I appreciate Dave's thoughts (found below) on Mr. Alison's lecture"From Impossibility to Responsibility: Developing New Narratives for Gay Catholic Living", however I would like to submit an alternative take on the issue.
While I had hoped that Mr. Alison’s presentation and the faculty responses would be informative and edifying, I was greatly disappointed. I take objection to Mr. Alison's lecture (and the venue as a whole) in three areas, namely, it was an 1. offensive, 2. biased, and 3. radical affront not only to the moral teachings of Holy Mother Church but also to the millions of Her children: bishops, priests, religious, and faithful, who authentically hold, teach, and live the Catholic faith.
Beneath Mr. Alison’s serene eloquence existed a self-evident animosity towards Church teaching and Church hierarchy. Subtly but undoubtedly, insults were hurled as Church officials were portrayed as willfully ignorant and out of touch, at best, and, at worst, as modern-day Pharisees. Yet, the most offensive, unprofessional, and tactless insult came in Mr. Alison’s characterization of some Church officials as “closeted self-loathing gays” using homosexuals as a scapegoat to justify their own moral superiority. Such blatantly anti-Catholic rhetoric has no place in any serious institution of higher learning, let alone one that claims to embody the values and identity of the very Church that Mr. Alison so viciously attacked.
Of even greater concern than Mr. Alison’s tastelessness was the dearth of any positive or fair presentation, by any of the speakers, of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. The reasoning for this absence seemed evident enough in Mr. Alison’s lecture as well as in the overall tone of the evening, namely, that there is no need to represent the Church’s position because that position does not merit a defense, as it is the stuff of old men in robes at the Vatican, clinging desperately to their anachronistic, discredited ideologies of fear in some feeble attempt at self-righteousness. While Mr. Alison was quick to quote Archbishop André-Joseph Leonard’s arguably poor choice of words, he failed to make much reference to the Church’s call for all to respect and love homosexuals, the Church’s invitation to homosexuals to live in the freedom of Christ through chastity, nor to the Church’s efforts at outreach to homosexuals.
A critical examination and debate of differing views is certainly necessary in a University, yet providing a lineup of speakers that is of one mind hardly achieves that end. Furthermore, couching the event as Catholic without providing a truly authentic Catholic voice, faithful to Church teaching, not only diminishes this University as a Catholic and Jesuit institution, but also leads to confusion and scandal among those in attendance. Wednesday’s program was not as much about dialogue and discussion, which is certainly necessary, as it was about providing a platform for a very radical agenda that seeks to undermine Catholic morality and theology.
It is this agenda and the Church's teaching which ultimately carry the most weight and provide the substance of the debate itself. The general premise underlying Mr. Alison's argument was the idea that science has given us a clear and definitive answer as to the root and nature of homosexuality. While Mr. Alison frequently referred to this "anthropological fact" he did not once cite a natural or social scientific study to support his central premise. A quick google search on the matter shows that work has been and continues to be done in search of a "gay gene" to prove homosexuality's genetic origins. Yet, other equally relevant theories abound including ones regarding biochemical influences during development in the womb as well as social and developmental factors (or "nurture" as it were). The fact is, there exists no scientific consensus to which Mr. Alison alluded. However, the existence of such a consensus matters not.
While discovering the cause of homosexuality may be a great achievement for science, it will have little if any impact on Catholic moral teaching. Such teaching is based on Scripture, which outlines God's plan for human love in the Creation Story, and on observation of the Natural Order of Creation, or what could be termed "Natural law". Nature points to the inherent complementarity of Male and Female and Scripture reinforces this point. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, teaches that this complementarity and the natural attraction resulting from it, finds its ultimate end and fulfillment in Holy Matrimony, wherein "a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two fo them become one body" (Gen 2:24).
Holy Matrimony is, in other terms, a covenant of love. Love is the key term here. The Church teaches that marriage (this covenant of love) has two ends: The good of the spouses and the procreation of children (see CCC 1601). Many would submit that a homosexual relationship would be for the good of the two parties involved. Yet, the fact remains that such a relationship bears no fruit, thus failing to fulfill one of the two necessary characteristics of this covenant of love, and in the end, failing to fulfill the human person seeking authentic love.
