Grace & Peace!
I want to be clear, Mark, in order to talk about this. and I apologize if I’m being dense, but would you please ask your question in plain English?
Michelle, you’re not being dense in the least, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.
When a person says “same-sex attraction is objectively disordered,” what does that mean? It’s not a moral prescription or proscription–it doesn’t tell you what you should or shouldn’t do, though it certainly has moral implications and is based on certain moral principles which are, in fact, related to ideas of what you should or shouldn’t do. So what are those moral implications? How is the idea meant to impact my life and its living? I would argue that we can grasp what it means by imagining what living a life informed by it would look like.
So bearing authentic witness to the idea (“same-sex attraction is objectively disordered”) requires a certain way of living. What those requirements are, what that way of living looks like, is informed by where the idea comes from, the philosophical and theological presuppositions on which it’s based, the moral tradition of which it’s a part, etc. So when we imagine what living a life informed by this idea would look like, we’ll be imagining
most truthfully when we take into consideration (to the best of our ability) all these various elements which inform the idea. And we’ll constantly return to these elements to clarify our picture, because once we get a better grasp on what the sort of life the idea inspires looks like, we’ll be in a better position to evaluate the contours of that life within the larger framework of which the idea itself is a part. The principle at work here is that the larger framework is constitutive of a form of narrative, and the idea under discussion should embody that narrative in a particular way which supports or informs it (the narrative).
This kind of narrative should lead us (in part at least) to an apprehension of what a morally good life looks like, and the idea under discussion should point us in that direction. We should be able to recognize the contours and features of virtue in the life we imagine based on this idea. If we discover that the life we’ve imagined is morally repugnant or unreasonable in some way (which is to say, by analogy, that it does not fit within the narrative), then either we’ve imagined incorrectly, or there is something wrong with our understanding of the narrative or the idea.
Our opinion of the narrative is immaterial. Whether or not we agree with the idea under discussion is irrelevant. The narrative articulates values which the particular idea should mirror. The narrative leads us to understand what a virtuous life looks like which the particular idea should help us realize.
So that’s more or less what I meant–a way of evaluating an idea which takes the idea and the context in which it’s found seriously not in order to dismiss it (!) but in order to understand it. A lot of my early posts on this topic (of homosexuality) betray a real foolhardy confidence in my own evaluation of my knowledge of the Roman Catholic teaching surrounding it. As you can imagine, I find some of those posts rather embarrassing and cavalier in their conclusions. I’ve since learned that if I was going to understand the RCC teaching and it’s practical implications, I’d have to try to do so on the teaching’s own terms, not mine. I may disagree with it when all is said and done, but at least I will understand it, respect it, and know precisely why and how I disagree. In the meantime, my
opinion of one thing or another is of little value, but what and how I am thinking about the topic will, maybe one day, be worth something.
(For a bit of background, let me say that I’m a fan of Hauerwas’ work, and one of the things he talks about as key to how we live our lives is a cultural narrative which articulates a series of values to which we are expected to bear witness if we desire to live authentic/truthful lives informed by the narrative. The shape of the narrative will necessarily inform or determine how we understand our place in our community, our nation, how we formulate morality and make moral choices etc. For Hauerwas, the Gospel is the narrative which forms the Christian community–Scripture is a record of that unfolding narrative. Recalling the stories of our narrative is a moral act and a political act because such recall puts us in touch with the deepest values of our community and serves to sustain and perpetuate the community. That recall is not always flawless, however–how we tell a story affects how we hear it, which accounts, in part, for the many divisions within the larger global Christian community.)
Did you read my article in this month’s issue of Catholic Answers Magazine?
No, but I wanted to very much. I saw the thread you started about it some time ago and wanted to read what you had written so we could discuss (and I do mean discuss, not argue or debate!). I tried looking for it, but I couldn’t find it. Like Dakota, I thought it was an online resource, but I gather from the substance of Elizabeth’s (strangely hostile) post on the topic that it isn’t. Do you know where I can get a copy of the magazine?
Thanks, Michelle.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
