Articles by Patrick Einheber
Same-sex attraction and the language of public dialogue
Aug 13, 2013 / 00:00 amThree stories in the news last week have highlighted an ongoing problem in public dialogue about homosexuality. People of differing opinions seem to be using important terms interchangeably and this leads to confusion and miscommunication. The terms “gay” and “homosexual” seem to be used to connote either unchosen orientation/attraction (how someone feels) or chosen sexual behavior (how someone acts) in various contexts. But as I'll discuss, a distinction is very important.The first story reported the Pope's comments regarding non-judgement of gay priests, and the comments received the standard media treatment which seemed to imply a change in outlook or even Church teaching about homosexual behavior. In reality they were nothing of the sort. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear that “under no circumstances can [homosexual acts] be approved.” (CCC 2357) However, of persons who experience exclusively or predominantly same-sex attraction it says, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (CCC 2358) This points out that acceptance of a person does not imply acceptance of every action that person might choose. We unconditionally love and accept our children and therefore correct them when they choose something harmful. The Pope was saying that this acceptance must extend to priests with same-sex attraction who are seeking and obeying the Lord, even if they have sinned (with homosexual behavior) in the past, and that we can't be judgmental of them as persons because we're all sinners.The second story discussed San Antonio's proposal to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the city's discrimination ordinance, a change which some claim would be a danger to religious freedom and a violation of the Constitution by preventing disapproval of homosexual behavior. As a person who experiences same-sex attraction, I support legislation that prevents unjust discrimination based on sexual orientation. I didn't choose my orientation and I don't want to be discriminated against because of it. It is entirely appropriate to add sexual orientation to non-discrimination laws and ordinances, as long as the terminology involved is understood correctly. This action is distinctly different than seeking legislation (such as same-sex marriage law) which accepts, approves and attempts to equalize the choice of homosexual behavior. It's quite possible that those who drafted this change to the city ordinance mean to vilify those who oppose homosexual behavior, so great care must be taken when making general sounding laws and ordinances.Finally, the third story reported that gay athletes may face prosecution at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia because it's illegal to display gay pride there. This falsely implies that all those who experience same-sex attraction support homosexual behavior. Every person has the ability to choose their beliefs about sexuality and to order their life and behavior accordingly. A person's sexual orientation does not determine or dictate their beliefs and actions. It is possible and legitimate to reject homosexual behavior as immoral while still maintaining “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” toward those with same-sex attraction. In fact, it's so possible that a person such as myself who experiences same-sex attraction chooses to think this way.All this confusion highlights the need for better care and clarity in public dialogue when distinguishing between same-sex orientation (or attraction) and homosexual behavior. If we're to make progress in the language of love and respect while at the same time upholding traditional morality, we must grow more precise in how we speak about these things.Copyright 2012, 2013 Patrick Einheber -- patrick.einheber@gmail.com -- BeforeIFormedYou.com
Same-sex attraction and the language of public dialogue
Aug 2, 2013 / 00:00 amThree stories in the news this week have highlighted an ongoing problem in public dialogue about homosexuality. People of differing opinions seem to be using important terms interchangeably and this leads to confusion and mis-communication. The terms “gay” and “homosexual” seem to be used to connote either un-chosen orientation/attraction (how someone feels) or chosen sexual behavior (how someone acts) in various contexts. But as I'll discuss, a distinction is very important.The first story reported the Pope's comments regarding non-judgement of gay priests, and the comments received the standard media treatment which seemed to imply a change in outlook or even Church teaching about homosexual behavior. In reality they were nothing of the sort. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear that “under no circumstances can [homosexual acts] be approved.” (CCC 2357) However, of persons who experience exclusively or predominantly same-sex attraction it says, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (CCC 2358) This points out that acceptance of a person does not imply acceptance of every action that person might choose. We unconditionally love and accept our children and therefore correct them when they choose something harmful. The Pope was saying that this acceptance must extend to priests with same-sex attraction who are seeking and obeying the Lord, even if they have sinned (with homosexual behavior) in the past, and that we can't be judgmental of them as persons because we're all sinners.The second story discussed San Antonio's proposal to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the city's discrimination ordinance, a change which some claim would be a danger to religious freedom and a violation of the Constitution by preventing disapproval of homosexual behavior. As a person who experiences same-sex attraction, I support legislation that prevents unjust discrimination based on sexual orientation. I didn't choose my orientation and I don't want to be discriminated against because of it. It is entirely appropriate to add sexual orientation to non-discrimination laws and ordinances, as long as the terminology involved is understood correctly. This action is distinctly different than seeking legislation (such as same-sex marriage law) which accepts, approves and attempts to equalize the choice of homosexual behavior. It's quite possible that those who drafted this change to the city ordinance mean to vilify those who oppose homosexual behavior, so great care must be taken when making general sounding laws and ordinances.Finally, the third story reported that gay athletes may face prosecution at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia because it's illegal to display gay pride there. This falsely implies that all those who experience same-sex attraction support homosexual behavior. Every person has the ability to choose their beliefs about sexuality and to order their life and behavior accordingly. A person's sexual orientation does not determine or dictate their beliefs and actions. It is possible and legitimate to reject homosexual behavior as immoral while still maintaining “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” toward those with same-sex attraction. In fact, it's so possible that a person such as myself who experiences same-sex attraction chooses to think this way.All this confusion highlights the need for better care and clarity in public dialogue when distinguishing between same-sex orientation (or attraction) and homosexual behavior. If we're to make progress in the language of love and respect while at the same time upholding traditional morality, we must grow more precise in how we speak about these things.
