that you have to 1) take an apathetic view on sex and 2) take an apathetic view towards procreation. Both of these are related to value judgments, meaning they are not scientific questions but rather questions of personal judgment.

Maybe you think sex is just a form of recreation. Maybe you see it as a harmless natural drug. Maybe you see it as an expression of intimate affection. Maybe you see it as an expression of total giving of self. Surely there are views all in between and outside of these. We can argue for our value judgments about sex, but we should acknowledge they are value judgments and not one of them is any more scientifically valid than another. We all acknowledge the basic biological functions; where we differ is in the values attached to how they are exercised and the results of that exercise on individuals and societies.

The question of procreation is a little less purely value judgment related. There is obvious biological societal self interest in procreation (self-perpetuation), and any society that thinks it is worthwhile and good (all of them probably think this, right?) understands the fundamental value of procreation as a means of carrying on not only the species but also its particular culture. Individuals generally understand the value of procreation from a personal perspective, too, though maybe it is less valued today than in times past. Most of us can appreciate the value of our own posterity and want to ensure it. We sure seem preoccupied with it. :)

So here's the deal. Given that the value of procreation is fairly obvious, both to society at large and to many individuals, and given that sex itself is value-judgment laden (most people are not apathetic about it), it seems that taking an apathetic view of these things in relation to how we treat them in medicine does not follow.

Society has a greater inherent self-interest in stable, monogamous heterosexual relationships because they can not only reduce the incidence of STDs caused by promiscuity (as can stable, monogamous homosexual relationships, to be sure) but they also tend towards procreation, something that homosexual and other forms of sexual activity do not.

Let's bring this back to the personal level. Given that heterosexuality naturally tends towards the acknowledged good of procreation and family, given that (at least for now and in any immediate future) heterosexuality is generally more accepted in and perceived to be preferable by society, and given that I want the best, least troublesome life for my child, it follows that I would want her to be heterosexually oriented.

And what about her, what about those homosexuals who do want to change? Maybe they want to change for religious reasons. Maybe they want to change so they can experience natural procreation and family. Maybe they just don't want to deal with the social troubles they face, despite all the efforts to make it get better. Whatever their reason, if they want to change their orientation, why should we deny them that?

So I ask, why has medicine abandoned homosexually oriented persons? Why does it fight or simply neglect research into creating the option of changing orientation? Why are we settling for only working against irrational hatred of homosexuals? It seems to me that we've just given up on that simply because we're worried that it might contribute to negativity towards homosexual persons. (But couldn't the same concern be held in regards to Downs syndrome research? Or fat reduction? Or...? These concerns shouldn't stop us.)

There is absolutely no doubt that working to ensure that homosexuals are fully accepted as persons, treated with respect, with empathy, and with compassion instead of disgust and hate is a noble and worthy endeavor. All people should be treated this way, regardless of any condition they find themselves in. But those are just feelings and perceptions; they're just the first step--we should do more.

People such as myself are not only not anti-gay, we love homosexuals more than those who stop with simply treating them as first class human persons--we actually want to offer them a choice. I see this as the next step in the pro-gay movement, to take it to the next level of advocacy for them as free, first class persons.

Having the choice does not mean people would be forced to take it. People are free individuals. Maybe I'm genetically disposed to be fat. If you offered me a therapy to change that, I may or may not choose it. Maybe I like being fat. Certainly, I can fully operate in society as a productive adult and still be fat. Surely I should be accepted and treated as a first class person, despite being fat--despite that there is plenty of societal pressure not to be so. (I can guarantee that some of my friends and family, even my mom, do not approve of my being fat and have pushed me not to be at times.)  But heck, I would fully support research into genetic or other ethical, non-destructive therapy to help give fat people more freedom to choose not to be.  And maybe someday I'd choose to take it. It would be nice to have the choice--my attempts thus far to change haven't worked.

So I say we should give homosexuals the chance to be able to choose not to be gay. We should support research--medical, psychological, and otherwise--that searches out how to make this an option for them. Maybe in the past that research and some of the techniques employed weren't ethical--that doesn't make the goal not good. We can do ethical research in this direction if we put our minds to it.

I hope that by the time my children are old enough for it to be an issue for them, that if they do feel that they are homosexually oriented, they will have the option to choose to not be if that's what they want. We can do better than just making them live with it.