An initiative of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

The flawed anthropology of "sexual orientation" & the need for a renewal of anthropology and chastity (4th of 7 in a series)

Note: This post is fourth in a series of posts about what we can learn from the Supreme Court’s June 2013 DOMA decision, and how that can help us better promote and defend marriage.  This series is based on a July 2013 talk by staff of the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

Earlier posts:

——————————————————————————————

In its decision on DOMA, the Court continued the trend of treating sexual orientation as a “class” marker.  In other words, people who define themselves as having a homosexual orientation are de facto part of a “class” that deserves special protections from the government. The term “continued the trend” was used because it is common now to see, for example, in anti-discrimination legislation the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” used as two discrete categories of persons that may not be discriminated against.

The Catechism states that “every sign of unjust discrimination must be avoided” in regards to persons with same-sex attraction (no. 2358).

But the problem with treating “sexual orientation” as a description of a class of people is that it proposes a deeply flawed [understanding of] anthropology, or understanding of the human person. Christian anthropology teaches that each person is called to accept his or her sexual identity as a man or as a woman (Catechism, no. 2333). This is consistent with the understanding that man – male and female – is a unity of body and soul (Catechism, no. 362-368). Our identity as human persons is intimately connected with our identity as a man or as a woman. In short, the body matters.

What the language of “sexual orientation” does, anthropologically, is separate one’s identity from one’s bodily nature as a man or woman, placing a premium on one’s desires and inclinations. The body then becomes a “bottom layer” – essentially meaningless matter – over which one’s “real” identity – comprised of desires and inclinations – is super-imposed. [1]

Practically speaking, treating “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as classes of persons is problematic because courts and laws tend to treat these categories not only in terms of inclinations but also behaviors. This in turn leads to religious liberty conflicts, such as questions for Catholic institutions about non-discrimination in hiring those involved in same-sex “marriages”, since they could be (and have been) sued under non-discrimination laws for firing an employee who publicly entered a same-sex “marriage.”

Tip number three: Keep talking about Christian anthropology and chastity.

Even more than the question “what is marriage?” perhaps, the question “who is the human person?” goes unasked and thus unanswered (see FAQ #1). As Catholics, we have an immense treasury of insight into who the human person is – a study called anthropology, a treasury of truth about the human condition that applies to everyone, not only Catholics. As faulty anthropologies work themselves more deeply into our nation’s laws and policies, we must be tireless in present what Bl. John Paul II called an “adequate anthropology,” that is, an understanding of the human person that fits who man is as a unity of body and soul, created male and female and called to love (see Bl. John Paul II’s audiences of Jan. 16, 1980 and April 2, 1980).

Bringing it back to the human person also helps defend against the charge that the Church is being selective and only cares about married people. Not true. Christian anthropology, rightly understood, is a message of freedom for every person. In particular, Church teaching on the universal vocation to chastity is an avenue through which to approach questions of sexuality, gender, love, and marriage. Everyone – married and single, those who struggle with same-sex attraction and those who don’t – is called to chastity, because everyone is called to integrate their sexuality within themselves and to love authentically (see Catechism, nos. 2337-2347).

Next: Post #5: Is defending marriage only about injuring others?

[1] Important here is the distinction between person, inclination, and act employed in the Church’s moral teaching. Every person, male and female, is created in the image of God with full human dignity. Every person is a gift, created to be a child of God. This identity of the person goes deeper than any inclination. Further, the Church teaches that, while homosexual acts are always sinful and contrary to the true good of the person, the experience of same-sex attraction is not sinful in itself.  Because of free will, men and women can choose which inclinations or desires to act on. Actions – and the inclinations toward them – can be either objectively ordered toward the good, meaning toward the flourishing of the person, or not. But the person, regardless of the inclinations they experience, can never be described as fundamentally flawed or disordered. In other words, pointing out anthropological problems with the concept of “sexual orientation” does not mean that persons who describe themselves as having a particular orientation are problematic or flawed. Instead, it is questioning the underlying presuppositions about who the human person is (the philosophical field of study called anthropology) embedded within the concept of “sexual orientation” as it is generally used in law and culture.

6 Responses to “The flawed anthropology of "sexual orientation" & the need for a renewal of anthropology and chastity (4th of 7 in a series)”

  1. Joseph Elliott says:

    The Supreme Court should have ruled that the California Courts have no authority to over rule the majority vote of their State and also the use of Amendment 14 as their reason to do so is invalid because Amendment 14 can not be used to grant rights where no rights existed. The people of California passed prop 22 and prop8 which declared that marriage is only between one man and one woman and twice the California Courts ruled against the Majority Vote of their state. The Majority Vote of California can only be defended by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Judges said that people should not be dictated to and then allowed that to happen by not ruling on the right of the Majority to make Laws in California, but instead allowed the California Judges to make a new Law. I am seeking legal advice on how to proceed in this matter and would appreciate any assistance, advice or comments that you might have. Thank you, Joseph Elliott

  2. [...] out the whole article, The Flawed Anthropology of Homosexual Marriage, by clicking on the link. Also, from that page you access the previous three articles; all of them [...]

  3. Thomas Dietz says:

    This is a very good follow-on to the previous articles. Wholly agree with the arguements given. There is a two fold problem here. First and foremost, the bishops should have seen this coming and mounted a full attack on those wishing to change marriage and its definition. It failed in this mission and this heresy and sin will be compounded. Secondly, they believe that reason will win the day whereas emotion is what is used to defeat the pro-traditional marriage groups. Emotion when not confronted trumps facts. We need to wake up and realize the Church and its members are under attack and we must be prepared to fight. Stop playing nice.

  4. [...] oddity”? Now, the USCCB is piling on and attacking, in one of its official blogs, the “flawed anthropology of ‘sexual orientation‘” (emphasis and links in the [...]

Leave a Reply