While reading through a relatively decent overview/article on the current controversy, I found a paragraph that I take some issue with, especially with regard to the question of 'faith vs. science/reason':
Ms. Pynchon makes a critical observation: “These religious beliefs (that sexual conduct outside of a one man-one woman marriage is sinful and can be “cured” by Jesus) are held by fewer and fewer Americans. They have also been repudiated by many liberal American Christian churches (including my own. -JM] They fly in the face of American secular legal principles [read as separation of church and state - JM] and contradict our contemporary scientific understanding. They are matters of faith, not science or reason.” What this author is summarizing is what is becoming the national story — that our individual DNA is our essence, and we treat our essence with respect. It’s similar to our other national stories, for example, that you don’t stone a woman to death for adultery.
Unfortunately, Ms. Pynchon, along with most other academics and voices in culture today, misunderstands the unity of the human person, and of a supernatural view of our universe.
For a Catholic, like myself, human sexuality—including the psychology, physiology, and even the ideas informed by my faith—is a matter entirely wrapped up in rational (scientific) understanding, and then improved and refined by my faith.
Catholics, at least (I can't speak for other religious affiliations), are encouraged to pursue reason, to study the sciences, to examine DNA, the genome, etc... but inside a well-formed philosophical mindset. One that has a comprehensive worldview centered around the dignity of the human person, as created by a loving and relational God.
Many people, who have the same idea of religiosity that Ms. Pynchon has, would dismiss me as a religious zealot who dismisses science and rationality.
But I do not. In fact, I'm pretty sure there are genetic dispositions towards different kinds of sexual behaviors and patterns—just as there are genetic dispositions towards such things as alcoholism, racism, elitism, etc. A genetic predisposition towards homosexuality does not make homosexuality a 'good' or a 'right,' or even 'okay' for some people. Just as with every other human behavior, a wider worldview must be used to judge the righteousness of a human action or behavior—including acting on homosexual tendencies.
All I'm asking, really, is for writers like Ms. Pynchon, John Martellaro, et all to at least lend an ear to my arguments, as I do them. Don't ignore my voice because I'm Catholic. That would be just as offensive and infantile as my ignoring them for being scientists.
Comments
Did you know about the book The Science Before Science by Tony Rizzo, PHD. referring to the fact that philosophy is totally missing in the field of science today; whereas, long time ago, science was just considered a part of philosophy. (at least that's my take on it) Dr Rizzo was on EWTN.
This is part of their mission statement from www.iapweb.org
The Institute for Advanced Physics is established to advance modern science in a balanced fashion that does not leave behind the correct philosophical foundations, nor the proper moral and spiritual components.
No, I hadn't heard about it - sounds like a good book, though!
How does one fall to such falsehoods as the promise of religion, become so entrenched in an ideology as to spurn at groups, groups displaying behaviours far out dating his own, while claiming he believes in science juxtaposed to his own beliefs?
The rather explicit insinuation that ‘homosexual tendencies’ can be chosen to be ignored is offensive; far more offensive than the explicit truth that a lack of acceptance of homosexuality is a matter of faith and ideology rather than science and reason.
This is a pretty old article on the site, and I'm guessing by the title (haven't read through it) it would not be deemed 'culturally appropriate' these days. However, I think a good discussion about religion and sexual morality in modern society would be better had over a cup of tea than any Internet forum.
I think it may be time to give this one a thorough re-read, then. Regardless of what role religion plays here, this article is hitting well above the paygrade of 'culturally inappropriate', and not in a way that a disclaimer regarding its age makes it deserving of civil discussion.