Monday, November 23, 2009
In a piece reporting on Rep. Patrick Kennedy's claims regarding his bishop, the AFP states:
Communion is a church ritual that involves the sharing of bread and wine meant to represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Argh. C'mon, folks. Is it that hard to "get religion"? (More here.)
Dear Fr. Robert:
If I've understood you correctly, I believe you have perhaps misunderstood a feature of Michael P.'s position. Of course, Michael can speak for himself, but I'm sure he is not arguing that same-sex unions should be the definition of marital relations, replacing opposite-sex unions. Rather, he is arguing that marriage should be understood and defined as the union of two persons irrespective of sex. In other words, he thinks that biological-sexual complementarity is not essential to marriage, properly understood. So "gay marriagses" and "straight marriages" are both marriages. Of course, marriage, if Michael is right, is not what you and I think it is, namely, a truly (and not merely metaphorically) one-flesh union--a comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life founded on a mutual commitment sealed (consummated) by organic bodily union (the kind of union achieved by spouses in acts in which they lovingly fulfill the behavioral conditions of procreation, irrespective of whether the nonbehavioral conditions of procreation happen to obtain) that has its distinctive character and special meaning and value inasmuch as it is the type of relationship that is naturally fulfilled by the begetting, bearing, and rearing of children. However, since opposite sex marriages would exist alongside same-sex marriages in the event that Michael's view prevailed, there would be no special threat to the reproductive viability of the species. Michael's view, as I understand it, is that there are two (or at least two) sexual orientations: the heterosexual and the homosexual. Persons of each orientation find fulfillment in romantic-sexual partnerships of the type they are oriented towards. Insofar as they are fulfilling of the persons participating in them, such partnerships are humanly good and morally upright. A large majority of humans are heterosexually oriented, and most of them will have children as a result of their ordinary sexual congress. A comparatively small minority are homosexually oriented. Some of them will rear adopted children; some will have children by using assisted reproduction technologies (which are also used by some heterosexuals); and some (like some heterosexuals) will be childless. Michael's belief is that there is nothing morally wrong with same-sex sexual acts and sexual partnerships as such. I don't agree. My reasons, though, which I have set forth in the writings I mentioned in my previous post, do not have to do with a concern that the human race will die out (though historically, as Harvard sociologist and demographer Carle Zimmerman pointed out in Family and Civilization (1948), there does seem to be a cross-cultural correlation between the general social acceptance of permissive views about sexuality--whether or not the acceptance of homosexual conduct is a big part of the picture--and demographic decline).
Sunday, November 22, 2009
I begin by thanking Robby George and Michael Perry for their spirited discussion on the matter of same-sex relations.
Tonight I respond to Michael’s argument that there is a “principal magisterial argument against...”
No, Michael, there is a whole fabric of argument that must be taken into consideration. I have been criticized for trying to say too much in my postings here at the Mirror of Justice, so tonight I’ll offer a number of non-exclusive points to counter Michael’s suggestion that there is only one principal magisterial argument. Let me counter with some of them:
If same-sex unions, whatever they are called [i.e., marriage, relation, etc.] are the norm or are normative, and they are not only the paradigm but also the definition of marital relations, from where will future generations of our species come?
If the answer is: existing and developing human reproductive technologies, then, what will become of the “spare” embryos? Will they be preserved indefinitely? Will some be discarded? Will no account be given to them? Who will bear them? Will they be entrusted to some artificial laboratory substitute for a womb? Who will claim them? Will there be an obligation/responsibility to claim them? I have more questions on this issue, but these will suffice for the time being.
The juridical argument for these same-sex relations was grounded in privacy. But now that the “privacy right” has been established, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, In re Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, why is it necessary to make the issue of “privacy” a public matter? The Church has an answer, and it is not the one suggested by those upon whom Michael relies in his contention.
