Sex and the Human Person: Part I - The Problem
There is many a confusion about the human person in our world today. One of the most serious manifestations of this confusion is with respect to sex and human personhood. We have become conditioned to think that sexual identity is defined by our feelings such that it has become radically severed, in our minds, from human nature. The moral approach to sexual intercourse is too often viewed in terms of libidinism; that is, as long as everyone is enjoying themselves–it must be o.k. Again, this separates the act from its foundation in human nature. Over the last thirty years the cultural treatment of sexual intercourse has been so divorced from its proper context in marriage between one man and one woman, that in our minds the very idea that sexual intercourse should be limited to marriage has come to be seen as quaint.
Our society desperately needs to recover the recognition that human nature, as it is visible in the sexed body, defines our sexual identity and in part, constitutes us as persons. John Paul the Great understood that ideas have consequences and in no place is the danger of false ideas greater than in that of understanding who and what we are. That is why he spent so much time studying and teaching on the truth of the human person. His theology of the body is an innovative attempt to providing a compelling arguments for explaining who and what we are. I will use this approach as the foundation for addressing sex differences in a topic we have had occasion to discuss here lately–that of the problem of same sex attraction.
In all of these discussions, in fact in almost every discussion I see, the unsupported presupposition of those who say that their sexual identity is “gay” is that being “gay” is part of who they are. The response to the statements that ’same sex attraction is a disorder’ is never an argument for why it is clearly a part of human nature (I suppose because there is none). Rather, the responses include the accusations of bigotry, “homophobia” (I’ve never figured this out, is that the fear of sameness or the fear of human beings???), hate speech, fear baiting, and many other attempts to change the subject.
Now if I were to call homosexual pedophilia an affective disorder and an activist from NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) accused me of bigotry most people would see that this was clearly an attempt to change the subject from a discussion of the issue at hand. However, in part, because the MSM has conditioned us to think of SSA as an alternative life style it is not so clear that the same logical fallacy is at play in discussing the “gay” issue.
Over the next week or so, I plan (notice the qualifier) to dedicate a series of articles to showing, using theology and natural law, why SSA is clearly a disorder. I will also show the root reasons that we cannot arbitrarily redefine who we are as human persons and what happens when we try. Many who are personally affected by SSA might see this as a personal attack. It is not. In fact, the very reason for this series is to show why calling SSA a disorder cannot be viewed as a personal attack any more than is saying cancer, or a closer parallel perhaps, alcoholism is a disorder. Let me know what you think…
.jpg)
A few possible roadblocks to your approach:
- The disposition to SSA seems to be genetic in origin, or perhaps before a child comes to consciousness about sexual identity. So early, in other words, it has no moral attachment. That’s not to say some people don’t experiment with sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage. That’s just a poor moral choice unfaithful to a person’s make-up.
- I doubt we’re close to being able to conduct a scientific study to determine the fact of homosexual origin. Some people on both sides would oppose it, or oppose the results. If people were born SSA, God made them that way. It would be more difficult to deny aspirations to monogamous relationships on moral grounds.
- I think I can help you on the bigotry question. The Gay Adoption issue is unnerving because of the perception that some anti-adoption folks are seen to apply a moral yardstick only on SSA couples. The Church speaks of the ideal of one man-one woman, but Catholic Charities still send children to single-parent homes. CC doesn’t (so far as I know) screen out couples who practice contraception, or support torture, or other issues. If the Church were to frame it in terms of only letting children out to the most moral of families, then make a list from there. When a single moral judgment on a single issue is publicized, it might be discrimination. It might also be bad PR, but the protesters might have a right to ask for a clarification.
- And lastly, David, I think some people need to be careful about reading too much into what their opponents say. In our recent discussion about gays adopting, you made presumptions–false ones I might add–about a post I made here. I think you can do well to present your own viewpoint. And I think you can incorporate JPII’s and other views supportive of your position. But I think you would do the issue credit to search out the very best of the opinions contrary to your own, rather than deal in generalities such as “The moral approach to sexual intercourse is too often viewed in terms of libidinism” or “the very idea that sexual intercourse should be limited to marriage has come to be seen as quaint” or “Many who are personally affected by SSA might see this as a personal attack.” What would be fascinating (in my opinion) would be to solicit input from a learned and reasonable person who believes differently–who can actually present an opposing view–and present the discussion in a point-counterpoint format. If nothing else, it would keep the discussion honest and the participants on their toes.
Comment by Todd — March 28, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
Another issue on the horizon is that of the problems associated with polygamy. It appears that few have engaged in the debate about the problems associated with polygamy, which include a high rate of consanguinous marriages, violence from disenfranchised low-status males, high rates of infidelity from spouses and the attendant suspision or suppression of female sexuality. Still, a few articles stand out, particularly those of William Tucker, Monogamy and its Discontents(1993), and Polygamy and Me (2006).
Comment by Noah Nehm — March 28, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
The disposition to SSA seems to be genetic in origin,
I am aware of the theories in some quarters but as far as I understand there is nothing close to any evidence that there is such a thing. Regardless, there there is substantial evidence that environment affects gene transcription after birth in still maturing children (see Hardwired to Connect http://www.americanvalues.org/ExSumm-print.pdf).
I doubt we’re close to being able to conduct a scientific study to determine the fact of homosexual origin.
Right you are because the issue is quite beyond the reductionist presuppositions of science. Only one who succumbs to scientism would suggest that science should have the last word on this. In fact, the empirical evidence from science supports classical anthropology quite tightly.
Catholic Charities still send children to single-parent homes. CC doesn’t (so far as I know) screen out couples who practice contraception, or support torture, or other issues. If the Church were to frame it in terms of only letting children out to the most moral of families, then make a list from there.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, some chapters of Catholic Charities do not seem very often to let a small matter like Church teaching get in the way. Again, the problem with SSA adoptions is not simply an issue of morality. It is even more an issue of affective disorder and resulting dysfunction.
Comment by David — March 28, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
check out the very insightfull material from a young man who identifies as SSA and is a faithful Catholic:
http://www.johnheard.blogspot.com
Comment by Marie-Louise — March 28, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
Marie-Louise - Shelray found him and did a post on him a week or so ago. But thanks for the tip, we are always looking for them!
Comment by David — March 28, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
In our recent discussion about gays adopting, you made presumptions–false ones I might add–about a post I made here.
As I recall it, I was trying to point out the philosophical presuppositions inherent in your questions. I’m glad that you do not explicitly hold the position but often times we unconciously avert to erroneous presuppositions.
And I think you can incorporate JPII’s and other views supportive of your position.
I have no personal positions to share. I simply wish to present the truth of the human person revealed by God and taught by His Church and the theological support which can help us to understand why.
But I think you would do the issue credit to search out the very best of the opinions contrary to your own, rather than deal in generalities
You will have to wait and see how we proceed here. But again, I am not presenting personal opinions per se. If you happen to find a rational theology of homosexuality that addresses my presentation please share. I have not found such a thing.
Comment by David — March 29, 2006 @ 8:12 am
More Human Sexuality…
Speaking of the teachings of the Church, David of the “Cosmos, Liturgy, Sex” blog recently completed a five-post series on “Sex and the Human Person” that would serve as an excellent primer for those who’ve never encontered the Church’s dealings….
Trackback by Papa Familias — April 5, 2006 @ 10:01 pm