Mislabeled
By: Brian Holdsworth
Consider a woman who has just made a significant mistake at work. That mistake has now cost the company she works for and the manager is trying to figure out what the source of the mistake was. When he asks the woman who is responsible, she is confronted with a desire to lie in the hopes that she won’t be punished for her mistake. In spite of that desire, she decides to tell the truth and face whatever consequences are due to her. Now, the question I want to invite you to consider is this: should she be considered a liar because she had a natural desire to lie but chose not to? In other words, are our categories (in this case liars) based on our emotional desires or on our actual choices and subsequent actions?
Consider another scenario. A man has just witnessed someone fall into a river and that person is in need of help in order to survive. This man is suddenly faced with a desire to help the victim but also with a desire to preserve his own safety. In the end, someone else jumps into the river and rescues the swimmer. As a result, the person who performed the rescue is honoured by all the witnesses as a hero. Again, I pose a question. Should the person who had a desire to save the swimmer also be honoured as a hero even though he did not actually do anything? Should we erect monuments and hold parades for people who wanted to help others in need but never actually did?
One last synopsis for you to consider: a married man is introduced to a new attractive female co-worker. Before long, the new co-worker deliberately tries to seduce the married man. He is drawn in to the temptation and faces an honest desire to be intimate with his co-worker based on physical attraction and emotional desire. But out of principle and faithfulness to his wife whom he loves, he flees from the occasion and chooses not to give in to temptation. Based on the fact that this man had a very real desire to commit adultery, but didn’t, do we label him as an adulterer anyways? Does his wife have the right to divorce him on the grounds of unfaithfulness?
Each of these scenarios poses the same question regarding our categories and labels. Are we judged and labelled based on our emotional desires or our decisions? Are we culpable (culpability being like accountability) for our desires and therefore punished or awarded for them or are we judged and held accountable by our choices and our actions? After all, we can’t help our desires. If I am tempted by an emotion to lie, I can’t really control that. The only thing I can do is decide whether I’m going to be governed by my emotions or by principles which I believe to be true and right. In other words, I can’t prevent emotions that urge me to tell a lie, but I can prevent the actual lie from being delivered. Whatever meaning or purpose we derive from life, it should be linked to our choices and not to our desires. Our own self discovery should be based on our actions and not our emotions. The labels that we determine to be accurate or inaccurate should be judged against appropriate choices that lend to those labels.
If you are like me and answered no to each of those circumstances, then I would like to ask you to re-consider an inconsistency that our modern society seems to uphold. In today’s society, when a young man or woman expresses that they are physically and sexually attracted to members of their own sex, why does our society then tell them that this means that you are gay and that you have no choice in the matter? They are told that it is a natural desire that should be embraced and pursued. The fact that it is a naturally occurring desire seems to be the only argument to defend the morality of it. Why is it that in all of these other scenarios, people are appropriately categorized and judged based on their actions and not their desires, but if someone expresses an attraction to members of the same sex they are quickly herded into the indisputable pasture of homosexuality? They are told that in this one case, you have no choice in the matter and you might as well start acting on it. However; in all the other scenarios I’ve outlined in this article, we not only have a choice which can stand in contrast or compliment to our desires, but we are expected to make a choice rather than to simply give in to our desires. We are all faced with the temptation to lie from time to time. It’s a naturally occurring emotional desire. But most of us, I suspect, would agree, that it is better to choose not to give in to that desire. The same can be expected of the adulterer.
This is a strange and illogical idea that is quickly being adopted by our society; the idea that if one is faced with same sex attraction, then they are expected to embrace that attraction without question, lest they be judged as an ‘in the closet’ homosexual. By that same reasoning, we are all, ‘in the closet’ liars. Some of us are ‘in the closet’ heroes. Some of us are ‘in the closet’ adulterers. If being an 'in the closet' adulterer, in the sense I just used it, means that you are not an adulterer, then it stands to reason that an 'in the closet' gay person is not a gay person. A person who has not told a lie in spite of a desire to lie is no more a liar than a person who has same sex attraction is a homosexual. I’d invite you to critically consider what else you’ve been misled by in this highly emotionally charged, often illogical, and embarrassingly inconsistent political issue and reclaim it as a human issue.
What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, "Son, go and work today in the vineyard." "I will not," he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, "I will, sir," but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted? "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."
What was that proverb about empty vessels??
I, and others, have made precisely that point on various internet sites discussing this issue. "Falling in love" ( which might more accurately be described as "falling in lust") seems to be taken to excuse much destructive behaviour, particularly of the homosexual kind, but also of the heterosexual kind (adultery, as you mention in your article, which destroys marriages and disrupts the lives of children).
Even Christian commentators seem to fall prey to this confusion. In answer to my comments challenging acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, I have more than once been challenged by a remark along the lines of: "Jesus pointed to love as more important than anything else." often followed by a remark to the effect that surely I should allow these people the expression of their love.
It is possible for a homosexually inclined man to marry a woman and have children. He may never feel great desire for her, but he will have expressed love towards his wife - the saddest story I read was one from a man in this position who said he never had great desire for his wife, but he made love to her because he loved her and wanted to answer her need for him. Unfortunately when the homosexual lobby got to be active he came to the conclusion that in order to find himself he should leave his wife and take up with a man. How very sad.... I wonder if he was satisfied by giving in to lust, or whether he regretted having lost the love of his wife and family.
If you assume that a man cannot resist his desires, you are depriving him of his human dignity, not granting it to him. If he has no choice (as is implied by the rights lobby) he is no more than an animal responding to instinct. What disinguishes the human being is his capacity to make choices. (This doesn't mean the right choice is EASY, but the fact that it is difficult doesn't make it impossible.)
This same also means that you cannot compare the position of the homosexual minority with that of other minorities as is often done. A black person cannot change the colour of his skin; a person with mobility problems cannot walk the length of the High Street: nothing they can do will make it possible. A homosexually inclined male can (and many do) have a relationship with a woman, marry and have children. Resisting temptation will be difficult, as it can be for the heterosexual, but the rewards can be great.
The only caveat I would have is that the urge to homosexuality appears to be particularly strong (such that the Vatican is debating whether the orientation should be a bar to marriage; I think they are still considering the matter) something which puzzles me.
...
Some will say (and rightfully so) it is because that kind of desire for children is harmful, but I will say that the same-sex desire is also dangerous and dysfunctional. And again I will ask, if a man has that desire toward children but never acts on it, why is that still not his orientation? Why is his desire any different from that of a homosexual?
It is because they really aren't any different at all.
@Aquinas Shrugged: Good point. I did think of Christ's teaching regarding adultery as I came up with the scenario regarding the adulterer which is why I specifically framed it so that she attempted to seduce him, rather than him desiring her unprovoked. I don't think there are many men, save the holiest among us, that if aggressively seduced by a captivating woman, wouldn't struggle with that decision. The fact that he made the right one in the face of emotions and hormones, I think, keeps this scenario distinct from Christ's teaching regarding lust of the heart, since this man did not consciously lust after her, but was tempted by her instead.
@Tim: Really great post! Such as compelling reference!!! Since you didn't explain how the parable applies to this article, I'm going to assume you are interpreting as a contradiction to my moral reasoning in this article. I think there is a difference however. My interpretation of this parable, as fallible as it is, is that Jesus is emphasizing faith as the device which saves us. The first son is not doing his father's will because his actions are irrelevant in the face of his conscious rebellion against his father. The second son is considered the model because he accepted his father's command, even though he was unable to carry through with it. The key to the story, is that the sinners receive the kingdom of heaven only if they repent and believe in the truth. We all fail in face of the perfect moral witness of Jesus, but we have hope in God's forgiveness. If someone is convinced that they are a homosexual because they have a desire, they never have a chance to do what's right. I'm in no way saying that someone who has same sex attraction and gives into it cannot still inherit the kingdom of heaven. Jesus is pointing out in this parable that it is the sinners who are more likely to go to heaven because they are more likely to accept the offer of forgiveness since they have felt the sting and depravity of their waywardness. Gay or straight, we will all have to answer for our sins, however; if you do not acknowledge your bahaviour as sinful, you will not repent of it as Jesus commands at the end of the parable.
You make the argument that we have a 'natural desire to lie'. Among many things, neuroscience has taught us that neurons that fire together, wire together. This means that if one achieves a desired outcome by telling a lie, they are more likely to do it again and eventually this will behaviour will become sort of an addiction. When the opportunity to further one's self by lying is presented, the more one acts on it, and, the more likely it is they will do it again. If you are continually bombarded with the urge to lie or be deceitful, this is a result of past behaviour, NOT inherent human nature. That said, homosexual tendencies are a phenomenon that are hardwired from birth. Any gay man or woman can attest to the fact that they had homosexual feelings from an early age unprompted by their social situation (I hope you don't disagree with this or you would be arguing from a different arena all together). You make the point that, since you choose not to lie, a person with homosexual desires should choose not to act on them, I disagree with this analogy for reasons already mentioned, they are two totally different things.
