Jung Patricia Beattie - Sexual Diversity and Catholicism

I t is simply a matter of fact that in the United States we discriminate as a matter of public policy on the basis of sexual identity. We give preferential treatment in a variety of ways to heterosexual people and treat gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people (hereafter GLBT) prejudicially in regard to jobs, housing, credit, and public accommodations. Though this discrimination is often accompanied by, and is certainly reinforced by homophobia, fear and hatred are not always the driving force behind these policies. Sometimes what undergirds them is the heterocentric conviction that there is something wrong withthat is, either imperfect, defective, diseased, or downright evil abouthomosexual desires and activities. Because people are divided in their basic moral evaluation of homosexuality in particular, and about sexual diversity in general, they are divided about how to respond to the differential treatment based on sexual identity inherent in many of our public policies.

Through its official teachings on homosexuality the Roman Catholic Church sends mixed signals in regard to such heterosexist policies. On the one hand the Church has repeatedly and unambiguously condemned verbal abuse of and violent attacks against GLBT people.

Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church has clearly taught that at least some types of discrimination based on sexual orientation should be dismantled. In 1976 the bishops of the USCC taught that gay people like everyone else should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community.

On the other hand, because the Roman Catholic Church clearly advocates a heterocentric sexual ideal, it endorses some forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation. This should come as no surprise. These mixed messages do not come from an incoherent or confused teaching but from carefully nuanced distinctions informing a quite consistent teaching. And while there is much room for debate, even among conservative Catholics, about how this heterocentric ideal might best be applied in our particular cultural context, it is important to recognize that this normative framework establishes at least the possibility that some heterosexist policies might be deemed not only just but morally required. Thus when the Vatican issued the PCHP in order to combat what it perceived as a growing confusion about its teachings about homosexuality and related issues, the Church reiterated its traditional position that no one has any conceivable right

Though generally considered less authoritative in status, the Vaticans SCC declares that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not only just but morally required in several arenas: specifically noted were policies regarding the placement of children for adoption and foster care, the employment of teachers and athletic coaches, military recruitment, and even housing (especially when the rights of GLBT people are compared to the needs of genuine families). Landlords are described as expressing a legitimate concern when they screen potential tenants on the basis of sexual orientation. Why? Because the Vatican presumes GLBT people (like those with contagious diseases, it is suggested) pose a real threat to the common good. Specifically, the Church teaches that they recruit youth and attack the institution of (heterosexual) marriage and family.

Again, while some of these specific applications of official Church teaching on homosexuality were not well received by some Catholics in the United States, many believe that at least some forms of heterosexist discrimination are not only justified but morally required. Many U.S. Catholics believe, for example, that our present marriage laws are a paradigmatic example of a legitimate instance of just discrimination or differential treatment based on sexual orientation; by pooling their discretionary funds the bishops of several Roman Catholic dioceses in California became the largest single donor in support of the Knight Initiative (which would ban same-sex marriages in California.) The many benefits and protections associated with marriage make it clear that much is at stake in the contemporary debate about the civil licensing of same-sex marriage.