The Joy of the Truth » Homosexuality

Tell Congress to Defend DOMA

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:53:36 +0000

ISSUE: On February 24th, President Obama instructed the Justice Department not to defend sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the current court cases where it is being challenged. The principal basis for the President’s decision is that he considers the law protecting marriage as a form of impermissible sexual orientation discrimination. This action by the Executive branch has put before the leadership of the House of Representatives the question of whether to fill the gap left by the Justice Department, and join the cases as a party to defend DOMA.

BACKGROUND: DOMA was passed in 1996 with bi-partisan support and by wide margins (342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate) and was signed into law by President Clinton. It says that for purposes of acts of Congress or regulations “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

The existence of DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriages” or from extending spousal benefits to same-sex couples. It also means that states cannot be compelled to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states.

CHURCH TEACHING: In a September 9, 2003 statement (reaffirmed March 14, 2006) titled: PROMOTE, PRESERVE, PROTECT MARRIAGE, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said, “To promote, preserve, and protect marriage today requires, among other things, that we advocate for legislative and public policy initiatives that define and support marriage as a unique, essential relationship and institution. At a time when family life is under significant stress, the principled defense of marriage is an urgent necessity to ensure the flourishing of persons, the wellbeing of children, and the common good of society.”

ACTION: Speaker Boehner has been meeting with other members of the House leadership to explore ways to defend DOMA. Please contact your member of Congress and let her/him know that you support the House leadership in their efforts to intervene in the lawsuits challenging DOMA, to defend the law and protect marriage. See statements of Anthony Picarello, USCCB General Counsel and Archbishop Timothy Dolan, President of the USCCB on the USCCB Website (http://www.usccb.org/)

Contact your Representative by e-mail, phone, FAX letter or U.S. Mail:

* Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members’ local offices.
* Additional contact info can be found on Members’ web sites at: http://www.house.gov/.
* Share this action alert with your social media networks.

WHEN: Please contact your Representative today. Thanks!

Visit to http://capwiz.com/catholicbishops/issues/alert/?alertid=33502501 to send an email directly to your elected officials and to sign up to receive additional alerts from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

See related story: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-043.shtml

Secretariat of Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth| US Conference of Catholic Bishops

3211 4th St. NE, Washington, DC 20017-1194

(202) 541-3040 | laity@usccb.org | www.usccb.org/laity

The Church’s Teaching on Homosexuality Well-Received!

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:03:45 +0000

Yesterday I gave a half-hour presentation on the Church’s teaching on homosexuality to a gathering of our parish’s youth group members. This is one subject that I almost always expect disagreement on — either from those who think the Church is intolerant or from those who are just uncomfortable with the whole subject. However, more often than not I am pleasantly surprised to find that the Church’s teachings, when fully explained, are easily accepted.

One of the youth from last night offered a wonderful example. She told me that she had never understood the Christian reaction to homosexuals before, but now she understood it. She was pleasantly surprised at how loving the Church is toward homosexuals. She told me that it made sense to her now why homosexuality is called “disordered” and why that is not an insult.

Church teaching on homosexuality stresses the difference between same-sex attraction and the homosexual lifestyle. Same-sex attraction is disordered because it creates desires not ordered toward procreation and family. However, it is not a sin because – no matter what causes it – this attraction is not chosen, but part of fallen human nature. The homosexual lifestyle is choosing to act on these disordered desires and is therefore a sin. The key principle here is that human beings do not have to act on every desire or impulse, but can choose self-mastery instead.

Church teaching stresses that the Catholic response to people with same-sex attraction is to be one of compassion. This means taking an attitude of solidarity, recognizing that everyone’s sexuality is disordered to some degree because of original sin, that we all struggle to control disordered desires, and that we are all called to the same goals (chastity and holiness). We must always treat everyone with the respect that is due to human beings created in the image of God. Same-sex attraction, or even a chosen, sinful homosexual lifestyle, does not remove human dignity. Finally, we must love. Love means to want what is authentically good for the other. For our brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction, this means that we want them to seek healing (if healing is possible) and self-mastery.

While some people in our culture will still see such teaching as judgmental (“who are you to decide what is authentically good for somebody else?”), the Church’s judgment that same-sex attraction is disordered and that chosen homosexual activity is sinful is based on natural law and its call to solidarity, respect and love is based on the teachings of Christ. The positive response I received from members of our youth group was in response to the entire package of Church teachings.

This topic turned out to be quite timely. The United States Bishops Conference just released a statement on pastoral care for homosexuals that reinforces the Church’s sense of love and solidarity for people with same-sex attraction, and British bishops adopted a statement warning pastors to be sensitive toward “gay parishioners.”

The interesting thing about the statement made by the British bishops is that it drew support from some homosexual activists, including Peter Tatchell:

The advice was welcomed by gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell as a ‘positive initiative which will bring great comfort to gay Catholics and their families’.

He said: ‘Its sympathetic, understanding message is a big improvement on the past homophobia of some Catholic pronouncements on homosexuality.’

