"Whereas almighty God has created the mind free...."--Thomas Jefferson
The Delaware blogosphere is not always an easy place if you happen to be religious, although I'm not usually religious enough for it to matter. I disdain the uber-conservative fundamentalists of any religion (and especially Christianity) who want to send anybody who offends to hell, or to proclaim Katrina, 9/11, and HIV as God's judgment on our nation for Darwin in the classrooms and queers out of the closets.
But sometimes you get less help from your friends than from your enemies.
Consider the now-flopping $200 million film "The Golden Compass," based on the fantasy works of avowed atheist Philip Pullman. (Poor Pullman is trying to subvert Christianity, and there they go in the movie and water it all down.) The Catholic film reviewers first gave it a reasonably good review (which in itself causes me to question their acumen; it's tedious at best), then had their review unceremoniously yanked by the church hierarchy.
This sent bishops all over the country scrambling to tell the faithful not to watch the movie. In the local Catholic newspaper ofr the Diocese of Wilmington, Dialog, Bishop Michael Saltarelli concludes,
I encourage all Catholic parents to cultivate their children’s imagination not with the fantasy works of Mr. Pullman but the works of Tolkien and Lewis. I cannot recommend “The Golden Compass” to Catholic and Christian parents in either its film or literary form.
This is disappointing, but not surprising. The only reason that Catholic reviewers didn't jump even more heavily on Harry Potter than they did was because I don't think any of them figured out that Dumbledore was gay until J. K. Rowling told them.
I comfort myself, however, with the knowledge that wanting to build walls around the minds of not just our children but ourselves is not even a particularly religious failing of humanity. Proscribed book lists and disfavored literature are issues that often have as much to do with totalitarian politics and social conservatism as with worship.
Then, unfortunately, while pulling up Catholic reviews of "The Golden Compass," I found "Why gays don't get it (it's our fault)" at Inside Catholic.com, in which author Todd M. Aglialoro explains patiently to Margaret that Catholic homosexuals are confused because the church sometimes lacks clarity in its explanation of why it's ungodly to be gay, lesbian, or transgender:
The main problem, as Catholic journalist Dale O'Leary so skilfully explains in her various writings and speeches, including her recent book One Man, One Woman, is that so many Catholics implicitly accept the assertion that homosexuality is an ontological category: a way of being into which some people are hard-wired at birth. To big-hearted Catholics, even those who officially hew to Church teaching on the matter, it just seems cruel and unjust to censure people for trying to be who they were created to be. You're left with a Catholic moral teaching against homosexuality delivered (when it is delivered) without much conviction.
The solution, incidentally, is to view same-sex attraction correctly: as a psychosexual disorder rooted in early childhood development. Only from this perspective can we understand it rightly within the context of a Christian understanding of sexuality and the human person, and only from this perspective can we adopt a posture towards homosexuals that combines in right proportion mercy, compassion, moral witness, and call to conversion.
This last paragraph sources that "psychosexual disorder rooted in early childhood development" to The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which sees its mission as "Helping clients bring their desires and behaviors into harmony with their values." In other words, they cure queers of their queerness.
I prefer to get my science from actual researchers. The Real Story on Gay Genes in the June 2007 issue of Discover is a pretty good summary of what scientists know, hypothesize, and expect to prove about the genetic propensity toward homosexuality. It's definitely worth reading, and thoroughly debunks the NARTH quacks no matter what Dr Laura thinks.
I'm rambling, but this is all so infuriating. The purpose of religion (at least one of the purposes that I teach my own children) is to open us up to the greater possibilities of the spirit in viewing the world around us, and to maintain contact with not just the sense of the divine, but also our common humanity.
That doesn't mean hiding from books or movies because they might contain objectionable content. If not now, when am I supposed to get my kids ready to read material critically that might run counter to their upbringing?
That doesn't mean ignoring sound research because it fits your political or dogmatic agenda to follow pseudo-scientific quacks who say what you want to hear. How do I teach my children to make informed judgments if they are to discount any information that doesn't confirm to their pre-existing prejudices?
I want to ask all my narrow-minded, self-righteous religious brethren and cistern [sic] who are so sure they've got the right answers and that them what don't are going to hell if they really comprehend the term "infinite mercy" as applied to God.
Curiously, one of the few things that continues to give me hope for the future of Christianity is an answer that Pope Benedict gave (about ten years before he became pope and he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger), to a journalist named Peter Seewald when the two of them were discussing salvation. Their dialogue takes place in a remarkable book entitled God and the World that unfortunately lacks an index for its 460 pages, so I wll have to paraphrase until I find the exact quote.
The journalist wanted to know if those who lived and died in other faiths, rejecting Christianity (or even Catholicism if they were Protestants) had any hope of salvation. Ratzinger replied that only those who failed to understand just how large "infinite mercy" could be had any room to doubt that God could very well save anyone, everyone, regardless of our pedestrian differences here on Earth.
Of course, truth in advertising forces me to admit that this was the same individual who dealt with the scandal of pedophile priests (99.5% heterosexual) by banning gay men from seminaries.
So why do I remain a believing Catholic? Because ultimately I believe in that God of infinite mercy and not the men who invoke Her name for their purposes.
Comments
The trouble with life- Catholic or not- is that God doesn't seem to have much to say about his infinite mercy these days. Maybe to straight people, I dunno.