Does such authentic love necessitate the bearing of fruit? To answer, we look to God who is Love himself, who is a Communion of Persons, that is, the Trinity. The love between the Father and the Son is so great that it exists as its own person, the Holy Spirit, proceeding form the Father and the Son. Thus, the complementary attraction between male and female, which finds its fulfillment in Holy Matrimony, mirrors the divine Communion of Love, the Trinity. Therefore it is not sufficient to merely regurgitate slogans "if two people love each other..."; one must critically examine what the elements and ends of such love are, which Natural law and Scripture through the teaching of the Church tell us to be unity and procreation.
Given that homosexual attraction fails, by nature, to exhibit any procreative aspect, it is unnatural, it is disordered and it is contrary to God's plan for human love, as I outlined above. Mr. Alison couch's the Church's teaching on this matter as viewing homosexuality as a "pathological disorder" although I have never seen such a phrase in a Catechism or Church document. This brings me back to my original point that whatever science discovers will have no bearing on the Church. Whether science labels homosexuality as a psychological disorder, a product of environment and development, the result of too much or too little of a hormone in utero, or a genetic trait, it will remain contrary to God's plan for human love.
There seems to be a hangup over the idea that if only homosexuality were proved to be the product of genetics, the Church would relent, as if the genetic code were somehow the Word of God. There exists many disorders that result from genetics. This is not because God somehow programed these things into our DNA, but rather because we live in a fallen world. Thus we can say that homosexuality is a result of that fallen world, as are all disordered inclinations (including those of a heterosexual nature, or prideful nature, or greedy nature...). We know that homosexuality is not part of God's plan for human love because Sacred Scripture illumines for us what is by accounting for reality before the Fall of Man.
While we say that homosexuality homosexuality is an objective disorder, I do not liken it to a disease or necessarily to a pathology. I'm not sure that there is a metaphor that corresponds exactly but I would offer two ways of looking at it:
1. Homosexuality is a disordered inclination much like lust (again, including disordered heterosexual tendencies), greed, jealousy, anger etc. These are all very universal to the human condition as a result of fallen nature. The inclination, or concupiscence, is not sinful in itself as it is beyond our will. Yet just because something is not sinful (sin implies knowledge and will), does not mean it is as God originally designed it.
2. Since the theme of genetics is so popular, homosexuality could be likened to the inclination towards alcoholism, which has been shown to have a genetic link. Some suggest this is not a valid comparison because alcoholism is a self destructive behavior while homosexuality is not. First it is important to distinguish between an inclination or even genetic predisposition and an action. Secondly, I would submit that acting on the inclination of homosexuality is self-destructive because it runs contrary to God's plan for human love. This self destruction may not be immediately apparent because one feels he is finding fulfillment in the consummation of his desires and inclinations. Yet, as with heterosexual lust, the unchecked acting out of every desire, even in the name of love or fulfillment, is, in fact, self destructive, principally because it runs contrary to God's plan. Conforming one's passions to the Divine plan is the means by which one finds both true fulfillment and freedom.
It is exactly this, the conforming to the Divine plan, which the Church instructs homosexuals and heterosexuals alike to do, principally through the cultivating the virtue of chastity. In the case of the former, the Church seeks not to "fix" as if a disease existed, but rather to offer the means by which one can have greater union with Jesus Christ in this life, and ultimate union with him in the next. Holy Mother Church therefore recommends to homosexuals the sacraments of Confession and Eucharist as means of strengthening one against temptation and assisting in the conformance to God's will. The Church also emphasizes the important role of friendship, family and the Church community in the lives of homosexuals. It is important to again note that while the Church teaches homosexual tendencies are disordered, the homosexual is not in any state of sin until he acts upon such tendencies. Thus, neither God nor the Church rejects homosexual people in anyway. The Church recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of each individual and the need for respect and compassion for all. She therefore clearly denounces all bigotry, violence etc towards homosexuals.
While the Church does run many outreach programs to homosexuals, I agree with Mr. Alison in his point that She needs to do more (however, I'm sure we would disagree on the nature of such programs). I think we are starting to see a trend in this direction however, with Bishops conferences giving directives on pastoral initiatives for homosexual persons. Thus, while the Church lovingly embraces all of her Children and gives them the means of sanctification and salvation, She will not waver in her moral teachings despite any pull of popular opinion, new scientific information, or even elements within Her that have their own agendas that are contrary to Her true and holy teachings.