However, he said the ‘laudable change of tone’ was undermined by the ‘homophobic content of the Catholic Catechism’ and by Pope Benedict XVI’s opposition to gay marriage.

The fact is that, while the statement by the British bishops is perhaps a little overstated, the bishops of both countries are simply restating constant Church teachings. The Church is not homophobic – it never has been and it never will be. It does not fear homosexuality. It simply sticks with the truth that same-sex attraction is a disordered form of sexuality, that chosen homosexual acts are sinful, and that people with same-sex attractions are to be treated with the same love and mercy as the rest of us sinners are.

It is a position of authentic love.
[ad#seasonal]

Genetic Faithfulness?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:00:52 +0000

Have you heard the news? Scientists may have identified a genetic root of marital infidelity in men. If you haven’t heard, you can check out the story here

Study Links Gene Variant in Men to Marital Discord – washingtonpost.com.

Now, are you ready for my response? Here it comes . . .

So what?

Frankly, from what I know of my own fallen manhood, I have to admit surprise at the correlating finding – there may be some men out there who are actually genetically predisposed to fidelity and harmony! Now, that’s news.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be so flippant. What is worthy about this story is the interpretation of some of the scientists. Whereas many in the media immediately want to jump to biological determinism, these scientists refused to do so. In fact, one scientist made a very Catholic statement:

“There are many ways this information can help a man and his wife when they marry,” said Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist at Rutgers University who studies romantic love. “Knowing there are biological weak links can help you overcome them.

A man who knows he has this allele, she added, might be able to use the knowledge to ignore tugs of restlessness he might feel in his marriage: “You can say, ‘Oh, it is just my DNA, and I am going to ignore it.’”

Knowledge (the human intellect) allows us to control(the human will) our biological predispositions (the sensitive appetites). St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that this is the formula for a truly human personality.

As I read this statement, I began to wonder why such statements are not made about other biological impulses. The modernist-spawned tolerance movement refuses to accept such a formula for homosexuals. For the modernist, to act against a biological predisposition to same-sex attraction is to deny part of who you are. In Catholic thought, to approach such a drive with knowledge (about the true nature of sexuality, about the possible causes of such an attraction in his or her life) and self-control (chastity, choosing to try to overcome the biological drive) is actually to truly become who you are.

Learn more about biological determinism and find out why it is wrong. Read this book from the Abunga family-friendly bookstore.

[ad#determinism]

Homosexuality is Natural, Right?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:51:00 +0000

In my Squidoo lens on natural law I relate how I often hear from people that homosexuality cannot be against the natural law because it is found among animals in nature. The lens explains what natural law really means, and it has nothing to do with the animal kingdom (except that human beings are rational animals, but the rational part is key).

Misunderstandings of natural law are common – and it really doesn’t matter how educated you are. Here are some quotes from some very educated scientists.

LiveScience.com – Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet

Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them,” said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.

LiveScience.com – Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet

“Homosexuality” and “heterosexuality” are terms defined by societal boundaries, invisible in the animal kingdom.

LiveScience.com – Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet

The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the “laws of nature” can now be rejected scientifically, said Geir Soli, project leader for the exhibition.

What surprises me, though, is how scientists can be so biased within their own field. We don’t really see “homosexuality” in nature. We don’t see same-sexed animals coupling off for long-term relationships. What we do see is rampant, out of control animal sex drive seeking sex with whatever will satisfy the urge.

In a sense, the second quotation comes close to the truth. The beauty of human nature is that while we have many of the same drives and urges as animals, we have the power to control those urges and to imbue our actions with meaning. While rampant, out-of-control sexuality is accepted in the animal kingdom, it is not acceptable among human beings who have intellects and wills. However, the second quotation (I suspect it is espousing a modernist philosophy, which believes that all moral norms are social constructs rather than objectively true) misses the objective human nature connection and calls the differences between animal and human sexuality “societal boundaries.”

Homosexuality is objectively disordered in human beings precisely because human have the power to control their attractions, drives and desires and to use sexuality according to the meaning inherent in the act – the creation and nurturing of a family. This is a law of human nature, not of the “laws of nature.”

Examining the Arguments of Homosexual Activist

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:35:00 +0000

One of the guests on the Drew Mariani Show on Friday, March 10th, 2006, was from “Courage,” a Catholic organization that helps men with same-sex attraction find healing. A homosexual man called the show in anger. In his diatribe, he made a claim that I often hear from homosexual advocates. This claim is that homosexuals know better than anyone else what causes their homosexuality. This is a claim that needs to be examined. While we’re at it, let’s also look at the claim that appeared frequently in the editorial pages discussing the recently passed marriage amendment. This claim is that homosexuals would never choose to be homosexual, because to do so would be to choose to become outcasts. While both of these arguments seem reasonable and even convincing at first blush, they actually fall apart on scrutiny.

