In the debates that have sprung up on the place within the Church for homosexual and lesbian persons, many point toward the argument over a biological basis for sexual orientation. Apart from the fact that there is no real credible science regarding a biological basis for orientation, the argument misses the mark by a mile… on both sides.
I often ask students to consider that heterosexual orientation and sex drive is in all likelihood rooted in brain structure, as well as biochemical and genetic function. If that is true, then a biological basis for same-sex attraction can be stipulated (if only for argument’s sake). Such stipulation does not rule out the effects of child rape and imprinting as a neurological mechanism that follows on environmental factors. In that case, a biological mechanism can rightly be seen as an intrinsic disordering of normal function.
But let’s stipulate, for a moment that sexual orientation, especially heterosexual orientation is indeed biologically rooted and determined.
What has this to do with moral law, or reshaping moral norms?
It is a fallacy put forth by homosexuals that biological orientation ought to be the basis for changing the rules on marriage and sex within the Church. It supposes that all heterosexuals are free to marry by dint of orientation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Every diocese in the United States has a Marriage Tribunal with stacks and stacks of active annulment files on any given day. There are all manner of impediments to the valid exchange of vows, and it is the investigative work of the tribunal to ascertain whether any impediments existed at the time vows were exchanged.
Among the impediments to marriage is impotence on the part of the male. If a man cannot engage in intercourse, the couple cannot consummate the marriage. These denials of applications for holy matrimony between two people who love one another with all their hearts are some of the most difficult to deal with. Homosexuals and lesbians cannot consummate their “marriages,” cannot enter into that physical exchange of radical self-donation that brings forth new life from such an embrace. They cannot consummate God’s wise design. Neither can many other heterosexuals.
There are people who cannot marry because of emotional or developmental disability or delay. There are many who are developed enough to desire the good of marriage, and KNOW that they are not deemed desirable enough for marriage. It is at once heartbreaking and at the same time an opportunity for channeling the desire to love, to sacrifice for another. There isn’t a false dichotomy between marriage and an “everyone else” category, with everyone else living in limbo. There are all sorts of dynamic single states.
That is where our priests and religious, our consecrated single laity are the examples of credibility. Not all are called to, or capable of marriage. “Some freely renounce it for the Kingdom” (Matt 19:12), and the Church has a long and rich history in doing it all very well.
So arguments over biological basis of orientation are really irrelevant within the Church. God has a wise design, and that wise design excludes many heterosexuals from sacramental marriage and leads them into equally fulfilling lives of sacrificial love outside of marriage. There is no room within that design for surrogate motherhood, with childless couples of any orientation using women as broodmares and bitches, reducing the glory of womanhood to that of human livestock.
There is no room for lifestyles that have as a celebrated principle that motherhood and mothers are entirely unnecessary in the life of a child.
There is no room for lifestyles that have as a celebrated principle that fatherhood and fathers are entirely unnecessary in the life of a child.
The only orientation that matters is God’s wise design. There are all manner of moral means to bring oneself into conformity with that wise design. The difference between virtue and vice is the assertion of the will toward or against God’s design.
Biology has nothing to do with it.
Coming Home 
That a biological argument has little or nothing to do with moral law as viewed by the Church and some (although maybe not all) of its members seems true enough on the face. Though one group will likely say that you should be less stingy with your stipulations. For example, if you stipulate that 1) there is a biological basis for sexual orientation and that this can relate to a universal variation in exposure and sensitivity to various hormones in utero, along with genetic and other factors, and 2) that this is not intrinsic disorder of normal function, but rather part of a spectrum of normal function, because this spectrum eternally exists (even in the absence of child rape), and 3) that there is no single clear moral, behavioral, or instinctual line that can delineate normal sexual function between two legally sane, non-related consenting adults, then a no-win scenario for the Church is more likely. An increasing number of people (and mounting evidence, by the way) support the stipulations above. Commensurately, an increasing number of people avoid the Church, and generations see diminishing membership and influence in the Church. To add to layers, is there a biological basis for Church membership beyond the issue of sexual orientation? Indeed, at least based on evidence from twin studies. So….. stipulations about biology; the biology of stipulations. As your old nemesis Freud may have suggested, could they be one and the same?
