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

Why People Love False Christianity

Photo Courtesy of https://www.pinterest.com/pin/13792342584492054/

I awoke this morning to this headline: Why People Hate Religion. Oh boy. So in the spirit of the headline, though admittedly with far less clickbait power, I am writing about why people so love false Christianity.

You see, it’s because it doesn’t challenge them. It doesn’t make them feel uncomfortable. It doesn’t call them to repentance. It tells them that whatever they already believe and whatever they feel is good and to be embraced. It tells them that if something or someone challenges them, then that thing/person is to be shunned as evil.

The religion this guy suggests is precisely that flavor of “Christianity.” “I’m okay. You’re okay. As long as you’re not a Trump supporter, or even a social conservative.” “Jesus was just this nice guy, ya know?” It is a reductionism of Christianity to secular humanism—using religious terminology that is void of theological and soteriological content. Just “be nice and be nice to people” is all this version of Christianity demands, which is all that secular humanism calls for.

The NYT article author, Timothy Egan, says, ‘Archbishop Thompson says he tries to be “Christ-centered” in his decisions. If so, he should cite words from Christ condemning homosexuality, any words; there are none.’

Oh really. How about Matt 19:3ff:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “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.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (emphasis mine)

In Christ’s only explicit teaching about marriage, he very clearly says that it is a lifelong, sexually exclusive union of male and female. If Christ were the sexually-progressive person our contemporaries try to make him out to be, he surely would have been careful to avoid being clear that Divinely-instituted marriage is between a man and a woman. (And not only that, that "binary" sexuality is also of Divine origin.)

But let’s not stop there, because the suggestion to "cite words from Christ” for any Christian teaching is fabulously ignorant on its face. While on this planet, Jesus went to great lengths to make it clear that he considers himself to be the eternal Son of God, as Pope Benedict XVI so compellingly showed in his wonderful book, Jesus of Nazareth. And that has been unalterable Christian dogma since the beginning of our Faith. (It was precisely this claim that got him into such hot water with his Jewish contemporaries.)

Christ is, as the beginning of the Gospel of John makes evident, the eternal Word of God. Christian theologians have ruminated on this doctrine since the earliest times, and why that is particularly significant, in our context here, is that the entire canon of Christian Scripture is “The Word of God.” This means, through simple, syllogistic logic, that the entire canon of Scripture is "words from Christ." Christ, being the eternal and incarnate Word of God, therefore speaks directly through all of our Scriptures—not just the quotes attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. And there is plenty in the Word of God about sexual morals (including about homosexuality but by no means limited to it), all pointing toward what Christ was saying—that our sexuality is only rightly expressed within the bounds of that lifelong union of man and woman.

Simply put, if you do not believe that Christ is the eternally-begotten Son and Word of God, you are not a Christian. End of story. There can be no debate on this point. You can cite the words from Christ all you want, but you do not hold the Christian faith.

Furthermore, that same Word of God teaches that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15). That same Word of God teaches that Christ anointed his apostles with the power to forgive and retain sins (John 20:22-3). That same Word of God (in John 16:13), quotes Christ telling those same Apostles that when he did give them the Holy Spirit (by breathing on them as recorded in John 20), that the Spirit would lead them into all truth--even after Christ in his human person left the Earth. That same Word of God is where we find Christ anointing Peter as the rock upon which he would build his Church and conferring on him the power of loosing and binding (Matt 18:18-19).

And so, not only is the truth from Christ expressed in more than just the "words from Christ" attributed to him in the Gospels in Scripture, that truth is also to be found in the Church that Christ founded upon Peter. It is in that Church--when submitting ourselves to the authority granted by Christ to his apostles--that we are led into all truth through the charism given by Christ to the apostles and their successors. It is in the Church that we can rightly understand the Word of Christ, the Eternal Word of God.

And so we come to the teaching of the Church, which is supremely clear on these matters, not only on matters of morality (sexual or otherwise) but also on what the content of the Christian faith itself is. All of this is comprehensively but approachably explained in the Church's Catechism. Our bishops, with all their warts and flaws (some of which are direly serious), are our pastors, our shepherds. Under the headship of Peter's successor, they are the inheritors (not due to their own personal holiness but due to their office imparted by the laying on of hands) of the Apostolic charisms that Christ imparted, and it is in our union with those successors of the Apostles that we find the fullness of the Christian faith.

All of that is a somewhat long-winded way of saying that when judging what is or is not the Christian faith, and judging what is or is not part of the Christian approach to morality, one can't just consult the quoted words of Christ. Egan's version of Christianity is wholly insufficient and, in places, just plain wrong, especially in his following the notion of "be nice" as our primary guiding principle.

To be fair, he is right in some respects, as well. Part of Christian morality is to help the weak and the poor. (One can't help but wonder if he'd extend that principle of help of the weak to the not-yet-born.) He and the sister he quotes are right, in as much as our guiding light in the humanitarian work that we do is that we recognize the image of God in each person--no matter what condition they are in, no matter their developmental stage, no matter their mental or physical capabilities.

But in criticizing Christians for standing by the morals of the Faith that are not in line with popular secular culture, he is dead wrong. Perhaps the most fundamental principle of the Christian faith is the universal call to holiness. We are all called to be holy all throughout Scripture--it is the overarching theme. We are all called to repent from our sins and conform ourselves to the will of God (Romans 12:1-2). We know the will of God by his revealing it to us in creation, in His person, in Scripture, and within the guidance of His Church. Just being whomever we find ourselves to be is not a Christian way of life; it is the way of the world. No matter what our sins and inclinations are, we are called to take up our cross and follow Christ--and God gives us the grace to do that, especially through the Sacraments, especially through baptism, confession and reconciliation, and the Eucharist.

This personal, individual, on-going conversion is so often overlooked, particularly by those who want to change Christianity to fit our popular culture today. The Christian faith is completely opposed to the notion that whatever we feel, whatever we are inclined to do, is OK as long as it is not harmful to others. Furthermore, our Faith is wholly opposed to the notion that harm means challenging someone, that is, telling someone that, "no, 'you do you' is not OK," that there are in fact objective morals and objective truth, a standard of living to which all are called, no matter what our genetics and upbringing and social context, that we are all bound to respond to that universal call to holiness as best as we are able.

Sure, we Christians can and often do screw up, both in our responding to the call as well as in how we communicate it, but the call remains. And we are bound, as Christians, to share the whole Gospel--not just the parts that feel good and are acceptable to our contemporary cultures. We are bound to help the poor and weak and also correct the sinner, in addition to doing our best to conform our own selves to God.

Wherein Fr. Martin Does Actually Go Too Far

I usually find myself needing to explain/defend Fr. Martin from his many rash and ungenerous detractors. But there are times where I do think he crosses the line of letting his good intentions lead him astray. And I do firmly believe he has the best intentions, including a desire for the salvation of souls. I have little doubt that God has, does, and will use him to draw people to himself who might not otherwise be able to hear His calling.

But as all of us do, sometimes we make missteps, and for someone who lives as publicly as Fr. Martin, those may be more noticeable and noticed than your average person. I think Fr. Martin's recent interview with Brandon Ambrosino is one of those cases.

Brandon, a professional journalist, is a public gay Catholic (as in, he writes about it as a journalist) who is engaged to be married to another gay man. I say this to ward of the usual accusations that I am making his private bedroom business my own. No, he makes it our own by making himself a public figure with regards to this aspect of his life. So, fair game..

In discussing his public gayness with Fr. Martin, he relates how he wants to kiss his partner in Church during the kiss of peace but doesn't feel he can/should. Fr. Martin reacts, saying, "You have internalized rejection already. You don’t even need to be told that you’re rejected in the Church, you’ve internalized it and that’s very sad. A lot of the people that Jesus came into contact with did the same thing." Such a sense of rejection is sad, to be sure, but Fr. Martin goes on to say, "So I hope in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or soon to be your husband. Why not? What’s the terrible thing?"

I understand this is part of Fr. Martin's larger impetus (which he rehashes in the interview) to call out Christians for singling out this sin, and calling us to "build a bridge" to persons who identify as LGTBQ. But, instead of saying that the Church should equally call out these other sins that Father mentions, he seems to say that we should rather be as laissez faire about homosexual behavior as we are about other sins.

What's "terrible" in all of this is the sin itself. It's terrible not because anyone has a personal revulsion/fear of it but because sin, in principle and reality, damages one's relationship with God and others. What's terrible is the suggestion that the Church should turn a blind eye to sin. Fr. Martin is right that we have often unfairly singled out homosexual sin in the Church, especially in recent years since it's been a hot topic in our society, but he seems to have the wrong solution--to not only acknowledge that we are all sinful but also to further normalize that sinfulness, in a public way. To say, it seems, that "it's okay," that we ought not to care or feel a need to repent.

Brandon and Fr. Martin offer a few other examples, like ignoring a homeless person or abusing power. Should people who do that not be allowed to kiss in Church? This to me seems to miss a key distinction, which is that--by his own admission--part of Brandon's motivation is to normalize homosexual relationships in Church, in the context of the mass. Brandon openly argues that homosexual unions should be blessed and be considered to be sacramental and indicates that his kiss is not simply one of, say, Christian brotherly love, but is meant to be a public display of affection within the context of his sexual relationship with his partner.

There are two things wrong with that.

1) It misunderstands the whole purpose of the "kiss of peace." This is not an opportunity for us to share our personal affection towards our brothers and sisters in Christ. It is an opportunity for us to share Christ's peace with each other. The purpose is for us to share the love of Christ, his peace, and be reconciled to one another, which unites us all in Christian community. It's not at all necessary (or even relevant) that we have any sense of personal affection. In Brandon's defense, this is a common misconception about the Peace in the Church.

2) A kiss between two people that is meant to be a public display of affection of an immoral sexual relationship (such as two gay men in a sexual relationship, two lesbian women in a sexual relationship, an unmarried, cohabiting sexually active straight couple, a man and his mistress, and so on) is at least sinful in itself, and it is compounded by its being public and in the context of mass and in the context of the kiss of peace (which again is not supposed to be PDA but an expression of Christ's peace). All of that adds up to it being completely wrongheaded and (I don't use this term lightly or often) scandalous, not in some prudish sense but in the formal Christian meaning of the term.

