Justice Anthony Kennedy has one thing in common with Father Scalia: They both believe that human dignity is important.
Here is Justice Kennedy, overturning DOMA in U.S. v. Windsor:
The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.
And here is Father Scalia:
. . . we should not predicate “homosexual” of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations.
Paul Scalia is a Catholic priest, and it is his formulation of the issue that crystallizes what the right thinks they are arguing over, far better than his Justice father’s dissent in Windsor.
Many of us at IGF agree that “collapsing personhood into sexual inclination” can be problematic. Human beings are more than their sexual desires and actions.
But Scalia goes further. In praising Fr. John Harvey’s decision to not use the phrase “sexual orientation” at all, he tries to eliminate the notion that there can even be homosexual people:
This reflects the increased appreciation for the fact that homosexual tendencies (to use a term from magisterial documents), do not constitute a fixed, unchangeable aspect of the person and therefore should not be considered an “orientation.” Further, the term does violence to a proper understanding of human sexuality. Either our sexuality is oriented in a certain direction (i.e. toward the one-flesh union of marriage), or it is not. We cannot speak of more than one sexual “orientation” any more than we can think of the sun rising in more than one place (i.e. the orient).
This is not a question of placing sexuality in the context of other parts of your identity, it is the denial that sexuality can even be a part of a person’s identity. Sexuality transcends identity. It is, itself, the natural order over which humans have (or should have) no proper choice. It simply is, like the sun.
In contrast, Justice Kennedy not only accepts that some people identify as homosexual, he posits that it is up to them to choose what part sexuality plays in their identity, and, within the confines of a constitution premised on individual liberty, concludes that the federal government has no power to discourage or punish that exercise of self-definition. Americans may choose to let their sexuality dominate who they are, or may give pride of place to their ethnicity or profession or style of dress or nothing at all. That’s up to them.
The Catholic Church, which by definition, is composed only of fellow believers, has the ability to decide for itself what forms of identity it will accept, what brands of human freedom it finds intolerable. This is as difficult a task for them in the modern world as it is for Islam or any other religion that prefers to adhere to a chosen orthodoxy, but that is their choice.
But the U.S. Constitution’s insistence on liberty includes the liberty of self-creation. Americans — and not only Americans — have taken that to heart. And that includes some people whose identity includes religion. Here is rapper Mr. J. Medeiros:
I don’t know what it’s like to be gay. I do know what it’s like to love someone in a way that only a marriage can describe. I do know what it’s like to have an identity. To believe these things should be denied to roughly 9million people living in the US (or the much greater number worldwide) does not sit well with my conscience. The same conscience that brought me to seek my God in the first place. I am a Christian who supports gay rights.
Choosing an identity, having an identity — this is a natural part of liberty. Marriage, as a most deeply personal act, cannot help but be an important part of how anyone presents themselves to the world. Any institution, whether government or religious, will struggle mightily to interfere in something so bound to the self.
The constitution limits the federal government’s folly in trying. In that, Windsor may restore a measure of the government’s own dignity.
H/T to The Dish for the cite to Mr. J. Medeiros.
17 Comments for “Dignified”
posted by Houndentenor on
Okay, that was just surreal.
Justice Kennedy is acknowledging that some people fall in love and bond with people of the same gender and should be afforded the same rights as people who fall in love with those of a different gender.
Scalia Jr is denying validity of the same thing. His claim that he denies this to protect the dignity of such persons is a big steaming pile of crap. He doesn’t respect the dignity of people whose primary attractions are towards the same gender as he does not support equal rights under the law and within the church for such individuals.
Yes, Scalia (father and son) are free to believe whatever big bag of bullshit they want. That is actually none of my concern. But when they interfere with the rights of others, then that very much becomes our business. Fortunately I am not, and never have been Catholic. I have worked in Catholic churches but I choose now not to associate with an organization that is unrepentantly disrespectful to me and people like me in addition to ongoing criminal activity (see: recent admissions of hiding money to avoid paying legal judgments against them which any person working for a non-religious organization would go to jail for). But what that church teaches matters not to me. It is, however, completely nonsense and I find it odd to find a gay person (or whatever you want to call yourself) celebrating it as if it were insightful.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Father Scalia is one among roughly 40,000 parish priests in the United States, serving as the pastor of an Arlington, Virginia parish.
His is a conservative/traditionalist take on current Catholic teaching regarding gays and lesbians, within the boundaries of Catholic teaching but on the conservative/traditionalist end of that teaching. Within that framework, Father Scalia says nothing that has not been said hundreds of times before by Catholic clergy, and says nothing that he has not said before in conservative Catholic journals.
His views would not be notable — and certainly not news — but for the fact that he is the son of Justice Scalia.
If the point of the post is to point out that “like father, like Father”, it seems to me to be pointless. If the point of the post is to track current Catholic teaching with respect to gays and lesbians, it seems to me that the utterances of the Vatican or the Catholic Bishops in the United States might be more germane.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I think there a couple of salient points here about Messrs. Scalia — first the wording of the elder Scalia’s dissents (and public comments) clearly repeat those of the son’s ministry… the so-called “Courage” ministry: gay people do not exist. Period.
Hence all the dancing around trying to come up with wording that demeans gay people and reduces them to mere sex acts — which can be erased, thereby closing the loop.
Gallileo all over again.
But as Rachel Maddow noted when she took down Ralph Reed a couple of Sundays back — they (the Scalias, Reeds, Robertsons, et al) have been trying for decades to make gay and lesbian people not exist… but it hasn’t worked. And it won’t work, because we do exist. We’re not going away. And decisions like Kennedy’s are proof that he (and pretty much the majority in this country now) understand that reality.
posted by Jorge on
If the point of the post is to track current Catholic teaching with respect to gays and lesbians, it seems to me that the utterances of the Vatican or the Catholic Bishops in the United States might be more germane.
Possibly. But they’re pretty good at silencing anything that dissents from their teaching. Pay attention to whether or not this guy gets censured.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Pay attention to whether or not this guy gets censured.
I will, but I can’t imagine why Father Scalia would be censored. He was speaking to a officially sanctioned Catholic lay organization, and, as far as I can tell, he said nothing that is not within the boundaries of current Catholic teaching.
posted by Jorge on
Then what he says is relevant.
posted by Houndentenor on
What exactly has Scalia said here that contradicts current Catholic teaching?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As far as I can tell, Houndentenor, Father Scalia said nothing that contradicts current Catholic teaching.
Jorge’s comment about censure might suggest that Father Scalia is running amok, but if you read the entirety of Father Scalia’s remarks, and compare those remarks to the relevant sections of Chapter 2, Article 6 of the Catechism (the “Sixth Commandment”), which discusses the nature of human sexuality, including homosexuality, you’ll find that Father Scalia’s remarks are well grounded in the current teaching of the Church, as expressed in the Catechism, the official teaching document of the Church worldwide.
It would, in fact, be a trivial (if time-consuming and to my mind, time-wasting) effort to annotate Father Scalia’s remarks with the relevant sections of the Catechism.
Father Scalia, in this respect, is not throwing any bombs. His understanding of the Catechism in this regard is informed and mediated by his particular Catholicism — conservative with a traditionalist slant — but his understanding is within the boundaries. He is not running amok.
My problem with David’s post and the attention that has been given to Father Scalia’s remarks in general is that the level of attention paid to Father Scalia’s unremarkable remarks is unwarranted. If he were Father Jones rather than Father Scalia, his remarks to Courage would not have caused an uproar.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge’s comment about censure might suggest that Father Scalia is running amok, but if you read the entirety of Father Scalia’s remarks, and compare those remarks to the relevant sections of Chapter 2, Article 6 of the Catechism
I do not mean to suggest he is running amok. I simply wish to rebut your statement that it would be more relevant to consult the Vatican. To me that suggests a dismissal.