Let’s examine the first argument first. The idea that homosexuals are the best judges of the causes of their sexual preference is rooted in the argument that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, and is therefore present from childhood. Homosexuals self-report that they have always felt “different” from other boys, and that they had very early attractions to other boys or men that they eventually came to realize indicated same-sex attraction. The weakness of this argument is the assertion, as was made by the caller into Relevant Radio, that self-reporting is a more accurate measure of truth than external observations and scientific studies. In the field of psychology self reporting is considered the weakest form of support for a theory. In some cases self-reporting is the only way to get information, so psychologists will use interviews or surveys. Whenever possible, these methods of study are backed up with more concrete methods such as experiments or field studies. Why is self-reporting so weak? First of all, most people are not in the habit of carefully examining their lives. We may know what we have experienced in our past, but we don’t always examine why. Our memories are often blurry, and are also colored by our current ideals and identity. More importantly, our perception of events in our lives is biased.

For example, I tend to think of myself as an honest man. I put great value on my integrity. When I think back on my childhood, I remember an instance when I was punished for nearly a week. I don’t remember what the infraction was, but I remember having to write 300 sentences because of it. I also remember being quite convinced that I had been wrongly accused. I recall feeling as if I had righteously endured an injustice in order to make peace with my teacher. Because of the value I put on my integrity, I am very likely to convince myself that my perception of this event is a true memory. Perhaps it is. I really don’t know for sure. If I were interviewed about this incident, though, I am pretty sure that I would report it as I remember it. Was I really the falsely accused righteous victim, though?

Because of the doubts and shadows of our memories, self-reporting is a very weak method of finding the truth, especially when a scientist is trying to identity cause-effect relationships. What happens to its accuracy if I have an agenda? Wouldn’t somebody who has a vested interest in proving that homosexuality has always been a natural part of his identity tend to interpret events in his life according to that bias? Even if he is an honest man, he could easily misconceive his memories. Things are especially murky in the area of sexuality. When hormones are raging and body parts are out of control, sexual excitement can occur for any number of reasons. Concurrently, teen emotions are intense and largely uncontrolled. Love for a same-sex friend can easily turn into an intense emotional experience. Rejection by members of the opposite sex readily turns into a generalized fear, hatred, or sense of alienation from all members of that sex. I was once laughed at by a girl I asked to go to a dance with me. It took quite a few months before I started feeling attracted to girls again. Can we really accurately read the experiences of our own sexual maturation to determine how they have affected the person we have become as adults? In fact, isn’t the ability to gain an objective, external study of such events the very reason that psychology and sociology exist as sciences in the first place?

Now let’s examine the claim that nobody would choose to be homosexual. In one sense the Catholic Church would agree with this statement. Like all sexual perversions (which we all have, by the way), homosexuality is “inherited” as part of our fallen human nature. With this realization, the genetic question is really beside the point. However, we are able to choose how we respond to those desires. If I ever chose to act on some of the promptings of my sense appetite I could have ended up fired, in jail, and divorced. I tell you this in all confidence that my desires are no more perverted than yours. Fortunately, my will is strong enough to resist them and even to start slowly turning my sense appetite around (with the grace of God) to turn my perversion into rightful sexual desires. The error committed by both sides of the debate over whether homosexuality is inborn or chosen is the assumption that these are mutually exclusive options.

But why would someone choose to become alien, outcast, and marginalized? Whey would they choose a lifestyle that requires them to keep their lifestyle secret? These questions reveal an oversimplified vision of what it means to make a moral choice. People picture in their minds somebody saying one day, “I think I want to be homosexual.” Most of our moral choices are just not that simply made. Rather, we make moral choices in baby steps. We follow a small leading of the sense appetite to try something new that is only a little naughty. As we warm up to the new desires that arise from this small choice, we slowly choose to try slightly more deviant behaviors. This causes us to warm up to new desires that are even more deviant. Slowly, bit by bit, we find ourselves suddenly becoming somebody we would have found abhorrent (or at least unlikely) before we began this journey. Such a gradual fall can sometimes seem like an inevitable part of who we are. “I don’t know how I got here, so it must just be who I was meant to be.” This is why moral knowledge, frequent examination of conscience, and a quest for moral perfection are so important.

People who oppose the idea that homosexuality is a choice probably run a bit of a double standard. Research has shown that similar fateful forces work on rapists, adulterers, and pedophiles. Would homosexual activists argue that people suffering these fallen sexual desires are not chosen and so should not be punished or marginalized? Of course not. Often the response to this line of thinking is that rapists, adulterers and pedophiles hurt other people and who do consenting adult homosexuals hurt? However, such a differentiation acknowledges that inborn impulses can, and oftentimes should be controlled.

Homosexuality is a struggle. Homosexuals do not deserve our derision and hatred. They deserve our love. But true love seeks healing where healing is necessary, even when the one in need of healing doesn’t recognize the need.

The Joy of the Truth » Homosexuality

Tell Congress to Defend DOMA

Related Links:

The Church’s Teaching on Homosexuality Well-Received!

Related Links:

Genetic Faithfulness?

So what?

Related Links:

Homosexuality is Natural, Right?

Related Links:

Examining the Arguments of Homosexual Activist

Related Links: