|
One of the reasons
is who is writing antigay arguments these days, and the 'theoretical framework'
that they are using. The case for the persecutors seems to wholly consist of
conservative Catholic authors and academics, rather than fundamentalist
Protestants. I haven't come across any new antigay literature from formerly high
profile fundamentalist and conservative evangelical publishing houses like
Baker, Inter-Varsity Press or Moody for quite some time now. Instead, it all
seems to be emanating from would-be defenders of archaic, premodern and
prescientific "natural law" theory. As I've explained in the past, "natural law"
theory is a misnomer, for it is actually based on the logically rigorous but
evidence-devoid work of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, refracted
through eighth century Catholic philosopher Saint Augustine and twelfth-century
Catholic academic Saint Thomas Aquinas. These frameworks tended to use surface
observation and when stronger visual technologies like telescopes and
microscopes, and the scientific revolution and its methodical pursuit of testing
theories and outcomes dawned from the seventeenth century onward, most of the
western world left them behind. The Catholic Church was mired in the
Counter-Reformation and rejected the development of science, a state of affairs
which lasted until the mid-sixties. In other words, "natural law' theory is not
based on direct observation of nature through use of methodical scientific and
medical frameworks, theories and procedures, but on abstractions which often
turn out to be erroneous on closer scientific analysis and examination. Thus it
has proven with abortion and homosexuality- mainstream science doesn't back up
conservative Catholic dogma or arguments from natural law theory. Therefore,
given that 'natural law' is scientifically flawed and erroneous, it is nothing
more than a sectarian and sectional religious philosophy. Therefore, it should
not be used as a basis for public policy and legislative reform in a pluralist,
multicultural and secular society like contemporary New Zealand.
Because 'natural
law' theory is a theoretical deadend, any non-Catholic reader encounters
repeated restatements of the non-scientific and pre-scientific misrepresentation
of homosexuality and transgenderism within such volumes. Broadly speaking, the
framework is this. Homosexuality is a variation from the "natural" act of
reproductive heterosexuality, and heterosexuality "must" be reproductive and
open to childbirth, so contraception and abortion are "forbidden". Therefore,
homosexuality is "unnatural" because it "defies" the heterosexual "essence" at
the core of human sexuality, and is an "objective" moral "disorder." Therefore,
male homosexuality should continue to be criminalised, lesbians and gay men
should not be included within anti-discrimination laws, nor should our
monogamous relationships or parental responsibilities be protected under
legislative safeguards. This is endlessly repeated, over and over again, within
conservative Catholic natural law dogmatic literature. This is largely the fault
of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and unhappily, Pope Francis is little
different when it comes to 'natural law.' John Paul II was the product of
Poland's conservative Catholic subculture and he reacted against the scientific
and medical corroboration of abortion rights and LGBT legislative reform across
the western world when he became pontiff in 1978. Thereafter began a long and
tiresome record of harassment, censorship and marginalisation of opposition to
"Thomism" within the Catholic Church, its clergy organisations, affiliated
universities and hospitals, resisted by liberal Catholic clergy, laity and
organised dissident groups like the pro-choice dissident Catholic group
Catholics for Free Choice and Catholic LGBT organisation Dignity in the United
States.
Let's take a
practical example to demonstrate what I mean. At the Catholic University of
America, there has been yet another attempt to misrepresent same-sex parenting
as "flawed and inferior" to the real thing. For a change however, the culprit is
not University of Texas conservative Catholic sociologist of religion Mark
Regnerus, although predictably, he gives a glowing testimonial to its
'advantages.' This time, though, the culprit is one Father Donald Sullins, a
married (!) Catholic priest and sociologist who just happens to be affiliated to
the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, which further happens to be a
subsidiary of the antigay US Family Research Council. Predictably, though, if
anything's an inferior replica, it is this "research project." Why? Well,
there's no background data about family composition and the definition of
same-sex couples is ridiculously broad and poorly defined in operational terms.
So it "proves" absolutely nothing, as one might guess. It merely conflates
same-sex families with "unstable" ones merely because a priori natural law dogma
tells it to
Fortunately, at
least when it came to LGBT legislative reform, the Catholic Church doesn't have
a strong academic infrastructure compared to North America, Australia or Western
Europe. While "natural law" antigay polemic is available in university libraries
and Catholic bookshops, it is virtually ignored, both by non-Catholic New
Zealanders and liberal Catholics alike. However, as one could note in Family
First's arguments against marriage equality and transgender rights, 'natural
law' found a second home as conservative Catholics and fundamentalist
Protestants have collaborated against abortion rights and LGBT legislative
reforms, especially within the United States. However, such repetitive polemic
is pointless. It is actively prescientific and no match for the work of
mainstream medical and scientific evidence-based research that we have at our
disposal. Essentially, then, "natural law" is nothing more than an intellectual
ghetto, or an 'iron curtain' of dogma that prevents conservative Catholics and
allied fundamentalist Protestants from critical analysis and evaluation of their
non-scientific/anti-scientific subcultural views about human sexuality and
reproductive health.
I've listed the
predominant work from these ideologues before, but I don't recommend that anyone
actually read all of such repetitious fare. Once you've encountered a single
'natural law' condemnation of homosexuality, you have virtually read it all,
such are the endless dogmatic, subjective and unfounded assertions.
Recommended:
Mark Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in
Medieval Catholic Theology: Chicago: University of Chicago Press:
1997.
John Cornwall: The Pope in Winter: The Dark
Face of John Paul II's Papacy: London: Viking: 2004
David Yallop: The Power and the Glory: Inside
the Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican: New York: Carroll and Graf:
2007.
Nicholas Bamforth
and David Richards: Patriarchal Religion, Sexuality
and Gender: A Critique of the New Natural Law: Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press: 2008.
Tracy Rowland: Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology
of Benedict XVI: Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2008.
David Gibson: The Rule of Benedict: Benedict
XVI and His Battle With the Modern World: San Francisco: Harper: 2006.
Zack Ford: "Conservatives seize on hugely flawed 'study' about same-sex parents" Think Progress: 10.02.2015:http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/02/10/3621375/regnerus-sullins-same-sex- parenting/
Not Recommended:
Robert George: Conscience and Its Enemies:
Wilmington: ISI Books: 2013.
Robert George: In Defence of Natural
Law: New York: Oxford University Press: 2001
Robert George: Clash of Orthodoxies: Law,
Religion and Morality in Crisis: Wilmington: ISI Books: 2014
David Forte: Natural Law and Contemporary
Public Policy: Washington DC: Georgetown University Press: 2012.
Alexander Pruss: One Body: An Essay on Christian
Sexual Ethics: Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press:
2013.
Robert Reilly: Making Gay Okay: How
Rationalising Homosexual Behaviour is Changing Everything: San Francisco:
Ignatius Press: 2014.
Gerald Bradley: Essays in Law, Religion and
Morality: South Bend: Saint Augustine's Press: 2013.