Michael further relies on the work of Sister Margaret Farley, but I look forward to the Mirror of Justice discussion that has been long-awaiting regarding her work to which Michael refers. Let it suffice for me to suggest for the time being that Margaret Farley has many interesting views on “sexual ethics”, but, they are most problematic, to say the least. However, let me lift just one of her other quotations from the work that Michael relies upon to put my concern into perspective: “despite what I have said about official positions in the Roman Catholic church [sic], there are changes that should not be underestimated. Although homosexual genital actions are still judged to be intrinsically disordered, and hence ‘objectively’ immoral, they can be ‘subjectively’ moral depending on the state of mind and intentions of an individual person.” To borrow from Sister Farley, this is the tip of her “iceberg”. But much more lurks below the depths of the attraction of her superficial rationalization. I wonder what she is trying to make absolute? I think I know especially after having re-read her book to which Michael kindly directs our attention.
I also know Michael views the issue as a matter of justice. So does Sister Farley. Equality is key to how people are treated and what justice demands, so I must ask the fundamental question: how is the same-sex relation the precise equal of the heterosexual one? I, for one, do not think that it can be. See here [Download Equality and Same Sex Marriage] for my fuller response to this matter.
One issue that advocates for same-sex unions dismiss but do not counter is the complementarity-of-the-sexes question. Michael has not addressed this, but it is clear that this is an important argument to the Church’s teachings. I, for one, would like to hear what Michael has to say about this issue involving complementarity and how it is absence from same-sex relations.
For the time being, I present one more problem for Michael to consider which his last posting has teased from me. If same-sex and opposite-sex unions are the “same,” what is to prevent advocates for other kinds of unions that may involve multiple members from relying on the argument he presents? If same-sex unions are “found” to be equal, won’t it be long before advocates for other unions will be presenting their claims with “convincing” argument?
RJA sj
As we at MOJ well know, the pope and the bishops
of the Catholic Church are among the leading opponents of extending the benefit
of law to same-sex unions: They “[strongly
oppose] any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal
levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage –
by naming them marriage, civil unions or by other means.” (USCCB
Administrative Committee, “Statement on Marriage and Homosexual Unions,” 33 Origins
257, 259 (2003).) And as we at MOJ also know, when
the pope or the bishops enter the public square (so to speak) to weigh in on
political controversies, they rely on nonreligious arguments: arguments that
presuppose the authority neither of Christianity (much less of Catholicism)
nor, indeed, of any religious belief. The
principal secular argument on the basis of which the Church opposes the legal recognition
of same-sex unions holds that it is immoral for anyone to engage, voluntarily
and intentionally, in any species of sex (genital) act that of its nature (“inherently”)
is not procreative – masturbation, for example; or oral copulation; or male–female
sexual intercourse, even in marriage, in which the man uses a condom. According
to the Administrative Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “[w]hat are called
‘homosexual unions,’ . . . because they are inherently nonprocreative,
cannot be given the status of marriage.”
(Ibid (emphasis added). See also Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give
Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html.
Cf. Margaret Farley, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics 279
(2008): “[I]n official Roman Catholic negative assessments of homosexual
activity[,] the procreative norm is relativized for heterosexual relationships (following
the acceptance of some forms on contraception such as ‘natural family planning’),
but it is absolutized once again when homosexual relationships are at issue.”