Same-sex attraction and the specter of inequality
Jan 28, 2013 / 00:00 amWhen I first considered the question of whether civil partnerships or civil marriage should be permitted for same-sex couples, I wasn't quite sure how I felt about the subject. On one hand, I had my belief which has been informed by the Catholic faith. On the other hand, I questioned whether my own religious convictions should determine the civil law that applies to people of all different beliefs. As a person who experiences same-sex attraction, I personally have changed my opinion on the question of homosexuality over time and so I realize that there are people of good will who disagree on the subject.In order to consider the subject fairly, I decided that I must set aside particular judgments about the morality of homosexual behavior – not only Catholicism's which maintains that homosexual behavior is immoral, but also those of others that maintain that homosexual behavior is normal and acceptable. The question must be considered objectively based on the reason, knowledge and experience of civil society.What is Civil Marriage?I've heard same-sex marriage advocates describe marriage as building a life together, sharing love, sharing commitment, raising children, etc. While all these things are good and admirable, they cannot serve as the only definition of marriage or of a civil union equated with marriage.Marriage is recognized and incentivized by our society because it provides tangible benefits to society. And chief among these benefits is the creation of new members of society in a committed environment. It is because of this that marriage can be considered a true building block of society.Consider that a brother and sister, or a grown woman and her elderly mother, or even a whole group of people could build a life together, share love, share commitment, create children by means of medical procedures and provide a safe place to raise them. But we don't propose to extend marriage or its civil benefits and recognition to these and any number of other living arrangements. Why is that?It's because we realize that the sexual union is a critical component of what we're trying to recognize and protect. And why should the government and society be interested in recognizing and protecting a sexual union? Because the committed sexual union of marriage is the component specifically ordered toward the building up of society by the creation of new members – children.Some may assert that new members of society can be created in same-sex relationships with the help of technology. But that's kind of the point: In reality, those children are created in a lab by a third party wearing a white coat and goggles, not in the sexual embrace of a marriage. This feat of technology is completely independent of the individuals requesting it (other than perhaps some raw biological material) and is not accomplished or enabled by their relationship with one another. Now of course there are particular heterosexual couples that are not capable of having children and eventually people progress past their child-bearing years. But society recognizes the type of sexual relationship between man and woman as the one being capable of providing this benefit to society. A homosexual relationship is not ordered toward this benefit for society because of the lack of sexual complementarity on a biological level. Homosexual acts are fundamentally different from heterosexual acts because of these biological differences. So these two types of relationships and the benefits they produce for society are distinctly different and cannot not be equated even on a sociological level.Benefit to SocietyTo help explore this concept of benefit to society, I'd like to discuss another group of citizens that provide a benefit to society and are therefore granted special recognition and benefits under the law. These people are called veterans.When a person renders military service to this country, they are providing a particular tangible benefit to our society. We wouldn't say those people who are not classified as veterans or don't receive veteran benefits are being discriminated against. They simply do not provide this same service to society.Refusing to classify someone who has not rendered military service as a veteran is not a personal judgement nor does it make a statement about that individual's patriotism or worth to society. It simply means that veteran status is a special recognition and benefit for those who have served in a particular way. Reserving this status for those particular people is not unfairly discriminatory toward the rest of us, even if we desire to serve in the same way and are unable to do so.In the same way, marital status is a special recognition and benefit for those who are agreeing – in theory – to create new members of society with their committed sexual relationship. To reserve this status and recognition to those particular people is not unfairly discriminatory.In fact, I believe that creating an alternate form of civil union with the benefits of marriage will hurt marriage and society. Looking again at military service, if we changed the term “veteran” to apply to those who have not provided military service as a benefit to society and extended the associated incentives to others, we would actually be discouraging this commitment and sacrifice. By marginalizing and de-emphasizing the creation of new members of society as a foundational component of the committed