A Christian who is trying to live a converted life to Christ should feel that such a display is inappropriate, and our response should not be "let's hope people are cool with it in 10 years." It is scandalous because the intent behind it is to convince others that such relationships are not sinful, which not only confirms the ones doing it in their sin but also contributes to the decay of the Christian community's moral sense in these matters--leading to a deadening of conscience and the likelihood that others, too, will fall into similar sins. That is the scandal.

This situation is decidedly different for those who have sinned in other ways that do not pertain to the expression of the kiss. So it is apples and oranges and incorrect to suggest that we are unfairly discriminating between those in immoral sexual relationships and those who, for instance, have stolen from the poor. Both are sinful, but in the one case, the kiss is a public expression of the sin, while in the other it is entirely unrelated.

And I am serious that this is not just about homosexual relationships--it applies to any immoral sexual relationship. We should feel the same lack of comfort with a straight couple who are living in an immoral sexual relationship. That feeling is appropriate to a properly formed Christian conscience.

Now, what we do with that feeling is important, too. We don't tackle them and pull them apart. We don't "tsk tsk" at them audibly or wait until they look in our direction and glare. We don't withhold the Peace from them. We don't otherwise make a scene. At a very minimum, we ought to say a prayer for them. Each situation is different, but I'd say it'd be potentially appropriate to counsel the couple privately about it, if you have an existing relationship with them that allows for that to happen in a way that they might actually listen. To be clear, I am not advocating for public shaming or anything like that; I am only saying that our reaction, as a community, should not be that "there's nothing wrong with it," which seems to be what Fr. Martin is hoping for.

Fr. Martin also hems and haws about not being a theologian and how that some other teachings--he names Humanae Vitae--have not been accepted, much like the purported majority of Catholics approve of gay marriage. He suggests--if I understood right--that for a teaching to be authentic Christian teaching, it must be accepted by the Christian faithful. I can only assume he is alluding to the sensus fidelium.

I have to be honest and say that this, more than anything I've seen from him, gives me pause, because it seems to suggest that he does actually believe that these teachings are wrong and that we should (and eventually will) change them. Up to now, my take has been that he's just overly focused on being tactful and welcoming, but this makes me question if that's the case...

I also am not any kind of official theologian, but my understanding is that this inverts the function of the sensus fidelium. It is primarily meant to be an expression, to quote the famous phrase by Vincent of Lerins, "that which has been believed everywhere always by all" [of the faithful]. So if we are to apply this here, it would be clear that the traditional belief of the Catholic faithful is that such things are immoral, not the other way around. Further, the idea that the laity can be right in opposition to the hierarchy is officially excluded as a valid interpretation.

The Catholic Church's teachings that are most notably at odds with current Western/American culture tend to be those having to do with sexuality and related issues (such as abortion). The fact that they are resisted and not accepted by all of us has no bearing on their veracity or standing as part of true Catholic doctrine. It is, rather, more of a reflection on our current cultural separation from our Christian roots.

It is not at all surprising that, especially, cradle Catholics--who have typically not been well-catechized and who are inescapably immersed in a culture that is on some points at odds with Catholic doctrine--should not be accepting of those points of doctrine, especially when there are equally influential aspects of our culture, such as self-determination/actualization, unfettered "freedom," democratic governance, and relativism, that incline us to believe that we, as individual persons, are the ultimate arbiter of truth as it applies to us. All of this is a kind of perfect storm to create a condition where large swaths of baptized Catholics reject teachings, often based on cultural and political affiliations, but also based on a lack of personal fortitude--some teaching are just hard. I should know!

So contrary to what Fr. Martin seems to be suggesting here, the laity do not--in contradiction to the hierarchy--determine what is true Catholic doctrine. On these points--artificial contraception and other various forms of sexual behavior--our collective inability to accept them is no indicator that they are wrong or false or subject to revision. It is simply that we are flawed human beings who face an immense challenge to overcome both our carnal passions as well as our cultural predispositions.

Believe me, I am sympathetic. Catholicism, indeed pretty much any form of traditional Christianity, is not an easy way of life. It requires sacrifice. It requires a life-long endeavor (and even after this life if need be) to conform ourselves to God. The way of the Cross is hard, but the grace of God is there to help us if only we will avail ourselves of it. And with it comes immeasurable peace and joy in this life and the next.

Tenders of Signs

When I first read of Bp. Paprocki's decree on those in homosexual unions, I thought it was unfortunate in terms of timing and narrow focus on this particular area of morals, because people are so sensitive about this right now in our society. Harping on it seems to set the wrong tone in calling people to repentance. As an approach, it seems to more lend towards hardening people's hearts and resistance to the Gospel than helping.

Others I know think the timing is exactly right because of the mass cultural delusion of acceptance of immoral sexual behavior (and I don't just mean homosexual behavior). They are of the mind that we must repeatedly and simply restate that such behavior is immoral because they believe that without doing this, people will remain and/or become more confused about sexual morals.

They seem to believe that the call to repentance, that is, evangelization, consists in simply telling people what is sinful. Or at least this seems to be the main feature of such an approach to sharing the Gospel. They often excoriate those, especially our pastors, who do not follow this approach, while lauding those who do. "Finally, someone is speaking the truth clearly!" they exclaim.

Bp. Paprocki is both well within his rights and duties as bishop to issue his decree. He is right that he is simply and objectively applying long-standing Church teaching to a new societal situation. Within the context of an internal memo to his priests, there would be little to criticize because it's not intended as an exposition of Catholic sexual ethics but merely clarifying his diocese's treatment of a new social situation.

He explains the timing of his decree has to do with the recent acceptance of civil homosexual marriage, and our society's shifting attitudes with regards to homosexual behavior (as being a morally acceptable alternative to heterosexual sex within marriage). That is understandable.

Of course it would be naive to think that such a decree would not become public when concerning such a controversial matter, and I am sure the bishop is not that naive. I imagine he is of the persuasion I outline above, that is that more or less simply restating Catholic doctrine as applied to this new situation is our most appropriate response to the new situation. His video here seems to support this inference.

For my part, I am inclined to think that it takes all types. Some people are at the place in their journey that benefits from simple statement of truth, kind of like a shock to the system, a jostling out of one's comfort zone. Others more likely need a gentler approach. They need time and more indirect means of warming to the necessity of turning away from this or that sin that is dear to them. They need a kind hand on the shoulder, an assurance they can do it.

I think that God works through all kinds of different approaches in drawing people to himself, and the Holy Spirit can use even our human blunders to reach people's hearts.
For my part, however, I tend to think at the social, public level, it's time to err on the side of gentility. It's too easy for people to harden their hearts and simply tune out of the truth. On this matter, especially, our zeitgeist sends a reinforcing message that this tuning out is exactly the right response. "These people are just homophobic bigots," it whispers. "They're just hateful. You don't need to listen."

And so they will become or remain lost--precisely because we have reinforced this notion, that being a faithful Christian means you have to be a bigot. Who would be attracted to that? Who would want to leave behind something that they feel brings them some amount of happiness in order to become like that? No one. That's who.

Jesus almost always erred on the side of gentleness and compassion with sinners. He saved the majority of his anger and direct confrontation for the religious leaders of his day, particularly those who were very good at articulating every detail of the Law, following it to the letter, and all-too-ready to condemn those who didn't. He wasn't ever unclear about the need to repent, but his approach tended to be more indirect and aspirational--stirring desire towards God rather than scaring people away from sin. That's the approach I would rather try to emulate.

It's just not enough to simply tell people what sin is and that they are sinning. That's not even the message of the Gospel. The Gospel is the grace of God acting in our lives, ever renewing us and strengthening us. The Gospel is that God's mercy is greater than our many sins--sexual or otherwise--and that no matter how many times we screw up and fall back into them, God is always there, ready and waiting to pull us up out of the ditch, tend to our wounds, and strengthen us to continue our journey towards eternal life with Him.

Yes, we need signs telling us which road to follow, we need warnings about the dangers and drop offs, but those are just means to our One, True End. I think we need to be less worried about sign maintenance and more worried about being the helping hand that God uses to pull people out of ditches and being the person God sends to accompany them on the way. Having someone who knows the way travel with you is immeasurably more valuable, appreciated, and effective than any number of signs.

Disconnecting from Catholic Social Media

After the latest brouhaha resultant from this post (and the convo before it I mentioned), I have been pushed over the edge. I'm done with Catholic social media.

It's not like this hasn't been long in coming. It seems what passes for the majority of Catholic blogging, and perhaps more so social media, is a sludge of conservative outrage inducing link regurgitating. The echo chamber is in full effect, and it has gotten worse since our new pope has been elected. Now it's not just the broader decadent Western culture that has the watchdogs frothing at the mouth, but apparently the Pope himself is not Catholic enough for them.

Enough already. It is downright embarrassing and, for me, infuriating. It's all just so much gossip.

We conservative Catholics need to stop conflating political ideals with Catholic doctrine, as if the Right has a corner on truth and goodness. We need to stop vilifying those on the other end of the political spectrum. We need to stop overreacting to everything homosexual and abortion-related. We need to stop setting ourselves up in our own personal popedoms. We need to relax about the liturgy. We need to relax about the world's sexual profligacy. We need to relax. Chill out a bit. Take a deep breath and stop wigging out every time something in the world doesn't align with the way we think it should be.

It goes without saying (for me) that I'm not suggesting keeping silent when we should speak. I'm not suggesting not being active in the political process how we should be. I'm not suggesting ignoring or suppressing Truth, Goodness, or Beauty. I am by no means suggesting we don't share the Gospel--exactly the contrary!

Look. Either God is in control or he isn't. If the world is going to hell in a handbasket, that ain't nothing new. The way things used to be ain't as great as we like to pretend it was in our whitewashed memories. Human nature is human nature. It always has been. Mass sinfulness has always been with us; it's just the predominate kinds of sin that change with the passage of time.

Thankfully, God doesn't judge us by the political order and culture we live in; he judges us individually by what we as individuals think, say, and do. If God intended to set up a perfect political party or government, we'd have that. But we don't, and it's not our job to try to set it up.

What we do have is the Truth. What we have are the Sacraments. What we have is each other. Real people whom we are called to truly love, even if we don't agree with them. 

And don't tell me about "speaking the truth in love." Hogwash. The Truth is easily abused and can be wielded as effectively to drive people away from God as it can to guide them to Him. The Truth is also understood incompletely, by us. It is often miscommunicated, by us. It is also often misunderstood, and we are responsible to minimize that--we must be sensitive to where people are and adjust when and how we share the Gospel with them. 

And this extends beyond social media (it just seems exacerbated by it, as are most things online, where it's so easy to reduce people in your head to mere ideas and words, stripping them of the dignity and love they deserve from us). My own dear lay Dominicans were recently discussing a situation where one of them found out that someone they have do some handyman work is gay--who was "married" recently. Apparently this was the source of great anguish--should she keep paying him to do a job? What if he brings up his gayness?? "You have to share the truth [in love] with him," says someone. 

Really?!? Have we become so oversensitized to this issue that it becomes a major personal crisis to find out that someone you have hired to do a job that has absolutely zero to do with their sexuality is gay? Are we really obligated to foist our opinion of their life choices on them uninvited? Must we all shake our heads and tut tut about it? Would we have the same crisis if, say, we found out that they were a terrible gossip or an inveterate liar? Somehow I doubt it, especially if their sin was also one we personally struggle with.

And that's the crux of it. If this behavior is not the very definition of what Jesus was counseling against in Matthew 7, I don't know what is. All this outrage-inducing "socializing" does is keep our focus on others' sins and errors rather than our own, much less does it help us to share the Good News. I'd say the Devil is pretty pleased with the state of Catholic social media right now. Pretending for a moment that this is "New Evangelization" is utter self-deception.

Sharing the Gospel is the key. It's not good enough to say something is a sin. That's sharing the Truth incompletely. That, at its best, is ethics. Being a "good person" doesn't get anyone to heaven. What we really need to share is not "you are living in sin" but "Christ can transform your life, give you joy and give you peace." That's the message. That's the focus. Sin is just an opportunity for us to receive God's grace. We need to share that the mercy and grace of God is greater than all our sins put together. 

We need to stand with our fellow sinners, not so as to condone sin but rather in recognition that we are all sinners, that we all fail, that we all utterly need the grace of God. If we are not truly with them, then we are not truly loving them. Compassion is the word. Suffering with others. Us versus them is not authentic love. Pointing out sin is not authentic love. It is pride masquerading as love.

And, so, for myself, all this outrage-rich social media is a very near occasion to sin (not to mention a waste of time and talent), because I am repeatedly tempted to hold these brothers and sisters in disdain, because I myself become preoccupied with their sins rather than my own, and so, give into pride. 

Therefore, I am cutting off that aspect of my life rather than continuing to fall into sin. I have deleted circles. I have unliked pages on FB. I will continue to cull these things from my life as they come up. As I slowly rebuild my Catholic social connections, I will use this as a bar: Does this person refrain from fostering outrage and indulging in judging and condemning others? Does this person share things that build people up? Does this person appear to be truly concerned with sharing the Gospel and will they help me to? 

Clear Thinking About Redefining Marriage

Given what is going on at the Supreme Court this week, it seems only fitting to add some commentary on that for my post of the day. I know, because so few people are, I thought I'd fill the much needed gap. ;)

First, I'll offer some past commentary I've written on the subject. As I guess many people have, I've been pondering this subject in some depth for many years now, dare I say, "wrestling" with it. I seem to recall my first attempt to gather my thoughts on paper about it was back in the summer of 97 or maybe 98, but I no longer have that. And before and after that initial attempt, I have had innumerable (it feels that way anyhow) discussions with people about it.

Note Well: I should mention that I have family members (yes plural) who self-identify as homosexual. I have also worked with people who have identified as homosexuals--people I consider friends, and I have neighbors currently who make no secret of their sexual orientation. This issue is not something I take lightly nor dismissively, nor is it based on some kind of prejudice, nor is it based on simply quoting biblical passages, nor is it even based on what the Catholic Church says on the matter. It is quite simply based on natural law--something we can reason to based on natural evidence and considerations.

I would love nothing more than to just go with the pop cultural flow on this topic--especially these days with the increasing normalization of irrational hate and bigotry on the side of advocates of gay marriage, but as someone who makes an effort to try my best to understand the truth of things and to live accordingly, I cannot simply ignore what seems to me to be the truth of things in this matter.

The earliest writing of mine that I can readily track down of my writing on the topic is this post back in 2006:
On the Good and "Right" of Marriage - This one is still a pretty good reflection of my thoughts today, although I think/hope they've been refined a bit and maybe I'm a little more aware now of my own prejudices than I was then.

Review: Sexual Authenticity - In 2009, I read this great book written by a former lesbian. This book, probably more than anything I've seen or read, helped me to better appreciate the struggles folks in those situations face (inasmuch as I can), as well as to recognize prejudices I still had, even despite my efforts to be open minded about the subject.

Marriage Must Be Strengthened, Not Redefined - Also written in 2009, it was an attempt at restating a holistic consideration of the matter.

Speaking of Abominations - A 2010 response to/rant against those opponents of homosexuality that mainly rely on prejudice and simple-minded quoting of biblical passages to act in bigotry towards homosexuals.

Who Cares Who Gets Married - A 2011 rant/response to the stupid statement, "who cares who gets married?" that is often used as a way to dismiss the issue entirely.

What If My Child Were Gay? - A 2012 reflection on this question, one that is often posed by advocates for homosexual unions as a way to try to guilt people into caving on the issue.

And that's it of the publicly, readily available writing I've done on the subject. The rest is lost to time or locked in walled gardens like Facebook, G+, and elsewhere, but this sampling is I think a pretty good reflection on most of the issues and concerns involved.

I would set all of this up against what any advocate for homosexual unions has to offer (specifically with regards to the desire to redefine marriage to include these unions). As time has progressed, I have watched as the argumentation on the other side of the discussion has devolved to the point that it is rare to have someone engage thoughtfully and reasonably. More common by far is the throwing of epithets, the false comparison to the racial civil rights movement (and concordant demonizing of opponents of redefining marriage), and essentially a simple dismissal and refusal to rationally engage in dialogue.

Allow me to summarize the arguments advanced in the cause of redefining marriage:
1) By far, the most common and usually unspoken argument is that it feels right. It feels good to feel openminded and so "tolerant" (this moniker itself being just another dishonest rhetorical device, implying as it does that to hold an opposing position is "intolerant" and made even more absurd by the extreme, real intolerance shown towards defenders of marriage).

It feels good to feel like you're in with the crowd--all the kids are doing it, after all. Nearly every show (quite disproportionate to reality) has a token homosexual, and usually they are portrayed as the most fun-loving, lovable, and good persons. Sadly, the homosexuals I've known do not match up with this presentation. At best, they are just regular folks with all the usual foibles.

The efforts in popular media have largely succeeded to normalize homosexuality, which is of course the intent, but more than that the goal is to make it seem as if that if you don't go along with it, you are bad, you are a bully, you are intolerant, you are a bigot, which again is ironically exactly what this sort of thing encourages in reverse.

And boy, how telling is it that as I write this, my wife is watching a Crossing Jordan in which a pregnant homosexual woman is killed and her baby ripped out by a hateful religious bigot. What utter, evil bullshit, and yet, that is the caricature pushed by the popular media on those who oppose redefining marriage.

2) It is progressive and youthful to advocate for redefining marriage. Again, the media portray opponents as old, ignorant, backwards, stuck in their ways. Only rural, uneducated, bible-thumping old folks could possibly object, and, as the argument goes, it's only a matter of time--these folks will die off and become increasingly irrelevant, just like the racists of yore.

Well guess what? I know plenty of young, educated, intelligent, charitable, and thoughtful folks who don't go in for redefining marriage. Further, and perhaps more importantly, this is ageism. Progress is no reason in itself. Youth is no measure of wisdom (usually quite the opposite).

3) "Why are you so obsessed with what people do in their bedrooms?" I got news for ya. We are not obsessed with that. This is a variation on the "Who cares who gets married?" question. See the above post--same answer applies here. The short answer is that we are not the ones who brought the subject up. Maybe the subject deserves to be brought up, but in doing so, it opens the door for people to debate and discuss it. It is the hot button topic of our time, and so it is normal that we are talking about it.

It is only our peculiar contemporary cultural insanity with regards to sexuality and marriage that has occasioned this being a significant social issue. Marriage, more than other things in our society, is an ancient and well-tested institution that pretty much has always in every culture meant to mean the union of man and woman in a stable (ideally life-long) relationship ordered towards procreation and raising of the children from the biological mother and father in said committed relationship.

It would be better to ask, why are advocates so obsessed with flaunting their sexuality in public? We really don't want to know about it--keep it in your bedrooms.

4) "Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions is the 'civil rights' issue of our day." This is simply an untenable, reprehensible co-opting of a still-emotionally charged issue as a means to bully advocates of traditional marriage into silence and submission. After all, who wants to be like a racist, right? Racists are almost universally agreed upon to be a pariah in our society, and rightly so.

There are two problems with this assertion.  First, there is a rather large burden of proof to make the case that redefining marriage is on the same level as the racial civil rights movement. (Hint: it's not possible to show this.) But more to the point, even granting that there are some superficial similarities (i.e., a minority group advocating for some perceived right), the similarity itself is actually no argument at all. Again, it is just a rhetorical tool, and a particularly vicious and dishonest one (not to mention the injustice it does to African Americans).

5) "I know so-and-so who had a very sad personal event (usually death or something healthcare related) that was made worse because of the legal status/not being married." This, again, is more of a rhetorical device than a valid argument. There are legal tools made to address such situations, and where they are still lacking, I think no right thinking person would oppose their creation (and not just for homosexuals but for any people in a loving relationship). Nobody wants people to suffer worse due to bureaucratic red tape.

There are two issues here as well. First, the problem can be fixed without redefining marriage. I think in terms of expediency and practicality, it may be hard to argue against that the redefinition of marriage is legally easier than addressing the problem in other ways--but that doesn't make that solution right. We can create a legal solution that is both correct and sufficient without redefining marriage.

