David Ancell / Sunday July 13, 2014
A few weeks ago, President Obama has promised to sign an executive order prohibiting companies who do business with the federal government from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This order is likely his attempt to implement, as much as possible, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act that failed to pass the House of Representatives last November. The order hasn’t been made public yet, but it is expected soon. Needless to say, this could create a myriad of issues depending on how broadly “discrimination” and “doing business with the federal government” are defined.
Believe it or not, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does mention, in paragraph 2358 (scroll down near the bottom), that people with same-sex attraction are to be treated with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” We are to avoid “every sign of unjust discrimination” against them. If I were a business owner, I could not in good conscience arbitrarily refuse to hire someone simply for having this inclination. However, does this mean that there should be anti-discrimination laws in place? Let me explain some things here.
If you haven’t noticed, in the paragraph above, I used the term “people with same-sex attraction” rather than describing such people as gay, lesbian, or homosexual. I referred to them as “having this inclination.” For some reason that I can’t understand, people with same-sex attraction often bind their identity up with their inclination and say that it is “who they are.” However, people, regardless of their condition, are far more than their inclinations.
People who have such an inclination probably didn’t actively choose it. There may be some responsibility for strengthening the inclination in one’s mind once it is noticed, but even then there may be reasons why a person isn’t fully morally responsible for this. There is debate as to whether the inclination can be eradicated, and my own opinion is that it depends on how deep-rooted it has become. Some may be able to eradicate the inclination, reduce it, or at least have a somewhat normal relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Others may not be able to do any of that. However, regardless of the above, having such an inclination doesn’t destroy a person’s worth and dignity in the eyes of God. People with same-sex attraction still have a need to make a living and be able to function as they can in society. This shouldn’t be denied arbitrarily. However, it does not follow that there aren’t cases of just discrimination against them.
Notice that, up until now, I’ve been talking about having an inclination towards the same gender. There’s a difference between having the inclination and acting upon it. The inclination isn’t in and of itself sinful. However, like I said, despite what the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association now say, it is a disorder, just like anxiety, depression, anorexia. How do I know (apart from Church teaching, of course)? The desire to have a sexual union with someone of the same gender has no natural means available to accomplish it. Two men or two women cannot unite their bodies anatomically in the same way that a man and a woman can. Our bodies just weren’t made for it. It’s also completely impossible for it to accomplish the biological end of sexual relations – the generation of offspring. Having the disordered desire is not in and of itself sinful, but acting on it is seriously sinful.
In fact, a case of discrimination is most likely to occur is if a person is, in fact, openly acting on it. Even then, there are a lot of situations when someone’s conduct can be tolerated. If I were a restaurant or store owner, an argument can be made that someone’s homosexual activity is not directly contrary to the mission of that particular business. This is true even though I would run my business according to my Catholic faith.
However, it’s another story if we are talking about a Catholic school or university, charity organization, or even a for-profit whose purpose is to, for example, publish Catholic books. Someone known to be deliberately acting directly contrary to the teaching of the Church in such a serious matter, with no known intention of changing the situation, would be acting directly contrary to the mission of such an organization. Requiring that organization to employ such a person makes a mockery of its mission. Would PETA be required to employ someone in a key position who ate bacon off the clock?
One major threat that an anti-discrimination law could pose would be to require Catholic employers or even institutions of the Church to recognize homosexual unions and provide spousal benefits to homosexual couples. It’s one thing to tolerate such activity; it’s quite another to give official recognition or even the giving of benefits. It’s still another to force the granting of recognition upon people whose long-standing religious beliefs would be violated in doing so. Let’s not forget that we’ve already had a lawsuit against a Christian baker who did not want to make a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. The court ruled against him despite the fact that homosexual marriage isn’t legal in that state. This is a real threat against religious freedom.
Even someone who is not acting on the inclination may not be suited for certain occupations, possibly depending on the severity of the inclination. A Vatican document came out several years ago stating that men who practice homosexuality or have deep-seated tendencies cannot be ordained as clergy. There may be some other situations in which such an inclination would affect how well they could do the job, and employers faced with such situations need to retain their right to make a reasonable judgment unhindered by political correctness.
The bottom line is that people who have an inclination towards people of the same sex are still loved by God, and they need our care and compassion. Treating them with contempt is simply wrong. However, allowing them to act upon the desire and pretending it is normal is doing them a great disservice, just like enabling an alcoholic would be. People with such inclinations, even those acting on them, should be able to obtain what they need to live just like anyone else. However, making them a protected class, especially in today’s society, is a dangerous move and needs to be stopped.
Category: Catholic, Morality, Response
« Lunch Break: Lesser Known Sins, Part 4: Resting on Sunday
Lunch Break: Preaching Christ in the Little Things »
No comments have been made on this post.
Please note that all comments are moderated, and they will be posted once approved.