relationship of marriage, we will actually discourage people from providing this service to society.Equality of PersonsThose who advocate same-sex marriage assert that all people must have equal rights. So let's consider what we've discussed. Heterosexual and homosexual behavior are not biologically equivalent and cannot be equated even on a sociological level. Keeping this distinction in mind let's examine the rights of individuals. Individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, already have the ability to civilly marry a person of the opposite sex. Individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, should not have the ability to civilly marry a person of the same sex because that is in reality a type of behavior and relationship different than marriage. This distinction between behaviors still preserves the same legal rights for everyone, across the board, regardless of orientation.Now some will say that's unfair. They will say everyone should have the right to marry the person they love. But I must bring up some of the uncomfortable realities of the world. Some people fall in love with close relatives. Others apparently fall in love with children. Still others may fall in love with more than one individual at the same time. We cannot claim that all of these people have a right to have their relationships equated with marriage out of a mistaken sense of equality.All men are created equal, according to the Declaration of Independence, not all behaviors and relationships.
Same-sex attraction and the vocation to love
Jun 21, 2012 / 00:00 amThe second column in this series explored the reason complementarity is an essential component of the way our sexuality is meant to image the love of God. One implication of this understanding is that homosexual acts prevent us from living in this image because they are by their very nature closed to possibility of creating new life. So where does that leave those of us who experience same-sex attraction and yet feel the desire to love and be loved? It may seem by its teaching on homosexuality that the Church is somehow telling some of us that we don't have a calling to love, but that's not the case. The Church's teaching about the love that all people are called to live can help us understand the different ways we can realize that love with our sexuality.The Call to LoveIn the encyclical called “Familiaris Consortio,” Pope John Paul II writes, “Love is ... the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being.” (CCC 2392.) This profound statement is very important for those of us who might be tempted to think the Church is somehow denying our desire and capacity to love by its teaching that precludes homosexual behavior. On the contrary, it is plain that the Church recognizes that love is intrinsic to our very existence as human beings. Our creation in the image of the loving God guarantees this reality. “Creating the human race in His own image and continually keeping it in being, God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion.” (CCC 2331.)And of particular relevance, the Church acknowledges that this love must involve the whole person and recognizes the spiritual dignity of the body and sexuality. “As an incarnate spirit, that is a soul which expresses itself in a body and a body informed by an immortal spirit, man is called to love in his unified totality. Love includes the human body, and the body is made a sharer in spiritual love.” (FC 11.)Considering the teaching of the Church that homosexual acts are contrary to God's plan, we have to ask how this inclusion of the body in the totality of love applies in a practical way to those of us with same-sex attraction.The Two VocationsAs mentioned in the first column, our love is meant to image the love of God which is the total gift of His very self to us, given in absolute freedom, in uncompromising fidelity, and in a life-giving way that bears fruit. That sounds like marriage.But as “Familiaris Consortio” also tells us, “Christian revelation recognizes two specific ways of realizing the vocation of the human person in its entirety, to love: marriage and virginity or celibacy. Either one is, in its own proper form, an actuation of the most profound truth of man, of his being 'created in the image of God.'” (FC 11.) Some people are called to marriage. But others “profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner.” (CCC 2349.)Celibacy, a committed renunciation of sexual activity, is an even better way of giving witness with our sexuality to the divine love in which we are all called to partake fully in the next world. In fact, “the Church, throughout her history, has always defended the superiority of this charism to that of marriage, by reason of the wholly singular link which it has with the Kingdom of God.” (FC 16.) When questioned about the particulars of marriage in Heaven, Jesus replied that “when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (Mark 12:25) “In virginity or celibacy, the human being is awaiting, also in a bodily way, the eschatological marriage of Christ with the Church, giving himself or herself completely to the Church in the hope that Christ may give Himself to the Church in the full truth of eternal life. The celibate person thus anticipates in his or her flesh the new world of the future resurrection.” (FC 16.) Such celibacy as a sign of this reality is exemplified in the lives of Jesus and Mary and is an important component of priesthood and the religious