In response to the extra-marital affairs, these ARE natural human urges. Evolutionary Psychology tells us that this is a natural phenomenon (especially for men because of their higher reproductive capability). This behaviour, however, is one that should be discouraged, it is the same as lying, if you made a promise to be with someone exclusively, you should honour that.
Lets talk for a moment about victims. Through lying, extramarital affairs, and especially pedophilia, there are many victims. They did not choose the situation they are in and absolutely do not deserve it. There are also victims in the situation of homosexuality: gay people. And they are made victims by people like you. Whether or not you agree with 'gay bashing', or causing any harm to gay people physically, emotionally or otherwise; you perpetuate this hatred by keeping this 'debate' afloat. Countless queer teens are sitting in their bedrooms right now contemplating whether or not they should put a bullet in their head because they think their feelings are 'wrong'; bullies, religious people, and sometimes even their parents are telling them that there is something wrong with them. Bullies are calling them fags, catholics are calling them sinners and telling them to just suppress their feelings, and their parents are shaking their heads in disappointment, wondering what they did to make this happen. It does not have to be this way. If this intolerance disappeared, these kids would not have to lie to themselves (a ha! a more appropriate analogy). And people like Gene (above) would have felt comfortable to express his feelings BEFORE he jumped on the marriage, house, kids, grandkids treadmill and he would of felt a sense of fulfilment that, sadly, he will never get to experience. That said, Gene, if you DID feel comfortable but chose not to act on those feelings, I hope you have found some true fulfillment in your life.
To speak to some of your points directly:
"[I]f someone expresses an attraction to members of the same sex they are quickly herded into the indisputable pasture of homosexuality"
Not true, maybe YOU 'quickly herd them', but only for a need to put a label on them. All the psychologists I know will tell you that homosexual thoughts and feelings are natural...for EVERYBODY. It's not a binomial phenomenon, it's a matter of tendencies and frequencies. There is really no need to try and throw them into a different basket...there is only one basket.
"The fact that it is a naturally occurring desire seems to be the only argument to defend the morality of it."
It seems 'defending the morality of it' is something YOU (as a catholic) need to worry about, but i'm sorry, it's not a question of morality. If you think homosexuality is immoral, fine, but keep it to yourself. Millions of gay men and women are living our there lives, contributing positively and/or negatively to our society, just like EVERYBODY else. You are becoming part of an increasingly small minority of people that are fundamentally aposed to this lifestyle, the rest of us have moved on from this way of thinking. And to Ann Couper-Johnston who says, "How did this noisy minority get to be so disproportionately influential...to an extent where Christians (and particularly C[a]tholics) are, or will be, excluded from certain professions?" I'm here to tell you, it's YOUR fault, if you didn't make such a big deal about their lifestyles in the first place, they would not be parading in the streets. Maybe this is the whole point here. You are stuck on the morality issue, I suppose we will never agree on this. I do think that it is in your best interest to reconsider. Religion has been evolving for thousands of years, Catholicism included, I think this conversation NEEDS to to move into the 21st century by disappearing all together. Please, stop perpetuating this hate and intolerance. Let's move on to more pressing matters.
I do agree that certain behaviours become more compulsive and addictive with their use, however; very young children (from the age of first memories) have tendencies to lie and desires to lie. I myself do not lie frequently, but when I find myself in a difficult situation, the temptation is certainly there if I think it will get me off the hook. This isn’t because of a history of compulsive lying, it’s because I’m human and faced with moral decisions. I have memories of the desire to lie from as early as I can remember but this doesn’t lead me to conclude I’m hard wired to lie. The argument that people with same sex attraction are hard wired that way because they recall feelings from earliest memories does not really prove anything. I’ve heard it said that circumstantial and nurturing effects are most heavy upon child development in the first two years. That means that experiences in those first two years (which can’t be remembered) have a more extreme affect on who that person becomes. Some people make the argument from genetics, however; this has not been proven either and is fundamentally flawed because genetic inheritance is based on the theory of natural selection whereby certain exceptional and adapted traits that contribute to a species survival are passed on by the ‘strongest’ of a species. In the case of homosexuality, this is a difficult argument to make as the trait in question creates an impediment to reproduction naturally, making the flow of genetic traits very difficult to pass on. In otherwords, because homosexuality prevents reproduction, theories regarding the ‘survival of the fittest’ would brand that trait as a weakness.
