Morally Correct: or, Rebuke of Politically Correct

confederate-battle-flagSeveral times, this week, the term, politically correct kept popping up in the news; mostly around the question of the Confederate flag outside the South Carolina statehouse. A South Carolina state legislator used the term in opposing the flags removal; as did pro-Confederate Battle flag demonstrators outside the statehouse. A firefighter in Minnesota used the term in justifying why he mounted the Confederate Battle flag to the back of his fire engine for the Independence Day parade. It’s also implied in numerous memes circulating online social networks. Those calling opposition to the official display of the Confederate Battle flag politically correct are suggesting that their rights are being impinged by overly-authoritarian, politically-doctrinaire liberals. The implication is that displaying the Confederate Battle flag is an innocent expression of a common identity; and that taking a position against the flag is an assault on free expression, and on the common identity of those making the expression.
But look at all the things that right-wing politicos and their minions call, politically correct. In the vast majority of cases, what are called politically correct are the assertions that language or behavior that are demeaning, dehumanizing or dis-empowering to minority races, women or lgbt are wrong. In other words, calling an assertion politically correct is an effort to diffuse the moral quality of the assertion, rather than take responsibility for analyzing whether the moral assertion is correct. In other words, “I’m going to do or say whatever I want, no matter who it hurts, convincing myself it doesn’t hurt anyone at all, and you’re just being politically correct if you tell me I can’t.”
So it would be more accurate to say that what those on the right refer to as politically correct assertions are actually morally correct assertions. Morally correct because it is never morally okay to intentionally inflict harm on another person just to assert a personal liberty of your own; even if that liberty legally or politically exists. Everyone (except sociopaths) knows that instinctively. Where the equivocation is, in these cases, is in what constitutes a harm. It would behoove those who self-identify as conservatives, then, to step back and assess what moral quality might actually lie behind so-called politically correct assertions. Seriously ask yourself, “What harm to whom might actually be caused by my language or behavior that somebody is telling me is wrong?” If you don’t do that, then you’re being hypocritical when you confess a personal commitment to morality.
Along the lines of morals and liberties, let’s chat for a minute about the claim that legalizing same-sex marriage somehow impinges on the religious liberty of those who oppose it. That’s been in the news a lot the last few weeks as well.
Most people who oppose the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling are religious people, some deeply so. I understand that. I also understand that the ruling was a shock to your sense of the world; because you get your sense of the world through the prism of your own faith, which says marriage solemnizes a covenant between a man and a woman. So what seems to be an attack on your sense of the world comes across, also, as a direct assault on your faith. As a consequence, you perceive that your religious liberty is under assault. Right-wing politicians, and politically-motivated right-wing faith leaders, are playing on that anxiety, suggesting that the State is going to come in and direct what your faith community believes or does: old-fashioned fear mongering.
What you’re forgetting is the very subjective nature of faith. While you, in your particular faith community, might have a particular worldview and understanding of what marriage is, individuals in other faith communities have other world views. Are you right and those who hold differing worldviews wrong? Maybe so. We’ll find out in the afterlife, I guess. But keep in mind that others believe they’re right and you’re wrong.

Who is to be the arbiter of that? In the case of same-sex marriage, those of you who oppose it acted as the arbiter. In declaring same-sex marriage a constitutionally-protected right, the Supreme Court effectively said you can’t be the arbiter for everyone. In other words, while you do have the right to believe what you want to and personally act on that belief within the confines of your faith community, you do not have a right to impose on others your own worldview. Others have their religious liberty too. So step back and stop hyperventilating over your religious liberty. Those entering same-sex marriages are not harming you or your liberty; but you asserting their marriages have no value harms them. You cannot assume moral power over those whose lives you disagree with for the same reason you cannot dismiss moral assertions about language or behave that does harm others as politically correct: doing either merely asserts your right to power over others. Period. And, by the way, desiring power over others while feeling vulnerable and claiming victim-hood when those you desire power over push back is usually a trait of a schoolyard bully.


It Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means

I’m watching a strong reaction to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion to the Court’s ruling opinion on the question of gay marriage. The strongest reactions revolved around Scalia’s assertion that the government allowing slavery did not deprive the slave of his or her dignity. I understand the reaction. ARE YOU SERIOUS? Justice Scalia said that dignity is innate. He chose the wrong word. Scalia was responding to a Catholic philosophical/theological principle, one aggressively promoted by Saint John Paul II, that the human condition has an intrinsic dignity.
Saint John Paul II’s choice of wording is much more careful than Justice Scalia’s wording. There is a difference between saying something is “intrinsic” and saying something is “innate.” “Intrinsic” is a metaphysical term in justiposition to “extrinsic.” Intrinsic dignity means I have dignity simply because of who I am. Extrinsic dignity means that the source of my dignity comes from outside of me. Innate, the word Justice Scalia used in his dissent to the opinion declaring gay marriage a Constitutional right, on the other hand, is language deriving from the scientific community. “Innate” looks for the scientific source of conditions or behaviors. “Dignity” is not something science can explore, so “intrinsic” vs. “extrinsic,” studied from a philosophical approach, is the correct way to ask the question of dignity.
I’m certain that, when Justice Scalia argued that dignity is “innate,” and that the governent can neither grant nor take away that dignity, he meant dignity is “intrinsic” to the person. To that point, I cannot disagree. I absolutely believe that the human person has an intrinsic dignity that nobody can take away.
Where I disagree with Justice Scalia is on the question of whether the government can choose to honor or dishonor the intrinsic dignity of a human person; and, by extesion, the relationship a human person is driven to enter into. While Justice Scalia seems to have gotten the Catholic philosophical/theological position down, he proved very ineffective in communicating that position in his dissenting opinion in this ruling.
There is another misuse of language that affects debate about gay people I want to use to exemplify this problem. In the lat 90’s, the Catholic Church can out with a universal “Catechism of the Catholic Church” – the first since the Catechism of the Council of Trent – in order to clarify to Catholics what we believe. At the time, a number of bishops in the United States opposed its publication because the Catechism employed philosophical language not easily assimulated into popular thought. The American bishops who opposed its publication at the time have since been proven right. So much of the language is rooted in classical philosophical/language that is not easily accessible through contemporary thought. I’m not saying the Catechism is wrong, I’m saying it doesn’t communicate meaningfully. That is specifically true on the assertion when the Catechism asserts that the incliniation to same-sex attraction is “objectively disordered.”
Early on, after the Catechism was published, I was arguing with gays who were upset that the Catechism was calling them mentally ill. At the same time, I was arguing with homophobes who were using that same assertion from the Catechism to assert gays were mentally ill. I quickly gave up arguing with either group. Neither understood what the Catechism meant by “objectively disordered” because neither had any background in Catholic philosophy/theology.
When the Catholic Church says the “tendency to homosexuality” is “objectively disordered” the Church is drawing on an ontological argument proposed by Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. In that argument, the Church wants to know not only whether something exists, but why. Applying the argument to ethics, the Church is asking, “What is the purpose of a particular act?” The Church had long ago decided the purpose of sex is to produce children (later, the Church decided it’s to deepen relations and produce children). To say the inclination is “disordered,” then, is to say it’s an inclination to engage in sexual activity not aimed at what is believed to be the natural purpose of sex: to produce children.
I think we can debate that onotological purpose of sex; but only if we understand what it is we’re actually debating.
At the same time, I think we can debate what Supreme Court Antonin Scalia meant when he said human dignity is innate and can neither be granted nor taken away by the State. But first we have to understand and respect what he meant when he wrote that. By the way, I have a low opinion of Scalia that he could attach himself to that philosophical tradition, but not think to translate that into a meaningful legal reasoning.

‘Traditional’ Irish Marriage(s) in Early Medieval Ireland

“The story of Christianity in general, let alone within Ireland, is one of constant adaptation, innovation and  redefinition- something sadly lost on many modern day practitioners and a hierarchy who believe, naively, in a regurgitated fairytale version of a pseudo-universal, unchanging, ‘institution’ stretching back to the figure of an illiterate Judean fisherman called Shim’on/Petrus via the figure of a Romano-British teenager stained with the stigma of homosexuality. The actual story of ‘traditional marriage(s) in Ireland, like today, is far more complex, varied, splintered and diverse.”

via ‘Traditional’ Irish Marriage(s) in Early Medieval Ireland.

Gay Marriage: What Catholic Bishops Really Fear


As we’re approaching the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in favor of marriage equality, conservative Catholic bishops, together with fundamentalist leaders, are pushing the myth that religious freedom is under attack. When you look at the long history of our nation respecting religious groups countering, within their communities what is acceptable under civil law, the idea that marriage equality will force an imposition on the Catholic Church is absurd at best. It seems odd that Catholic bishops would embrace the idea that this approach to religious tolerance would be abandoned in the area of marriage. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg elaborated on that pointedly when she brought up the sectarian practice of rabbis not allowing marriages between a member of their own communities to a partner outside of their communities. It’s hard to imagine how our bishops could be that dumb. After all, canon 378 of the Church’s Code of Canon Law require candidacy to episcopal office requires the candidate to have a doctoral, or at least a licentiate, degree in specific theological or canonical areas; preference clearly leading to doctoral. I have personally never met, nor have ever heard of, a bishop who did not have a doctoral degree. How can someone that well educated so obviously misread the legal consequences of a civil action in the United States?

What just happened in Catholic Ireland – they just amended their constitution by popular vote to honor same-sex marriage – highlights Catholic prelates’ real fear and explains why our bishops are reacting to marriage equality so aggressively. Even in the United States, a study published a few years ago showed that Catholics in the pews support lgbt rights and same-sex marriage proportionally greater than members of any other Christian community; even more than members of Christian denominations that formally recognize same-sex marriages. That is the real fear of right-wing Catholic bishops; not that civil recognition of the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry would impose an obligation on Catholic clergy, but that the civil recognition of same-sex marriage would act as a catalyst for an internal conversation within the Church community itself. They fear that this change will not only happen in civil society, but that same move for a change within the Catholic community (e.g. would gain a renewed and more empowered voice among Catholics who want the Church to change.

That fear is not without cause. German bishops are right now “pushing the envelope” in how to pastorally respond to the lgbt community and their relationships. Lay Catholics in the U.S. already have a majority support for lgbt rights. Many priests vocally support lgbt rights and same-sex marriage (I suspect many more secretely share that same position). Some are becoming more vocally supportive; e.g. If modern history is any indicator, some priests will risk their own vocations by pushing the question of same-sex marriage within the Church by presiding over same-sex weddings and honoring the marriages extra-juridically. All this will push the Church on the question of the validity and dignity of same-sex unions much more dramatically in the forseeable future; and that is what our bishops fear.

Don’t get me wrong. As unquestionably liberal as my approach to Catholicism appears to many, I’ve also always been very insular. Everytime I see or hear people outside of our faith commmunity trying to inform us what we’re supposed to believe and do, I respond aggressively. The status of lgbt persons and our relationships in the Catholic community is something I’ve always believed we, as Catholics, have both the right and responsibility to settle ourselves. I accept no outside interference. But I also believe it is true that what is legally happening in the the civil world will act as a strong catalyst to force these particular questions within the Catholic community. I strongly suspect our conservative bishops in the U.S. forsee that as well. Despite all their posturing response to civil law movement, this is what they really fear. That better explains how people who are so well educated can come across so dumb. Let them fear. Its going to happen.

Don’t Buy the Bull — Indiana’s RFRA is a License to Discriminate

Indiana Governor Mike PenceThe owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana said that, as a Christian-owned establishment, they would not supply pizza to a gay wedding reception. They would, however, serve a gay couple come in for a pizza. If you’re running a business, it’s usually not a good idea to publicly weigh in on hot topics; and they took heat for doing it! Personally, I think that’s a fair position for them to hold. There is, after all, a difference between discriminating against someone for who he or she is (e.g. not serving a customer because he is gay) and not supporting an event or action which you do not condone (e.g. providing pizza to a same-sex wedding reception). The owners, here, said they will do the latter; and there is a very clear argument that they hold that position due to their religious beliefs.

In Christian — particularly, Catholic — moral theology, a person sins when he knowingly and with volition provides material support for a sinful act. For example, if I were the driver of a get-away car knowingly transporting someone who robbed a bank to the airport so he can get out before getting caught, I am committing a sin because I am knowingly and with volition providing material support to the act of robbing a bank. My intention, in that case, is to help the bank robber escape being caught and getting away with his ill-got money. If, on the other hand, I was a cab driver and that bank robber hops in the back of my cab, asking me to drive him to that same airport without informing me he had just robbed a bank, I will be providing him material support; but I will not be doing so knowingly and with volition. I will not be committing a sin because my intent will merely be to drive him to the airport and earn my fare.

That same reasoning, of course, is applied to a same-sex wedding. Essential to the very nature of a wedding is that a couple enter into a union among approving witnesses. Witnesses, then, provide material support to the wedding in the act of witnessing. If a witness believes a same-sex union is illicit — and knowingly and with volition provide that material support to the union — then it could be said that the witness is committing a sinful act. The owners of Memories Pizza may believe that, by providing pizza to a same-sex wedding reception, they would be taking on the role of approving witnesses; or, at least, just approving. In that case, they would be right in not supplying the pizzas.

Now it could also be argued that the owners of Memories Pizza will not be acting as witnesses at all and that their intent will simply be to supply pizzas and make money; and that the union will take place with or without the pizzas anyway. In other words, they will be lending support to a party, providing no substantial material support at all to the union itself. That is besides the point. The question, where the State is involved, is whether the owners of Memories Pizza personally believe that, by supplying pizzas to the reception involves material support to what they believe is an illicit union. I believe it is fair that the State cannot compel them to do so.

But the distinction between a person’s desire not to provide material support to what he or she believes is an illicit act (entering a same-sex union) and not approving of who someone is (being gay) is not explicit in Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and therein lies the problem!

While the owners of Memories Pizza implied that distinction themselves, it is not remotely believable that everyone in Indiana will make the same distinction. There are plenty of Hoosiers who believe that living out their own Christian faith (United Pentecostal Church, anyone?) requires them to proselytize and impose their own beliefs and morality on others whose beliefs and morality differ from their own. They will welcome the license to bar lgbt people from their respective establishments, citing their heartfelt religious belief that they’re required to communicate their opprobrium of who the lgbt person is. And the way this law was written implies they can.

Neither being gay nor even engaging in same-sex sexual activity essentially require a public witness, however; so serving pizza to a gay person does not lend material support to anything. The business’ owner, in this case, may believe he or she is acting from sincere religious conviction requirement to communicate; but it’s a conviction that imposes on directly on someone else, depriving him of her of his or her rights. The lgbt person, in this case, would be the injured party. After all, as the old maxim goes: “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.).

Either the legal minds who drafted this law were so intellectually deficient they didn’t realize that distinction does not exist in this law or Governor Mike Pence is lying when he says the law was not intended to give license to discriminate. The latter possibility has the greater weight, given that neither the Governor nor the Republican-controlled legislature will support legislation explicitly protecting lgbt Hoosiers from discrimination. In either case, discrimination is actually what this law licenses and, as such, needs to be repealed.

Queer Christian Response to News About Fred Phelps Sr’s Health

So I woke up, this Imagemorning (or, more honestly, this afternoon), to news, blog posts and commentary about word that Fred Phelps, Sr., founder and pastor of Westboro Baptist Church had been excommunicated by his own church in August 2013 and that his health is failing, that he is “on the edge of death.” Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church became infamous in the early 1990’s first for their “” website, then for their picketing funerals of gay people or those close to and supportive of gay people. Picketing funerals began with the funeral of Matthew Shepherd, who was tortured and murdered in the early 1990’s by guys who tried, at their trial, to present a “gay panic” defense. In the early 2000’s, Westboro Baptist Church transitioned to picketing funerals of soldiers who died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, arguing that their deaths were God’s punishment to America for being supportive of the LGBT community. They even went on to attempt protesting funerals of children who were murdered in their school by a mentally ill young person.

We’ll leave aside the question of the relationship between God and the “fags.” Using people’s funerals is a horrible way to communicate your beliefs to a wider audience. I don’t personally think that’s what was meant by “freedom of speech” or “freedom of assembly” in our Constitution. But I’m neither a Constitutional lawyer nor a judge, so I’ll leave that alone. I’ll just say that the expression of their hate knew no boundaries! In the Catholic community, we would call that “pastoral insensitivity” at the least; but I think “pastoral insensitivity” is a big understatement!

Over the years, I had been incredibly incensed by Fred Phelps, Sr. and his clan, both as a queer and as a Christian. As a queer, I was incensed because I was the primary target of their vehemence; and, because in their hate, they were trying to project an ugly, evil image of me that was far removed from who I was. As a Christian, I was incensed because they made Christianity look hateful and vile. In the process, they were trying to force a wedge between who I am and what I believe.

I read a lot of celebratory commentary on the internet, today, in response to the news of Fred Phelps’ demise; and I read calls to picket Phelps’ funeral when that day comes, just so they can see what it feels like to have your funeral protested. That disheartens me, and I say, “no!”  I know they were heartless when they protested people’s funerals. But are we really like them? Are we heartless too? The Phelps family will be grieving. Let them grieve privately. It’s the humane thing to do. We’ll have plenty of chances to get back at them later.

My response comes as both a Christian and as a queer. As a Christian, I had consistently made, over the years, the observation that the Phelps’ family were not correctly representing Christianity. We were called to love and to evangelize, not to hate. If I were truly called by Jesus Christ, then I was called to live and to love in the way Christ called me to. I’m still called that way now. Would Christ act in angry spite at someone’s funeral? I hardly think so. Neither should I. This is our opportunity to have the truly Christian compassion for the Phelps family that the Phelps family did not have for others.

As a queer, I have read assertions, over the years, that the hate spewed by the Phelps’ family and their Westboro Baptist Church was proof that Christians are not the loving humanitarians they try to present themselves as being; and that queers  know better how to love, empathize and honor people in their vulnerability. In other words, being an honest-to-goodness humanitarian is better than being a Christian. To my fellow members of the LGBT community, I would say now is the perfect time to prove that. Do you really want to reinforce the ugly claims the Westboro Baptist Church has made about you or do you want to take this opportunity to show you’re better?

Beyond just compassion, there is a calculating point to my response. Members of the Phelps’ family and the Westboro Baptist Church are delusional narcissists. Protesting their funeral will not humanize their thinking and make them realize their hateful speech is bad. It will only magnify, in their minds, the importance of their church and its founder. It will add fuel to their vitriol. It will also add ammunition to their argument. They will never admit to unjustifiable hate; but they would be inclined to leverage a protest against their funeral as evidence of ours. We don’t want that strategically.

Besides that, Fred Phelps, Sr. and his church actually did both Christianity and the LGBT community a huge favor. There are many others out there who use their Christian faith to justify their hatred of gay people. Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church pushed that to its extreme. It gave Christians who were movable the opportunity to see what their own position looked like when pushed to an extreme. As a result, a lot of Christians were moved to look at themselves in the mirror and ask, “Am I being that ugly?” We should be thankful to Phelps and his church for that reason alone and give the Phelps family an unmolested opportunity to grieve.