I was amused (sort of) by Michael Perry's discussion of my sexual orientation and its fulfillment. I don't recall discussing that subject with Michael or publishing anything about it. Perhaps he has been in touch with my therapist (if I have one) or confessor. Being a sophisticated person, Michael, who teaches at Emory University, surely isn't inferring that I am "heterosexual" from the fact that I am married (to a woman) or the fact that I hold conservative beliefs about sexual morality. As Michael knows, there are plenty of people who are, or who regard themselves as, homosexual or bisexual who are married (to members of the opposite sex), and there are many who hold conservative views about sexual ethics. (Andrew Sullivan even has a theory about such people.) As for Michael's argument--well, it's not actually an argument, it's sort of a suggestion of a possible line of argument, but nevermind--he seems to suppose that a sexual act or relationship can be judged to be morally upright if it fulfills (whatever that term means in this context) someone's sexual orientation (which is itself a concept that is yet to achieve a fixed meaning). His move then is to characterize the position of those who disagree with him in the following manner: "it's not immoral for, say, MOJ blogger Robby George, given his sexual (heterosexual) orientation, to live his life in a way that fulfills *his* sexual orientation, but it *is* immoral for, say, William Eskridge, given his sexual (homosexual) orientation, to live his life in a way that fulfills *his* sexual orientation." So the reader is implicitly invited to draw the conclusion that the defender of traditional sexual morality (who is allegedly making this argument) is guilty of a particularly gross form of bias and self-preference. Readers who are interested in the actual arguments I advance for my views on sexual morality (which have nothing to do with people "fulfilling" or not fulfilling their "sexual orientations") can have a look at Chapter Six (entitled "Sex and the Body") of my book with Patrick Lee, Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics (Cambridge U. Press, 2008). (The argument there depends on some crucial points about personal identity defended in Chapter One, entitled "Human Beings are Animals," and Chapter Two, entitled "Human Beings are Persons.") On the role of "biological" complementarity in our understanding of sexual ethics, people who are interested might have a look at our critique of the arguments advanced by two theologians who contend for the revision of Catholic teaching on homosexual conduct on the ground that what matters is "orientation" complementarity: "What Male-Female Complementarity Makes Possible: Marriage as a Two-in-One-Flesh Union," Theological Studies, 69 (2008). In our book, incidentally, Lee and I attempt to show that the core error in liberal sexual ethics is the same error that drives permissive views about abortion, euthanasia, and recreational drug-taking, namely, the idea that the body is an extrinsic instrument of the human person (considered as the conscious and desiring aspect of the self) rather than an integral part of the personal reality of the human being (considered as an integrated and dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit). The error (as we see it) is the same whether its source is substance dualism of the (now) old-fashioned Cartesian sort; the "bundle theory of the self" (also known as the "no-subject" view) advanced by Parfit and others; the "mechanistic" view that rejects the possibility of composite substances; or the view (associated with process philosophy) that ultimate entities are events, rather than substances. Back to Michael Perry's post, he says that it "bears emphasis" that most American Catholics violate what Michael likes to call "official" Catholic teaching on contraception. That is, no doubt, true. It has the same relevance to the question of the truth and authority of the teaching that the fact that most American Catholics violate the Church's teaching on lying has. (Evangelicals seem to be in the same boat on this one, by the way. It seems that utilitarianism has seeped so deeply into the public's understanding of ethics that even Catholics and Evangelicals--who are supposed to be believers in moral absolutes--tend to think that lying is morally acceptable where it serves the "greater good" or is the "lesser evil.")
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Immoral? Sez who? (HT: The late, beloved Art Leff, of YLS.]
It's one thing to adhere to a conception of marriage--a contestable and, even here at MOJ, contested conception--according to which a same-sex union cannot be a marriage. It's another thing to claim that a same-sex union--each and every same-sex union--is necessarily immoral. If I understand the argument, it's not immoral for, say, MOJ blogger Robby George, given his sexual (heterosexual) orientation, to live his life in a way that fulfills *his* sexual orientation, but it *is* immoral for, say, William Eskridge, given his sexual (homosexual) orientation, to live his life in a way that fulfills *his* sexual orientation. The argument, if I understand it, has something to do with *biological* complementarity. But why is *biological* complementarity determinative of (im)morality? What about *sexual* complementarity? The official (i.e., magisterial) Roman Catholic response emphasizes the immorality of deliberately and/or inherently nonprocreative sexual (i.e., genital) activity--including, it bears emphasis, activity that most heterosexual American Catholics engage in: deliberately contracepted sexual activity. The traditionalist evangelical-Christian response emphasizes the will of God, as revealed in the Bible. But on this proposition the official Roman Catholic position and the traditionalist evangelical-Christian position converge: It's not immoral for Robby George, given his heterosexual orientation, to live his life in a way that fulfills *his* sexual orientation, but it *is* immoral for William Eskridge, given his homosexual orientation, to live *his* life in a way that fulfills his sexual orientation. Read on ...
NYT, 11/21/09
Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues
Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.
“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.
The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America.
They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
They say they also want to speak to younger Christians who have become engaged in issues like climate change and global poverty, and who are more accepting of homosexuality than their elders. They say they want to remind them that abortion, homosexuality and religious freedom are still paramount issues.
“We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues,” said Charles Colson, a prominent evangelical who founded Prison Fellowship after serving time in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. “A lot of the younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues.”
The document was written by Mr. Colson; Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, who is Catholic; and the Rev. Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School, an evangelical interdenominational school on the campus of Samford University, in Birmingham, Ala.
They convened a meeting of Christian leaders in Manhattan in September to present the document and gather suggestions. The 4,700-word document is called the “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.” The New York Times obtained an advance copy.
The document says, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, or treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”
Ira C. Lupu, a law professor at George Washington University Law School, said it was “fear-mongering” to suggest that religious institutions would be forced to do any of those things. He said they are protected by the First Amendment, and by conscience clauses that allow medical professionals and hospitals to opt out of performing certain procedures, and religious exemptions written into same-sex marriage bills.
The most likely points of controversy, he said, could involve religious groups that provide social services to the public. Such organizations could be obligated to provide social services to gay people or provide spousal benefits to married gay employees.
Mr. George, the legal scholar at Princeton University, argued that the conscience clauses and religious exemptions were insufficient, saying, “The dangers to religious liberty are very real."
The Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law and Public Policy (co-directed by Lisa Schiltz and formerly co-directed by Tom Berg) is hosting an engaging conference entitled "Realism in Christian Public Theology: Catholic and Protestant Perspectives." Today's offerings include Rob Vischer on lawyering, Victor Romero on immigration, David Skeel on "Law, irony, and the Church in Reinhold Niebuhr," and Bill Cananaugh on "A Nation with the Church's Soul: Realism and Ecclesiology." Yesterday, Susan Stabile (following her talk at Georgetown last week) provided us with some thought provoking questions in her talk entitled "An Effort to Articulate a Catholic Realist Approach to Abortion." The questions centered around where, when, and how can we work with and find common ground with our pro-choice opponents. I'll let her elaborate if she feels so inclined.
The conference started with two excellent talks by Jean Elshtain and Gerry Bradley. The two papers provided a good comparison and contrast Niebuhrian realism and unicity of morality found in Catholic moral thought. During the lively Q & A, Bradley articulated his understanding of the development of Catholic thought on capital punishment, which as Bradley noted, has not yet been fully fleshed out. If I understood him correctly, he said: 1) The Church teaches that intentional killing is always morally wrong. 2) Under the principle of double effect, self-defense or the defense of others using lethal force if necessary is not morally wrong (you are trying to stop and aggressor, not kill a person). 3) capital punishment is justified but only for the purposes of defending the community. 4) SInce western nations have other means for protecting the community from aggressors, there is no (or almost no) justifiable reason to use the death penalty in those nations.
The Bishops are pushing for an amendment to the health care bill in the Senate to assure that federal funds are not used to support abortions. If the amendment is not passed, the Bishops maintain that the health care bill should be opposed altogether (could it not be favored on the principle of double effect?). Whatever happens with the bill, rich and middle class women will be able to get abortions. Similarly, the question raised by the amendment may not be whether poor women get abortions, but the conditions under which they get them. The one sure thing is that if the amendment fails, and the Bishops succeed in blocking this vital legislation, millions of poor men, women, and children will be denied access to adequate health care. This may be Catholic as the Bishops define it, but I doubt that it is Christian.
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