But, even though it doesn’t prove that they are not hard wired, they still could be. I think it’s inconclusive and at any rate, doesn’t affect the argument. Whether it is a choice or not does not prove one way or the other whether something is morally good or not. You said that it is me who has to prove the moral status of something because I object but I disagree with that. It should be shown that homosexual relationships are in fact good if the rest of the world is going to make sweeping accommodations to the most fundamental institution of any society. If we are going to re-define marriage, family, and who is best suited to raise children, then we need to ask that question because if it’s not good and healthy, then it it’s unhealthy. There’s no middle ground where we can simply be apathetic as this affects society severely and children who will potentially be raised in families according to the redefinition of the institution. There seems to be a thread of thinking that says that there is no moral question on this issue and it simply is. But, you yourself said that certain sexual behaviours should be discourages such as in adultery and paedophilia. Everyone draws the line somewhere in sexual morality and Catholic moral teaching has drawn it on this issue for as long as the Judeo-Christian moral code has existed. The fact that it’s the 21st century really has nothing to do with anything and to say that it does is merely saying that certain propositions should be given more favour simply because they are proposed tomorrow rather than today. I can’t understand why people prefer Thursday over Wednesday simply because it’s Thursday.
Lastly, I want to address the whole hatred accusation. This really is a red herring if there ever was one. There is not a shred of hatred or demonizing in anything I said and the Church’s teachings and statements on homosexuality have always been full of compassion and love and the admonition that the faithful should treat people with same sex attraction with love and compassion. Accusing me of being somehow responsible for ‘queer’ teens considering suicide is unfair and inflammatory. The cases we hear of in the media today are due to bullying and bullying people is not advocated or taught by the Church. Quite the contrary. I would challenge you to read what the Church has actually written and spoken of on the matter. Disagreeing with someone on a moral issue is not the same as hating them. Even though you’ve accused me of extremely terrible things, I don’t interpret that as hatred, I interpret it as a disagreement and you should too. The debate will only come to an end when it is resolved and that can’t happen as long as people are invoking provocative accusations and language in order to compensate for a lack of logic or argument (and I say that for both sides). Telling people they have no right to discuss a topic that can and has altered a fundamental institution because of potential hurt feelings goes against everything Western society is built upon. Democracy requires debate and discussion and if feelings are given precedent over that, then we as a society, have become crippled indeed.
I’m glad that you are willing to discuss this issue with me and want to say first off that I do not have a sweeping grudge against the Catholic Church. I recognize that there are great things about religion. I think it is an important social phenomenon that should be discussed, debated, and redefined. That said, I believe that if you self-identify as a part of a group, namely, that catholic faith, then you have to accept some of the judgments that go along with that. I suppose I’m talking about the fact that you would not speak to the comments I made about subsequent comments on your post. Because you did not challenge them on their post but you did mine, I can only in infer that you are at least in general agreement with them. This, after all, is why there are so many different denominations within the Christian faith, no? It’s because there are some fundamental differences in your faith and interpretations of the bible (please correct me if I’m wrong).
First off, you said it right, we disagree fundamentally, but that doesn’t make this dialogue useless. I would like to have a better understanding of your beliefs for reasons already mentioned. I grew up in a Catholic home, went to Catholic school, and attended a Catholic Church. My loss of faith has been progressive but I never denied its importance and never lost my curiosity (this is another story altogether but I thought it important to give you a bit of background). Needless to say, for this thread to be meaningful, you need to know that we are both (I hope) arguing from an empathetic standpoint.
I’m glad you brought this up. Genetics, Evolution, and, Evolutionary Psychology are all very important in understanding the reasons for which we think and act certain ways. Unfortunately, these disciplines are only really reliable, from an anthropogenic standpoint anyway, for past behaviour (namely, before consciousness). We, as humans, are no longer governed solely by our instincts (luckily!). You say that ‘survival of the fittest’ would brand that trait as a weakness; this may be true but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It’s hard for most people to wrap their heads around the implications of evolution through natural selection (me included) because it has to be understood from the idea that it has been happening for over 5 billion years and is STILL happening. So if homosexuality is a ‘weakness’ from an evolutionary standpoint, it does not mean that we are not in the midst of such a genetic flaw (many other examples could be used: down-syndrome, Autism, etc.).