I would say, rather, that if the Vatican says nothing, one should take his statements as having the backing of the Church. The Catechism is a list of principles. It is meant as a doctrinal guide and is particularly addressed to priests. It is not meant as a practical guide for all times and places (this is something that distinguishes the Catholic Church from some other religions). The Catholic Church means literally the Universal Church. But because the world has different cultures and practices, to specific questions that arise in a regional context, priests and bishops will give specific answers. There is also a significant role in the individual faithful in understanding the Commandments and applying them to their own lives.
I had a similar conversation some time ago regarding a bishop from the Phillipines who advised that it was legitimate for a gay man and a lesbian to marry each other, whereas most people think the Church wants gays to be celibate. In fact the Catechism is silent on which of these two forms of “chastity” gays should practice.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I simply wish to rebut your statement that it would be more relevant to consult the Vatican. To me that suggests a dismissal.
What I actually said was ” If the point of the post is to track current Catholic teaching with respect to gays and lesbians, it seems to me that the utterances of the Vatican or the Catholic Bishops in the United States might be more germane …”, which is to say that if you want to know what the Church teaches, don’t hype a speech by a priest into national news, but look instead to those who have teaching authority in the Church.
The Catechism is a list of principles. It is meant as a doctrinal guide and is particularly addressed to priests. It is not meant as a practical guide for all times and places …
Granted. But the Catechism isn’t just another document, Jorge. In authorizing use of the Catechism, John Paul said:
The Catechism, read in concert with the Council documents and Encyclicals it references, serve as an authoritative standard — the “sure norm for teaching the faith” — against which the statements of priests and lay Catholics can be judged.
That’s how I used it in this case.
posted by matheo972 on
yes, exactly.
posted by Mike in Houston on
And one more thing, the language the Father Scalia uses as part of the “Courage” ministry are a big tell… like something that has to be repeated over and over to oneself if you happen to be a so-called “ex-gay”.
I’m not saying that he is, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he weren’t three toe taps away from being sent to another ministry in a remote area.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
As a Catholic myself I can say that the faith and the institution often reflect the best and worst of humanity (often at the same time). Although, the institution tends to reflect the worst or (at least) the meanest.
It was before my time (late 1970s), but some older Catholics tend to lay much of the blame for the Catholic Church — as an institution — on the death (murder) of a certain pope. He was pushing for anti-corruption investigations, he wanted to give more of the Church funds/lands for social justice and might have (had he not died) expressed official support for birth control and possibly (again speculation) a saner policy on women and gays.
posted by Shadow Chaser on
FYI … I believe Fr. Scalia is a member of Opus Dei. Enough said.
posted by Lori Heine on
J. Medeiros represents a growing number of Christians who are standing up and speaking out against anti-gay bigotry. They recognize that it has nothing to do with Christianity, or with human dignity.
I’m not much of a rap fan, but I’ve just become a fan of his.
Opus Dei is an organization every bit as loony as the Taliban. It bears about as much likeness to mainstream Roman Catholicism as the Taliban does to mainstream Islam.
When a radical cleric in the Middle East makes a hateful comment about gays, the FOX News crowd tries to make it sound as though he speaks for all Muslims everywhere. But when a nut like Scalia Junior says basically the same sort of stuff, they take him seriously.
But — omigods — the Sharia-fication of America!
These people were born without an irony gene.
posted by Houndentenor on
The same thing happens in all sorts of ways. Some loony radical feminist publishes something in some academic journal only read by a couple dozen other loony radical feminists (and a bunch of interns in right-wing think tanks) and suddenly they are quoted as representative of everyone to the left of Ted Cruz. Imagine if someone tried to make it sound like Fred Phelps represented mainstream Christianity! that’s how strawman this sort of thing is.
I’m just baffled as why this Scalia-ito article was quoted here. He’s not for gay rights in any way. Maybe I’m missing the point or Mr Link needs to learn to form a thesis statement.
posted by Kosh III on
“Scalia Jr is denying validity of the same thing. His claim that he denies this to protect the dignity of such persons is a big steaming pile of crap. ”
In other words, the turd doesn’t fall far from the ass.(to borrow an apple/tree analogy)
Though I have respect for individual Catholics, I have no use at all for the decadent, corrupt and power-hungry institution.