Second, even marriage these days does not guarantee the elimination of bureaucratic red tape. I have been advised by multiple attorneys that I need to have a will in place, ideally also a living will, and a power of attorney--for my wife (and vice versa). This is needed due to the general breakdown of marriage in our society that has slowly eroded spousal privileges (because they have been abused and because marriage is so easily cast off these days). The point is, marriage itself doesn't fully address the bureaucratic red tape problem, so redefining it won't effectively solve this issue. We should have a simple way to designate any other person or persons to have the various rights, powers, and responsibilities over us and ours. Redefining marriage is not the best solution for that.

6) "I know so-and-so has had a hard time feeling accepted by society because of their self-identification as a homosexual." Again, no right thinking person would advocate against loving people regardless of their sexual orientation. Mistreating and abusing anyone due to their sexual orientation is wrong. Bigotry is wrong no matter what the cause.

But that does not mean we need to redefine marriage to solve this. Not being able to marry another homosexual person does not make homosexuals second class citizens. As above, this term "second class citizens" is another emotional bullying term. There is nothing (legally) stopping homosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex--that's what marriage is, a union of a man and a woman. Just because they don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex does not mean they are second class citizens.

There have always been individuals who don't want to marry because they value something else more highly (be it their personal freedom, not liking children, their religious vows of celibacy, their lack of interest in the opposite sex--whatever). The fact remains, they are completely free to marry a person of the opposite sex under law--they have that equal right, but they choose not to. The case is no different for a homosexual person. Merely wanting to live an alternative sexual lifestyle--no matter how deep seated one's sexual desires are--does not entitle one to redefine marriage to include that lifestyle.

Again, all right-thinking people should agree that mistreating someone based on their self-identifying as homosexual is wrong. But this does not automatically imply that we must all approve of that form of sexual activity or see all forms of sexual activities as equally healthful. I think that few people would suggest such a thing--that all forms of sexual activity are equally healthy--so where we differ then is on where we draw the line in terms of what is and is not healthy for a person. And no matter where we draw the line, I guarantee that those who engage in the forms of sexual activity we think unhealthy are going to feel that somehow we are not fully accepting of them and their choices.

But that's okay. There are plenty of people who don't approve of my choice of religion, my choice of food, and many of the choices I make in how I raise my kids. In fact, I know there are people who are more restrictive than I am in terms of what is acceptable sexual behavior. I'm okay with that--similarly, homosexuals that engage in homosexual activity need to learn to be comfortable with the fact that not everyone is going to approve of their behavior.

And lest anyone think I am missing the point that homosexual tendencies are not choices, let me assure you that I am not. I do not claim that they are definitely not biological. I do not claim that a person "chooses to be a homosexual." I do, however, make a distinction between biological and psychological dispositions and what we, as free human beings, choose to do with them. One mustn't hold people accountable for their predispositions; however, one can hold people accountable for actions.

This doesn't make those who disapprove of homosexual behavior bad or evil or inherently bigoted, nor does it mean that such people don't accept them as persons, as human beings with human dignity and all that entails. It certainly does not mean those people think they are entitled to mistreat homosexuals, but by the same coin, homosexuals need to deal with that disapproval of their behavior if they want to keep doing it. It's just a fact of life that people are not going to agree with nor approve of everything you choose to do.

Heck, I don't even approve of everything that I do. Does that mean I don't accept me as a person with human dignity? No, it surely does not mean that.

Still, I grant that homosexuals have received more than their fair share of mistreatment at the hands of bigots. And I fully agree that this mistreatment is wrong. I just want to be clear that this doesn't mean that everyone has to approve of homosexual sex to make up for others who have mistreated them, much less do we have to redefine marriage for that reason.

7) "Equal rights!" This is I think the strongest argument offered in favor of redefining marriage. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near as simple as most advocates for redefining marriage like to portray it. Our American culture (especially) is very into "rights" and "equality"--to an irrational extent. So most people who toss this one out, do so more out of this feel-good American sense of equality and some vague notion of "equal rights" than they do from having really thought it through.

Rights involve justice. Justice involves considering not just blanket "equality" but equality that is based in balance, in giving things their due. The lady justice holds scales, and not for no reason--because justice includes this notion of balance. Goods offered by the state, as they are to married people, are offered in relation to the perceived goods of marriage. Therefore, to make the case for homosexual unions being equal to heterosexual marriage, one would have to make the case that they, as a rule (i.e., as the norm), bring with them equal goods.

Chief Justice Roberts hit this nail on the head today:

I’m not sure that it’s right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.

It is — yes, you can say that it serves some of the other interests where it makes sense to include them, but not all the interests. And it seems to me, your friend argues on the other side, if you have an institution that pursues additional interests, you don’t have to include everybody just because some other aspects of it can be applied to them.

Yes, it really does come down to not only two people in a loving, committed relationship but also 1) the  capacity to normally produce children and 2) the typical raising of those children in a stable relationship by the same man and woman who brought them into this world. Are there exceptions? Sure--heterosexual couples can not have children, and these days, it is possible for homosexual couples to procure children artificially. But these are the exceptions, not the norm. And the law should reflect that. This article by two distinguished professors of law and one of bioethics tackles the intrinsic relationship between marriage and procreation far better than I can. I highly recommend anyone who doubts this connection to read it.