Because of our beautiful prefrontal cortex, we have the ability to plan, remember, create stories of how situations might play out before they happen, and the ability to empathise (of course, there are many more). Empathy is an important one, since consciousness and the development of the prefrontal cortex gave way to the ability for humans to empathize; empathy is an inherited trait (if you follow this idea to its logical conclusion). This trait helps us to determine how our actions might affect others, positively or negatively. It could be argued that empathy gives way to morality (I would like to hear your opinion on this). This, in my opinion, is one of the more reasonable explanations for the development of human morality.
To reiterate, with adultery and paedophilia, there are victims. There are no victims when it comes to homosexuality. It is between two consenting individuals; if not, it’s rape. Victim/victimless seems to me like a more reasonable place to draw the line.
I am not saying that you yourself are hateful (and I apologize if you interpreted my comments that way), I am saying that your beliefs give backing to extremists who are hateful and abusive. This is the real problem. Do you not agree that some pretty heinous things are done in the name of religion? How can this problem be dealt with?
Are ‘out of the closet’ gay people welcome to attend Catholic Church if they have no plans to change their lifestyle? (I’m curious)
Also, would you mind pointing me in the direction of where I can find readings on what the church has written on the matter?
"Telling people they have no right to discuss a topic that can and has altered a fundamental institution because of potential hurt feelings goes against everything Western society is built upon. Democracy requires debate and discussion and if feelings are given precedent over that, then we as a society, have become crippled indeed."
This is a misunderstanding and I apologize, If it is gay marriage that we are talking about then of course, it needs to be discussed. I thought we were talking about the morality of homosexuality. I, personally, don’t understand why gay people would want to get married (in the traditional sense), it’s a tradition/institution that has it’s history in a belief system that fundamentally disagrees with their lifestyle.
While the discussion on morality of homosexual acts and same sex marriage usually poor out of this type of dialogue, it wasn't the intent of the article. The intention of the article was to address the belief that people must act on their urges (whether that be lying, heroism, adultery, etc). Those examples aren't used to be compared to homosexuality in a moral sense, they're just used to demonstrate conflicting urges and that an urge brings us to a choice. Just because the urge to be sexually intimate with someone of the same sex exists, does not mean that it must be obeyed. Just as an urge to be a hero does not HAVE to be obeyed.
So I was being critical our society's response to funnel people with urges, in this case homosexual urges, into the lifestyle without any consideration for choice. Choice is always available to us in spite of our urges and that's what I tried to demonstrate with those examples.
I completely agree that the morality of homosexual acts cannot be compared to pedophilia or adultery in terms of severity. Regarding the line on sexual morality... can I ask you if your moral line on all matters is derived from the possibility of a victim? In other words, are all victimless actions morally good or at least acceptable? With respect to sexuality, I can already think of a few examples. What about incest between two consenting adults? You speculated that empathy could be the basis for morality, but when I think of empathy, I think of the thing that moves me to relieve suffering of others because I have shared in that experience. Christian morality cannot be summarized as a legalistic list of do-nots. It must go much further. Jesus taught us to love others and care for the less fortunate. Simply not doing bad things is not sufficient for a Christian. They must do good things as well as avoid bad things. Empathy, I think leads in this direction as it makes me want to reach out to those who are hurting, lost, afflicted, etc... and do whatever I can to help them.
If morality is simply, don't produce victims with your actions, then we would completely lose our sense of charity and care of those in need. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
Sexual morality is no different. It's not simply a list of things to avoid, but also an ideal to seek after. That ideal is found in the life-giving, monogamous relationship of the complimentary sexes, who were biologically and spiritually made to compliment each other. That's where the discussion comes back to homosexual acts for me. It's not that they're gross or merely wrong... it's that they are not the ideal which is what all moral questions should be compared against. That is the often the task of Christianity... look to the ideal (Jesus and His teachings) and when we fail to reach it with each try (albeit hopefully get closer with each) we can know that He still loves us and forgives us, as long as we are willing to accept that love and forgiveness. A person who persists in the Homosexual lifestyle without acknowledging that it is not the ideal and will not lead to a healthy understanding of love and intimacy, will prevent them from having that type of relationship with God (and the Church).