It would be interesting to see if you could lure Andrew Sullivan over to the blog here for a further discussion of these issues.
She hasn't been whispering in my ear, either.
“Of course, truth in advertising forces me to admit that this was the same individual who dealt with the scandal of pedophile priests (99.5% heterosexual) by banning gay men from seminaries.”
I believe that researched showed that the majority of the scandal with the priest was predominantly with pubescent males not prepubescent males, which would mean they weren’t pedophiles. This would indicate they were leaning towards homosexuality not heterosexuality. Of course you’ll get major arguments on this thought.
I do thank you for the additional material on the search for the gay gene though. I’m trying to weigh through all the data on this subject to make some sort of a informed decision and so far it seems to come down to; the outcome of the research indicates whatever your agenda was when you went in. If you go into the research determined to find evidence there will be a gay gene, then you’ll probably find it and vice versa.
I’ve listened to scientist give resounding evidence against the gay gene theory and just as many saying they were wrong.
I guess this just adds to my reading material list.
I don't think you can make this argument regarding the type of researcher covered in this Discover article. I have spent some time beyond this article researching these scientists and their studies, and they seem to have genuinely begun with the question, "What will the evidence show?" rather than "Can I find evidence to prove A, B, or C?"
For the most part I dismiss organizations like NARTH because they consistently DO NOT deal with evidence that might contradict their thesis (and unlike the research professors they are making healthy livings selling "therapy").
Yes, NARTH can ask questions about genetic research, just like Intelligent Design advocates can ask questions about Darwinism.
But, as I tell students in research seminars, the ability to pose questions IS NOT the equivalent of offering evidence to the contrary.
I would argue that a dispassionate (difficult, that) review of the data will support the thesis that homosexuality in humans (yes, it has been observed in animals) is at least 85-90% nature rather than nurture.
(My point about the resolution of the priest crisis is that it was a knee-jerk reaction rather than a thoughtful response. And yes, I would argue that the evidence suggests that many if not most of the victims were arguably prepubescent. On the other hand, in what category does a 10 or 11 year old boy go? Almost certainly you'd have to answer that question on a case by case basis.)
To your point: "On the other hand, in what category does a 10 or 11 year old boy go? Almost certainly you'd have to answer that question on a case by case basis."
Definitely have to agree with you on this point. In fact I wouldn't care if if they were pubescent or prepubescent at that age they are a child; heart, mind, body, and soul.
If you don't believe what Catholic doctrine states, there's an easy solution: Leave the faith. This is the reason I do not belong to any organized religion -- I don't like being told what to believe and what to follow. Years ago, during a time of spiritual empty, my wife (a Catholic) suggested I look into becoming a Catholic. I did. But I just could not subordinate my core beliefs to the religion, of any religion for that matter. Still, I'll never disdain the religiously organized. I will only when (if) they begin to subject me to their beliefs with any coercion.
In another vein, what would you say, Steve, if 10-20 yrs. from now it is genetically possible to "cure" homosexuality? What would you say to parents who wanted to -- "GATTACA"-style -- excise any such genes from their unborn child?
Thanks for listening, and great post here, BTW.
Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler is already predicting discovery of a gay gene will reframe the abortion/gene therapy debates among anti-abortion advocates: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891
He cites another author who comes up with this even-handed, non-stereotyping example: "Pro-choice activists won't be spared either. Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own? "
Mohler's interesting, if slightly Orwellian, conclusion?
"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin."
A first note: the issues regarding Catholicism in the piece were all either idiocy, opinion, or both--not doctrine. My reasons for becoming and staying Catholic are--as one might guess--obscure.
With respect to your thought experiment and Waldo's concurrence, I use a similar thought experiment in my classes all the time, but I don't use homosexuality. My reasons are more science-based than culture-based, however.
The best hypothesis modern research provides us is that there is no single gene site which controls human sexuality in the manner that a certain gene site controls eye color and can be flipped from brown to blue. The current state of research suggests that sexual orientation is the resulting interplay of several (possibly several dozen) gene sites and genetic markers. Changing those is going to be far more complicated that chaning eye color or turning off the gene for obesity.
So I think we'll have to confront that issue with a lot of other choices first. When we do, how will we phrase the question that parents are asked? The Church would probably prefer to couch it in terms of "Do you really think you are qualified to play God?" I think a more interesting formulation would be, "Do you really think you're smarter than evolution?"
In either case there will be serious questions, including but not limited to:
a) unforeseen consequences; the gene that grants some people immunity from the tse-tse fly makes them susceptible to sickle-cell anemia. What happens when we interfere across multiple gene sites to change sexual orientation?
b) class warfare like we've never contemplated it; what happens when the elites can have children who are smarter, faster, better-looking, and less likely to get deadly diseases?
Although books in this field get dated very quickly, about ten years ago geneticist Lee Silver wrote Remaking Eden, which I commend to anyone doing serious thinking about our future in the brave new world of genetic engineering.
A counter-proposal: if, in twenty years, you could remove the "god gene," the gene that inclines us to believe in a deity and the supernatural (and which has been pretty closely identified), would an atheist couple choose to edit that one out?
Here is the expression of a sentiment that even an old, bald agnostic progressive can appreciate. :)
________________
"But, as I tell students in research seminars, the ability to pose questions IS NOT the equivalent of offering evidence to the contrary."
A wonderful insight. A pity that more are not onto it.