Why Same-Sex Attraction Is Never Sinful

The National Catholic Register has just released a news article well worth reading on the 23rd annual conference of the Courage Apostolate, the official Catholic outreach to people suffering from same-sex attraction.  This is an age when television anchors can and will accuse Catholics of bigotry in their attitudes towards people with same-sex attraction so it is important to know, understand, and be able to articulately defend Catholic teaching on this important issue.  Rick Santorum — as Thomas Peters so aptly points out — walks right into a rhetorical trap in the interview posted above.  He deserves enormous credit for his courage but his rhetorical clumsiness fails to make his position clear and convincing.

The Catholic Church teaches that there are three morally distinct  components in the same sex issue.  Same-sex sexual activity is a grave sin.  Same-sex attraction is a temptation that is morally neutral.  And people suffering from same-sex attraction are good, made in the image and likeness of God, and loved by Christ to the point of death on the cross.

What is a sin and why is same-sex activity sinful?

A sin is a denial of the highest blessing that God intended for each of us.  It is biting the apple and rejecting the joy of human fulfillment of the Garden of Eden.  It is also something that mankind is unfortunately prone to due to concupiscence — Original Sin.

Same-sex actions are sinful because they use sexuality in a way that does not orient itself towards the natural unitive and procreative end of the gift of sex.  Any abuse of sex — outside the contact of committed love open to new life — is a violation of the natural end of humanity.  God designed man to partake in that joyful and life-giving love.  Settling for anything less is selling oneself short and violating the true happiness found in fulfillment of human needs.  The gift of partnering with God in the act of procreation is a sacred joy and responsibility which, once thrown aside, diminishes and belittles the gift of sex itself.

Why is a temptation morally neutral and why is same-sex attraction a temptation?

Temptations are concupiscent desires that draw someone towards sin.  They are morally neutral because sin does not occur until someone consents to the temptation.  Furthermore, rejecting a temptation can cause suffering.  While suffering is the direct result of sin, Christ hallowed suffering by passing through it — making it co-redemptive.  Suffering gives Christians the opportunity to die to themselves with Christ so that they may rise with Christ.  Thus, although a temptation is morally neutral, it also creates a path to sanctification.  A particular temptation might be integral to a person’s path to salvation.

Same-sex attraction creates a desire to sin.  It is morally neutral like all temptations.  It creates the opportunity to deny oneself, take up one’s Cross, and follow Christ.  Thus, living chastity while suffering from a same-sex attraction can be a specific pathway to salvation.

What about the person themselves?

People suffering from same-sex attraction are good, loved infinitely by God, are made in his likeness and image, and worthy of human love just like everyone else.

Unfortunately, the ability to authentically make these distinctions is lost on some people and ideologies.  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists there are “no gays” in Iran (where they hang gays from cranes).  Sharia law simplistically insists that you must either endorse the act to love the sinner or you must kill the sinner to condemn the act.  Clearly this is radically dehumanizing — to reduce someone’s entire identity to a single sin.

The Left also accepts this premise.  They use the terms “gay” and “homosexual” as nouns in order to blur the distinction between the act, the inclination, and the person.  They indulge in the same dehumanizing assumptions as Mr. Ahmadinejad — that these people should be reduced to a single set of sinful actions.  Of course, the Left insists that in order to appropriately love the sinner you must endorse the sin — enshrining it in marriage.

Some fundamentalist Christians fail to make the distinction between the sin and the inclination — making it seem as if the person is in a perpetual state of sin unless they can purge every homosexual thought from their mind.  This may not be possible for everyone since some sufferings transcend earthly remedies and place us with Christ on the Cross.  In any case, a “pray the gay away” strategy may result in massive cognitive dissonance.

These dehumanizing oversimplifications of human identity must be rejected.  However, Rick Santorum in this interview fell right into the trap of failing to make these critical distinctions.  I know that Rick was talking about the act when he answers the question: “Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?”  But he must make clear to a less discerning audience that we should love those with same-sex inclinations, acknowledge the neutrality of the inclinations themselves, and reject any “gay rights” agenda built on endorsing the act.

Posted in Same-Sex Issues | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Was Slavery an Issue of States Rights or Human Rights?

Lincoln Davis and Abraham Lincoln had incompatible views of human nature

“It was a warmish day in early October, and Mr. Lincoln was in his shirt sleeves when he stepped on the platform. I observed that, although awkward, he was not in the least embarrassed. He began in a slow and hesitating manner, but without any mistakes of language, dates, or facts. It was evident that he had mastered his subject, that he knew what he was going to say, and that he knew he was right.” Chicago Evening Journal, 1854

The occasion was Abraham Lincoln’s legendary three hour speech in Peoria, in which he denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act:  “This declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I can not but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men among ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.”

Abraham Lincoln, a prominent Republican and prospective Presidential candidate, was bringing up the contradiction which had plagued the Founding Fathers.  Thomas Jefferson had originally written in his draft of the Declaration of Independence:

“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivatng and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people for whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.”

However, Mr. Jefferson’s zeal for liberty was doused in the calculating rationale of Benjamin Franklin who feared the divided American sentiment over the issue of slavery would render the US impotent against the British if the flames were stoked.  Mr. Franklin saw to it that that draft of the Declaration of Independence never saw the light of day.

After the Constitution was ratified, Mr. Franklin (with his dying breath) and Mr. Jefferson attempted to lead a coalition to phase out the institution of slavery.  However, they were foiled by the machinations of James Madison, who blocked an abolitionist floor vote.

Since then, the institution of slavery had gained great strength.  The Mexican-American War (unofficially the War of Southern Aggression) had largely been waged with slave industry support and an enormous gain in slave-based territory such as Texas.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a sign of their growing power — at the point of becoming a hopelessly entrenched political force in American politics for centuries to come.

Lincoln at Peoria “let slip the dogs of war” against the growing slave industry.

Abraham Lincoln put a line in the sand just in time.  His human rights view was criticized a great deal in the North and eviscerated in the South.  When he was elected President, the Confederacy seceded and drafted a Constitution clear about its view of human nature:

“The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.”

The Confederacy was in essence arguing that slavery was a states rights issue rather than a human rights issue.  The liberty of a state desiring slavery and an individual desiring freedom were weighed and the individual was found wanting.  It was, as Lincoln perceived, a rejection of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.  Lincoln waged the Civil War with determination in the face of great adversity.  No one was breaking the union apart in the name of liberty while fighting for slavery.  The soldiers in the ranks caught his vision and the wildly popular Battle Hymn of the Republic eloquently makes the same case:

“In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,

While God is marching on!”

Posted in Abraham Lincoln, Civil War, Slavery | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Cultural Conservatism & Its Ignorance of the United States

Pat Buchanan Has Long Been a Leading Spokesman for Cultural Conservatism

Pat Buchanan Has Long Been a Leading Spokesman for Cultural Conservatism

The media (especially in Europe) has often made an ignorant mistake when covering social conservatives.  This mistake is egregious and often goes without any critique.

They call social conservatives “cultural conservatives.”

Is this concern merely semantic or seriously substantive?

Although they can and frequently have been allies,  social conservatism and cultural conservatism are deeply and diametrically opposed and are utterly incompatible.

When Europe was united under the banner of Christendom, national and foreign policy was dictated primarily by ideology.  The Crusades were a prime example.  The Franks had little direct or immediate national interest in whether the Byzantine Empire fell to the Turk.  If the Byzantines fell, the Holy Roman Empire and the city Republics of Italy would still stand between the scimitar of Islam and the meadows of France.

However, in 1071, the Byzantines lost the Battle of Manzikert and Pope Urban II called forth “Christian Knights” to fight the Turks to reclaim the Holy Land, and knights from all of Europe (but mostly Franks) launched the Crusades.  They were concerned with the ideological battle between Christendom and Islam, although a secondary concern was that once Islam laid waste to Constantinople, it would be at Vienna next (a prescient worry).

When the powerful nation-states of modern Europe emerged out of the ruins of Christendom as the result of the Protestant Reformation, they were founded on ethnic nationalism.  France, Germany, and Britain, for example, derived their ideology from French, German, and English culture respectively.  So anything that threatened those cultures directly threatened the principles of the nation.  Immigration and ideological foreign policy, needless to say, were minimal (at least until demographic necessity struck in the 20th century at which point integration of immigrant culture was a problematic mess).

The United States, on the other hand, was found on the statement: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  The natural rights philosophy of the US is a philosophy of human nature.  As a result, immigration has been frequent and successful, foreign policy has been altruistic and human-rights oriented, trade with other peoples has flourished, and diversity has been a source of strength rather than a weakness.  Social conservatism is the predominant human rights ideology in the US today and is rooted in this founding human rights-oriented ideology of America.

Cultural conservatism has not been strong in the United States compared to social conservatism but it believes that the US derives its strength not from its philosophy of man but instead from the cultures that made it up early on.  The America Conservative is the predominant cultural conservative publication.  It is, predictably, a small publication, anti-immigration (concerned about loss of culture), isolationist in foreign policy (unconcerned with non-Americans), anti-trade (benefitting non-Americans temporarily at the expense of American industry), and anti-diversity.  This is at direct variance with the founding principles of the Republic which social conservatives have championed.

Pat Buchanan is the most visible face of cultural conservatism in the US.  His article, Can Diversity Destroy Us? opposes diversity and non-white ascendancy, struggles to find a consistent philosophy governing the US, and is at strong variance with social conservatism.

Although cultural conservatives fondly remember a world where abortion was unthinkable and have united with social conservatives on the issue, it is important to remember that they were not with the true application of founding principles on slavery or segregation.

That is why social conservatism is American and cultural conservatism is not.

Posted in Cultural Conservatism, Social Conservatism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment