So Daniel Avila, the USCCB’s “marriage guy” who wrote that column in the Boston Pilot attributing same-sex attraction to the devil, has gotten the heave-ho–as the result of news coverage subsequent to the Pilot‘s taking the column off its website and replacing it with a retraction from him. (Reprinted here after jump.) He had, it seems, committed the theological error of implying that, unlike the rest of us, those with same-sex attractions are neither “created in the image and likeness of God” nor possessed of “inviolable dignity.”
And yet, and yet. The column (reprinted after the jump) begins with a conundrum that makes you think that Avila has been struggling with his Catholic conscience over the same-sex marriage issue. Because it’s one thing to be an evangelical who opposes SSM just because you think the Bible forbids homosexual acts. It’s another to be a Catholic committed to a whole natural law anthropology:
More than once I have heard from or about Catholics upset with the
Church for its insistence that sexual relations be limited to marriage
between husband and wife. Does not this moral rule force people with
same-sex attraction into lives of loneliness? If they are born that way,
then why should they be punished by a restriction that does not account
for their pre-existing condition? God wants everyone to be happy, and
for persons with same-sex attraction is not their happiness to be found
in the fulfillment of that attraction? Some seek to change the Church’s
teaching on marriage or have left the Church because of it. They believe
either that God through the Church ignores the needs of people or that
the Church misunderstands what God desires.That is, if God
causes same-sex attraction, and yet commands that it not be satisfied,
then this is divine cruelty. Or, if God causes same-sex attraction, then
it must be the divine will that those with the attraction should act on
it and it is the Church that is being cruel in its teaching or at the
very least tragically mistaken about what God wants. In either case, the
belief that the Church is wrong on this issue starts from a faulty
premise. God does not cause same-sex attraction.
If, as Avila’s retraction suggests, God does cause same-sex attraction–or, at any rate, has caused same-sex attraction to be part of the natural order of things (and there’s plenty of zoology to indicate that such is the case), then the premise is not faulty. Asked to comment on the situation, Mary Ann Walsh, the USCCB’s director of media relation had this to offer: “While the general population has debated whether it’s nurture or
nature that leads to a homosexual inclination, the church has not posed
any theory in that regard.” And that’s the rock on which the Catholic church has built the natural law edifice of its opposition to SSM.
Opinion
Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction
More than once I have heard from or about Catholics upset with the
Church for its insistence that sexual relations be limited to marriage
between husband and wife. Does not this moral rule force people with
same-sex attraction into lives of loneliness? If they are born that way,
then why should they be punished by a restriction that does not account
for their pre-existing condition? God wants everyone to be happy, and
for persons with same-sex attraction is not their happiness to be found
in the fulfillment of that attraction? Some seek to change the Church’s
teaching on marriage or have left the Church because of it. They believe
either that God through the Church ignores the needs of people or that
the Church misunderstands what God desires.
That is, if God
causes same-sex attraction, and yet commands that it not be satisfied,
then this is divine cruelty. Or, if God causes same-sex attraction, then
it must be the divine will that those with the attraction should act on
it and it is the Church that is being cruel in its teaching or at the
very least tragically mistaken about what God wants. In either case, the
belief that the Church is wrong on this issue starts from a faulty
premise. God does not cause same-sex attraction.
The best natural
evidence of what God causes and wants for us is our genetic code.
Science has isolated certain genetic combinations that are typical to
human creation and development. The most basic and the first genetic
expression is that which occurs at our conception, when at the same time
our individual human life begins our sexual identity as male or female
begins. That which is genetically encoded, for believers, points to a
codifier, and communicates through its design the codifier’s intent.
Interpreting from a spiritual perspective the genetic code which
supplies our sexual difference, we have to conclude that God wants us to
be male or female.
No one has found a “gay gene.” Identical
twins are always, of course, the same sex, providing further proof of
male and female genes. If there was a gay gene, then when one twin
exhibits same-sex attraction, his or her identical sibling should too.
But that is not the case. The incidence of finding identical twins with
identical same-sex attraction is relatively rare and certainly not
anywhere near one hundred percent. Something other than the hardwiring
found in the genetic code must explain the variance.
So what
causes the inclination to same-sex attraction if it appears early and
involuntarily and “who,” if anyone, is responsible? In determining the
answer to the “what” question, the most widely accepted scientific
hypothesis points to random imbalances in maternal hormone levels and
identifies their disruptive prenatal effects on fetal development as the
likely and major cause.
The most recent and most comprehensive
discussion of this research is found in a book published earlier this
year by a scientist who also happens to be a gay-rights advocate. Even
though it discounts other environmental factors that other scientists
believe also may play a role, Simon LeVay’s publication, “Gay, Straight
and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Attraction” is worth the read.
LeVay
is not interested in the “who” question and describes same-sex
attraction as just a variation among other human inclinations. Catholics
do not have the luxury of being materialists. We look for ultimate
explanations that transcend the strictly physical world and that stretch
beyond our limited ability to mold and reshape reality as we know it.
Disruptive imbalances in nature that thwart encoded processes point to
supernatural actors who, unlike God, do not have the good of persons at
heart.
In other words, the scientific evidence of how same-sex
attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a
spiritual explanation that indicts the devil. Any time natural disasters
occur, we as people of faith look back to Scripture’s account of those
angels who rebelled and fell from grace. In their anger against God,
these malcontents prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. They
continue to do all they can to mar, distort and destroy God’s handiwork.
Therefore, whenever natural causes disturb otherwise typical
biological development, leading to the personally unchosen beginnings of
same-sex attraction, the ultimate responsibility, on a theological
level, is and should be imputed to the evil one, not God. Applying this
aspect of Catholic belief to interpret the scientific data makes more
sense because it does not place God in the awkward position of blessing
two mutually incompatible realities — sexual difference and same-sex
attraction.
If in fact this analysis of causation and culpability
is correct, then it opens new perspectives on the Church’s teaching in
this area. Being born with an inclination which originates in a manner
outside of one’s control is not sufficient proof that the condition is
caused by God or that its satisfaction meets God’s purpose. Furthermore,
a proper understanding of who is really at fault should deepen our
compassion towards those who experience same-sex attraction and inform
our response to the question of loneliness. Ultimately, an accurate
attribution of responsibility for same-sex attraction frees us to
consider more fully the urgent question of why sexual difference matters
so much to God. These matters will be addressed in my next column.
Daniel Avila formerly served the Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts and now lives and works in the Washington, D.C., area.