Finally, redefining marriage has other, undesirable consequences:

Before getting into these, I should note, in response to some critiques of this article that focus on these three points exclusively, that the following consequences do not sum up the arguments against redefining marriage. The burden of proof to change such a time-tested human institution belongs with those wishing to change it, and so they must demonstrate a compelling state interest in making the change. As seen above, they have not yet done that. That there are also negative consequences are not the sum of the case against redefinition; these are but part of it. The primary argument against redefinition is simply that marriage is intrinsically a heterosexual union, as illuminated in the article referred to above.

I will add objections to these points and answers to them as they come up.

1) It perpetuates the false notion that children are not integrally tied up in marriage, that their good and their future is unaffected by marriage. We all know such a proposition to be plainly false, and yet many are ready to enshrine that false notion into law by redefining marriage thereby implicitly tossing the normal good of children by the wayside.

Objection 1) Marriage is not just/only about procreation and children as seen by the fact that infertile and aged couples can marry, and there is no test/guarantee that fertile couples will have children.

Reply to Objection 1) See the article referred to above. It illuminates the nature of marriage and how it is intrinsically connected to procreation and children. Part 2 of the article also add further clarification on the matter.

2) There are inadequate protections of conscience and freedom of religion for those who do not hold with redefining marriage to include other forms of unions. It is not far fetched to see how, without such protections in place, people could be forced to violate their consciences and/or the tenets of their religion by being forced to marry, participate in such marriages, and/or recognize them in ways that they find morally objectionable. We see this happening with other issues of conscience such as abortion today, and even without the redefinition of marriage, people have been caused to violate their consciences or lose their livelihood. As I said, it's not far fetched at all.

Objection 1) This is a red herring. These rights can be protected without regard to the definition of marriage.

Reply to Objection 1) In theory that is possibly true. However, this is a very real consequence, and it is happening already. Basically, once homosexual unions are recognized as legal marriages, it makes it far easier to bring suits against those who object to them on moral/conscience/religious grounds. If homosexual unions are not granted equal status in law, then there is a much weaker case.

3) By divorcing the meaning of marriage from the normal procreative aspect, it removes any defensible rationale against other forms of state-recognized unions, be they sexual or even asexual in nature. Sex itself, divorced of its procreative nature, has little meaning, much less meaning as far as the state is concerned. Put another way, it should really be irrelevant to the state what the sexual orientation of the people involved is (that's the essence of the equality argument, right?). So as far as recognizing a self-declared committed relationship as "marriage," there is no reason to prevent others--regardless of their sexual orientation or behavior--from declaring they they love each other and want to commit publicly and legally in a "marriage."

Objection 1) This is the slippery slope fallacy.

Reply to Objection 1) This is not a slippery slope fallacy--that fallacy requires that there be no demonstrable rationale or evidence for the connection/consequences identified. On the contrary, the consequences are not remote/extreme nor is this based in an appeal to fear. It is just a simple examination of the rationale advanced in favor of redefinition and the logical consequences of it. We are talking about making marriage have nothing to do intrinsically with sex or procreation--that is the logical consequence of the homosexual "marriage" rationale. Even proponents of redefinition recognize that these are the rational consequences of their position.

Now maybe some advocates find nothing wrong with these other forms of unions. And frankly, if marriage were simply about loving people declaring their love to the world and getting some nice legal benefits for it, I'd as a rule agree that there's nothing objectionable in granting the status to any such persons. By all means--any two or more adults who want to enter into such an arrangement should be allowed--if that's all marriage is. But that's just it--marriage is more than that. It's always been more than that. It is inexorably tied up with (heterosexual) sex and, consequently, children, as expounded above.

The redefinition of marriage to these other forms makes marriage nothing more than a convenient arrangement of two or more people for the sharing of goods, rights, and responsibilities in a manner that has traditionally been seen as part and parcel of marriage. It strips marriage of what is core to it--sexual complementarity that biologically unifies a man and a woman in the communion of a family. That complementarity is by its very nature intrinsically procreative, even if not every sexual act results in procreation, even if there are impediments to the possibility of procreation.

In Conclusion
If we, as a society, want to sap marriage of all the good it does society, then I think we have to ask ourselves, what is all this hullaballoo about? If all it is about is people getting public recognition for their loving feelings toward others, then the state should just get out of the marriage business altogether. There is no reason for it to be involved. Let people have all the public ceremonies they want for that purpose in whatever religion or lack of religion suits them and matches their worldview!

If redefining marriage is about making it easier for loving people to care for each other (or to facilitate the equitable division of goods in the dissolution of such relationships), then by all means, ensure those legal apparati are in place and equally accessible to all. Even marriages are aided by extra legal contracts around individual goods (pre-nuptials). I don't see any reason why such agreements would have to involve marriage. Just write up a contract to handle it. Done. We don't need to redefine marriage for that purpose. Also in this case, the state doesn't need to be involved in marriage to solve that problem.

But marriage is not just these things--they are ancillary to it. Marriage is about both stable loving commitment and intrinsically procreative and child/family-oriented unions. Those conditions only apply to heterosexual unions. I would go further to say that we/society/the state have a lot more work to do to promote and support healthy families as I have previously argued. This is not just about "denying" homosexuals the "right" to marry. It is about recognizing how poorly we are doing as a society in encouraging healthy marriages and families and not letting the state of things get even more confused and deteriorated by further undermining the institution of marriage.