life.The Frustrated VocationAs good as it is to recognize the vocation of celibacy as a possibility, some people with same-sex attraction are fairly certain they're not called to celibacy. What does that mean for us?It's important to note that the Church teaches that people who experience same-sex attraction are called to chastity – the right use of sexuality – just as all Christians are, whether married or single. However, this does not necessarily imply a call to celibacy (to the exclusion of heterosexual marriage), even though it does require avoiding homosexual acts. So are those with same-sex attraction to just remain single and celibate by default?Sometimes people conceive of a third vocation which would apply to a person who just happens to find themselves living in a single, chaste lifestyle, as many individuals do today. But because our call is to love in a total and committed way and the totality of that love includes our body and sexuality, an uncommitted single state cannot be considered to fulfill our vocation to love and should be viewed as a merely transitional stage on the way to commitment.This can be a very difficult realization for individuals who haven't yet recognized a clear vocation to marriage or celibacy or haven't had an opportunity or ability to act on their discerned vocation for various reasons. But the reality is that sin and brokenness – in the world, in other people, and in ourselves – really can frustrate or delay our progress toward one of the two vocations.Same-sex attraction is one of the things that can present such a challenge, especially if we feel that desire to give ourselves to another person in a committed sexual relationship. It indeed may be that some of us with same-sex attraction are actually called to marriage with a person of the opposite sex and are experiencing attraction to the same sex as a great difficulty that can temporarily or indefinitely frustrate this vocation in this world.The Fruitfulness of CelibacyWhether we're actually called to celibacy or we're called to marriage and find ourselves living a celibate life because of difficulty or circumstance, we can look at the charism of celibacy for ways to bear the fruit of love.“Familiaris Consortio” reminds us that celibacy “does not contradict the dignity of marriage but presupposes it and confirms it...When marriage is not esteemed, neither can consecrated virginity or celibacy exist; when human sexuality is not regarded as a great value given by the Creator, the renunciation of it for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven loses its meaning.” (FC 16.) Even if we live a celibate life simply out of respect for Church teaching, we point to the dignity of marriage and the ultimate reality of love in Heaven.And celibacy makes us available to do God's work in a particular way we might not otherwise experience. St. Paul writes, “The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.” (1 Cor 7:32ff)Finally, celibacy allows us to love God and others in such a way that we can become spiritual fathers and mothers specifically by this use of our sexuality. “Virginity or celibacy, by liberating the human heart in a unique way, 'so as to make it burn with greater love for God and all humanity,' bears witness that the Kingdom of God and His justice is that pearl of great price which is preferred to every other value no matter how great, and hence must be sought as the only definitive value...In spite of having renounced physical fecundity, the celibate person becomes spiritually fruitful, the father and mother of many, cooperating in the realization of the [human] family according to God's plan.” (FC 16.) Wherever we find ourselves on the road to our vocation, we can have hope in God's plan for our sexuality and relationship with Him, trust in His love for us, and faith that our vocation to love will ultimately be realized.Copyright 2012 Patrick Einheber -- patrick.einheber@gmail.com -- BeforeIFormedYou.com
Same-sex attraction and life-giving complementarity
Apr 17, 2012 / 00:00 amIn the first column of this series, I wrote about living as a Catholic with same-sex attraction and contemplating the Church's teaching about the greatest good of sexuality as an image and participation in God's love. The column discussed how God's love is the total gift of His very self to us, given in absolute freedom, in uncompromising fidelity, and in a life-giving way that bears fruit.
Same-sex attraction and the choice for the greatest good
Feb 16, 2012 / 00:00 amA major part of my struggle as a Catholic who experiences same-sex attraction has been the difficulty of wrestling with my desire for the goodness of love, relationship and pleasure that seems to be denied me by the teachings of the Church about homosexual relationships. After all, aren't these things good and aren't we all entitled to them? Why would the Church, or more importantly, God, wish to deprive some of us of these things? The answer, although it may not seem obvious at first glance, is that they don't wish to deprive us of any goodness at all and in fact wish for our perfect happiness. So how then can we understand these apparently disparate things? I found the solution to this problem in a consideration of good and evil themselves, as the Church and the Bible describe them, and what it is that the good God wishes to give to us in our creation as sexual beings. It's not a simple answer, but it is a consistent, meaningful and beautiful one. Good and Evil