With that, my dear old friend, having said nothing about anything, and anything about nothing, and knowing absolutely nothing at all, I retire for the evening. Your posts are always well written, and I regret not doing them justice with my driveling speculations and vague and specious arguments. As always, I wish you well.
Excellent Insights doctor.
Ah, back for a few minutes to attempt to gather a few more thoughts, as I was rushed the other night when I posted above. Yes, I realize nobody is reading this thread, they are too busy fighting about Michael Voris on another thread. That is ok, I’m not writing to anyone, and certainly not writing in hope of a response. On the contrary, I’m writing to gather my own thoughts on paper, although this is not exactly paper. This may not be what I think tomorrow, but it’s one step closer to having a thought about this tomorrow, if you know what I mean.
The view that universal and eternal biological influences on sexuality in utero must therefore also determine one’s desirability regarding expressing love (or in others recognizing the importance of its expression) seems inevitably doomed to extinction. I believe there is compelling evidence supporting that impending extinction, whereas I see no evidence for the impending extinction of homosexuality. Homosexual desire and expression will survive the notion that they are intrinsically disordered. Call it evil; call it progress; call it abhorrent; call it necessary; these changes are happening as I type, irreversibly. As for myself, I’m politically conservative, anti-abortion, not of the Catholic faith, and (intellectually speaking) not even the tiniest spit in the proverbial ocean; yet, for what little it’s worth, I see these changes as necessary. Regarding my three stipulations in the previous post:
Stipulation #1: There is too much evidence to outline here.
Stipulation #2: Without having studied it formally, I suggest that human sexuality has several interacting components that result in wide distributions along spectra of sexual desire, preference, etc. So is it the case with other areas of human functioning, such as intelligence, for example. At the lower end of the IQ spectrum some people have intrinsic disorders of functioning due to various pathological causes, whereas some belong to part of the “normal” distribution where no “pathology” may exist. Regardless of the reason, someone with an IQ of 69 is not likely to become a brain surgeon. That person hopefully will come to accept that fact and find meaningful work as a clerk or janitor, or perhaps as an internet blogger. Is human sexuality such a hierarchy, with strong heterosexual desire sexually preeminent, down through weak then to no sexual desire, and then across an obvious and clearly defined “moral” border, down further into weak and then strong homosexual desire? If so, strong homosexual desire is analogous to the lowest IQ, whereby functioning is most likely be “disordered.” Thus, being born with a homosexual identity, and pursuing love and affection with another who feels the same, seems right to that person intrinsically – until (heartbreakingly) they learn otherwise. Great solution to a problem, but how many heterosexuals could live with that? I am heterosexual, and If I were born into a society where most people were homosexuals, many of whom viewed my heterosexuality as “disordered,” and had doctrines to support that view, I’d still be heterosexual, I’d still feel the need to express it, and would not instinctually feel disordered. Therefore, I would fight for my rights to be legally together with a woman who wanted to be with me and would also fight to be seen as a equally belonging to those who can express their most human of needs. At least that would be my first impulse in the matter, and to what limits I’d let some higher authority, acting on my conscience, impose restrictions on this impulse I can’t know unless I’m ever actually in that position. But I can guess that it wouldn’t be very far. So, one distinction with “other” disorders such as sub-normal intelligence or a missing leg is that one wouldn’t need to learn of his disorder from a group of moral experts; homosexuals who choose to ignore religious injunctions do not generally views themselves as disordered, and many people “at large” today don’t find sufficient reason to view them that way either.
Stipulation #3: This follows inevitably from #2, although that is not to say immoral sexual behavior is not easily recognizable in such forms as child rape, etc.
Perhaps I’m wrong, and one day in the distant future homosexuals will universally feel disordered and take whatever steps necessary to refrain from expressing their sexuality. In that case, perhaps (if blog posts last forever) one of those “disordered” homosexuals will by happenstance discover and read these words and think what a misguided fool “pt-109” must have been. To such a reader in the future, if one exists, I say to you now from this obscure historical digital enclave that – oh, dear, never mind, I think I hear the dinner bell
pt-109 — been sipping the tea again?
Dr. Nadal, you dismiss surrogacy as “reducing the glory of womanhood to that of human livestock.” You can certainly make a reasoned argument that surrogacy goes against the teachings of the Church, and it would be better to do that than to demean the women who willingly choose to be surrogates — do you know any of them in real life? You can say that what they’re doing is misguided and wrong, but why insult them personally like that?
And why refer to “the glory of womanhood” at all? I’ve had people tell me that working outside the home diminishes my womanhood, because a woman’s true vocation is domestic, etc.
Too often, that phrase is used to mean, “You need to be protected for your own good, and prevented from doing what you only think you want. Here, let me help you get up on this pedestal. Now stay there. Good girl.”
I’ve been sipping lots of tea, Ms. Twaronite. But I still comment on ideas, you predictably comment on Dr. Nadal’s style. I know what you’ve been drinking, it’s called disillusion.
Style conveys ideas.
Dr. Nadal uses certain words for a reason. So do you. So do I.
I also think you nailed it when you summarized, “…homosexuals who choose to ignore religious injunctions do not generally views themselves as disordered, and many people ‘at large’ today don’t find sufficient reason to view them that way either.”
Lisa, style does convey meaning, as does yours. Speaking of which, picking on his style the way you do is needlessly disrespectful. It is not the way you would speak with a host at his Sunday dinner table. Does that resonate at all with you?
Anyway, my difficulty in addressing this particular post is that the underlying premise is unstated. When religious injunction is the underlying reason for deeming homosexual relationships (private, personal relationships) disordered, the world inevitably finds it insufficient. Of course, I can’t tell others what metric to use when judging sexual preference, but I can assure them that any analogy with other human “disorders” of function will be flawed, likely fatally so. I believe Dr. Nadal’s argument above is incomplete both in terms of its undeveloped comparisons with other disorders, as well as the fact that the religious underpinnings of the argument remain unstated. I have found often in these arguments that religious underpinning act like a placenta that only allows certain ideas to pass through to like-minded individuals. In any case, best if they are stated clearly.
Lisa, the future socio-cultural landscape will be much different than it is today. I’d give a pretty penny to be able to see how it goes. If one extrapolates the current trajectory, people born homosexual will have an easier time of it in the future, and I’m very glad about that.
“It is not the way you would speak with a host at his Sunday dinner table.” –> No, actually, it is, if we were engaged in a spirited discussion on a point of disagreement — and why bother opening a blog to comments at all, if a discussion isn’t the point?
As for “disrespectful,” I think that’s in the eye of the beholder. It’s possible to read any tone into printed words, and see disrespect where none is meant. I don’t think of my comments as “disrespectful,” and I’m sorry if they’re viewed that way — I think the word “disrespectful” better applies to some of the commenters on the Voris post.
Wow — “religious underpinning” that acts “like a placenta that only allows certain ideas to pass through to like-minded individuals.” What a simile!
A good religious-based law should be able to past the secular test — that is, if a person doesn’t believe in that particular religion, is it still possible to persuade them that the law is for the good of society?
A secular argument can be made against abortion, which is why the issue is so contentious. However, it’s much harder to make secular arguments against use of contraception, rights for homosexuals, etc.
Lisa, working backwards in your last post, I agree with your last paragraph, have some problems with your fourth (but no time to quibble), and do not agree with your first two paragraphs; I would suggest you rethink those. Meanwhile, it’s been a relatively lazy weekend, but the grind starts up again tonight for the coming week. Have a good one.
I will take out of four.
You have a good one, too.
It’s a national holiday over here — “Respect for the Aged” Day.
Then I will respect you today!
Alas, I got a few more years to go, before I can claim any respect on those grounds — though some days I do feel a few decades older.