Authentic Freedom and the Homosexual Person | Dr. Mark Lowery | IgnatiusInsight.com
Authentic Freedom and the Homosexual Person | Dr. Mark Lowery
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/mlowery_homosexuality1_jun07.asp
The tragic impasse that exists in our culture on the issue
of homosexuality stems from two errors.
On the one hand, many moderns have
embraced an autonomous view of reality: "I can do what I want as long as it
doesn't hurt anyone else." According to such relativism, homosexual acts are
perfectly legitimate so long as they are between two consenting adults. In
stark reaction to such subjectivism, many others embrace a moralism that easily
turns venomous when it vilifies and demonizes: "Homosexuality is wrong because
God said so" (and nothing more). The distinction between the homosexual
condition and homosexual acts, if added at all, is added as an afterthought.
This view, opposite that of autonomy, could be termed heteronomy, because God's law is understood to be extrinsically
and somewhat arbitrarily placed upon man with a seeming lack of concern for
actual experience of the persons involved.
Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor (art. 41), distinguishes the Catholic moral outlook
from these two erroneous positions. He labels the Catholic view a "participated
theonomy." If for autonomy there is no law, and if for heteronomy the law is to
be followed because God said so, for participated theonomy the moral law is
something friendly to our being, something built for our genuine fulfillment
and for our authentic freedom. The law is not true because God commanded it;
rather, God commands it because it is true. When we use our free will to align
our lives with this truth, we possess authentic freedom.
What does this mean for the debate on homosexuality? It
means that the truth about human sexuality is something that ultimately offers
genuine freedom to the homosexual person, helping him to escape the slavery to
his passions that resulted from the misuse of his free will. This is a truth
that, with true compassion, reaches out to the homosexual person in his
desperation. Although that person may not be aware of it, he is crying out for the
truth. When the response from our culture is heteronomous and mean-spirited, he
recoils, and takes false comfort in a worldview that espouses autonomy. The
Church and society must offer the truth, and offer it in the right way, the way
of participatory theonomy.
A Pastoral Context: Participatory Theonomy
It won't do to start with a good logical argument, using
the data of reason and revelation. Such arguments will occupy a central
position in the overall Catholic approach, this article included, but only
after a compassionate pastoral approach has laid the proper foundation. As
Frank Sheed said somewhere, "Win an argument, lose a convert." We must start
with the human person in his existential experience. [1] The first way to do
that is to be very careful with our terminology. Let us never use the word
"homosexual" as if it defines a person. Let us use either that phrase "person
with a homosexual orientation," or "the homosexual person." [2] To always use
the word "person" emphasizes that we are speaking about someone who possesses
an inviolable dignity. Even more importantly, let us never use the word "gay"
in reference to a homosexual person. No one is gay. "Gay" is the (unfortunate)
word foisted upon us for those who have chosen a particular lifestyle. Such a
choice entails a misuse of one's freedom, a misuse that puts the person in a
desperate situation. There are ways out of this desperation--no one is
constituted as "gay."
A pastoral approach recognizes that "desperation" is
precisely at the heart of the homosexual person's experience. Often that
desperation is hidden behind the cries of liberation of those who, misled by
the gay rights movement, have "come out." Often it is hidden by the false
claims of that movement that "gay is normal" and by political activism. [3] We
could respond to that boldness in kind, but far better to take the high road
and see it instead as a cry for help.
Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg has shown how homosexual
attraction is not just a variant on heterosexual attraction. It is something of
a different kind, accompanied by symptoms of depression, jealousy and
restlessness. [4] There is no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is caused
genetically, though there could be a genetic predisposition toward
homosexuality. As Christopher Wolfe has noted, ". . . if [homosexuality] really
were genetic, it would have almost certainly died out, or at least be
continually declining. Homosexuals reproduce at much lower levels than the
general population . . . . So if homosexuality were a genetic trait . . . it
would be found in a smaller and smaller percentage of the population." And, ".
. . if homosexuality were genetic, then in all sets of identical twins where
one was homosexual, the other would be, too." [5] On the other hand, one cannot
prove that the orientation is caused environmentally, but all the evidence
points in that direction. [6]
That evidence turns out to be good news, freeing news. For
with the right help, many people can repair their orientation, fully or to some
degree. A fine book from Ignatius Press--The Battle for Normality by van den Aardweg--offers a "self-help" method, and
an organization called NARTH (National Association for Reparative Therapy for
Homosexual Persons) is committed to helping individuals find competent
professional help.
There are a good number of theories about environmental
causes, theories that have tested positively in clinical practice. These myriad
theories all have a slightly different slant to them, but they also hold much
in common and are in many ways compatible with one another. [7] At bottom,
homosexuality seems to result from fragmentation within the child/father/mother
relationship, and the deepest need of the homosexual person is to repair that
fragmentation. As Joseph Nicolosi notes: "Realizing the true needs that lie
behind our unwanted behaviors, we gain a new understanding . . . the reparative
drive--the unconscious attempt to 'repair' masculine incompleteness--is the
deepest transformative shift . . . [T]he client realizes: 'I do not really want
to have sex with a man. Rather, what I really desire is to heal my masculine
identity.'" [8] I want to participate more fully in the meaning-laden nature
that has been given to me, and which has sadly been distorted. Participatory
theonomy, in other words.
Reparative therapy, however, should in no way be presented
as a requirement for the homosexual person. It is an option. What is required
is a noble effort to live chastely. Fr. John Harvey founded Courage, a vast
network of support groups, precisely to help people in this task. It is
important to realize that everyone has difficult struggles in life, and that we
need one another to help handle them. We can make a basic distinction between
the raw material each of us brings to the moral life, and the moral life itself
in which we make good or bad choices. All of us are disordered in some way and
to some degree in our "raw material"--sometimes psychologically, sometimes
physically, sometimes spiritually. [9] These constitute objective disorders,
one of which is the homosexual inclination. [10]
We are welcome to make prudent decisions about repairing
our damaged raw materials, whether through therapy or medical intervention. But
we all are aware that we cannot, this side of the Eschaton, somehow
psychotherapeutically and medically engineer perfect raw material. That is a
utopian illusion. We do well to mediate on St. Paul's thankfulness to God for
giving him a "thorn in his flesh" that made him constantly aware of his utter
dependence on God. Then, we can take our damaged raw materials, make prudent
decisions about which ones to repair, and live with the others.
In a certain sense, this perspective puts everyone on an
even playing field. The homosexual person does not have a disorder that puts
him in a separate category from other fragile and finite human beings. [11] We
all have our respective crosses to bear--we all suffer from the primal disorder
of concupiscence--and we all have the capacity to do as we ought, particularly
with the grace of Christ. [12] "What is at all costs to be avoided is the
unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual
persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable." [13]
Put another way, we really are free. This is not a
"pretend" freedom or a "toy" freedom but the genuine article. A "let's pretend"
freedom would give us the nice feeling that we really do make some free
choices, about what to eat and what to wear, for instance, but that when
something really challenging is at stake we're not really free. We could not be
truly responsible for our actions, since the complexity of life renders such
responsibility impossible.
From the opposite angle, when a large-scale challenge
comes our way, the great gift of freedom cries out to be used, and used
properly. Our human dignity comes from the proper use of our freedom (authentic
freedom), especially in the midst of the more staggering challenges of our
lives. These challenges must be faced with the damaged raw materials of our
lives--homosexuality being one such instance. But regardless of the challenge,
we find our true dignity in the midst of meeting it, right in the midst of that
noble effort in aligning our lives with the natural law and with God's
revelation.
The next part of this article deals respectively with
those two sources of truth. Both are eminently reasonable and
sensible--friendly to our being--in the personalist perspective of
participatory theonomy outlined here. Apart from that perspective, the arguments
that follow will appear as extrinsic, heteronomous impositions that destroy the
uniqueness of the individual person. Within that personalist perspective, these
arguments can play an integral role in both reparative therapy and living
chastely.
The Natural Law
In the contemporary debates on homosexuality, many are
tempted to start with an appeal to divine revelation, whether understood from a
Catholic or a Protestant perspective. But if you start there, you will rightly
be criticized for "pushing your religion down someone's throat," which is
disallowed in a political order like ours that prizes religious liberty. We are
free to practice any religion or no religion, but we cannot violate the natural
law, that moral law to which we are co-natured and which is accessible to
reason. That is, we participate in this natural truth intuitively, and it makes
eminent sense.
One hallmark of the Catholic tradition is that it prizes
such arguments that take place on the level of reason alone. The important
principle at work here, enunciated best by St. Thomas Aquinas, is that grace
does not cancel out nature, but presupposes and perfects it. The data of
revelation then both reaffirms the natural argument and adds additional data to
it. That additional data, derived from the twin sources of revelation
(Tradition and Scripture), is impressive and enriching, and fills in for
Christians the full rationale for the teaching against homosexual acts. But
even without that data, a good argument can be made based on the natural
law.
Many people claim that "you can't legislate morality." A
bumper sticker says, "Get your laws off my body." However, our nation's
founding documents appeal to the natural law as the cornerstone of our
political order ("nature and nature's God"; "We hold these truths to be
self-evident . . ."). We want lots of diversity in the U.S., but a fundamental
unity on the principles of the natural law. "In God We Trust" is not foisting a
religion on anyone, but rather reminding us that God has given us natures and
the natural law for their flourishing. All good civil laws are based on the
natural law. Bad laws are based on a different moral system, like relativism or
utilitarianism. Either way, we legislate morality; the only question is which
morality ought to be legislated. The new law allowing "civil unions" in Vermont
is not neutral. It amounts to legislating a very specific moral code--sheer
relativism.
What exactly is the natural law argument against
homosexual behavior? A number of points must be kept in mind. First, we must
emphasize that the natural law is, in a sense, within us. It is not an
extrinsic imposition. Rather, it is a truth placed in our being by the Creator,
allowing us to participate in the wise plan of the Creator--hence,
"participatory theonomy." Second, we shouldn't think of the natural law as
first and foremost identical to our biological laws. The "nature" in natural
law is our human nature. The laws of our biological nature turn out to be very
significant in grasping the natural law, but they are not the sum total of the
natural law. If they were, we would be reduced to animals who must follow their
biological instincts. Instead, the natural law makes use of biological laws,
but it personalizes them, in that it sees the deep personal meaning that is
hidden in our biology. The encyclical Veritatis Splendor speaks of anticipatory signs and rational
indications inhering in our biology. [14] As persons, we are capable of
"mining" this deep personal meaning that inheres in the body. Animals can't do
this, which is one reason we can euthanize animals--they can't discover and
freely align themselves with the deep personal meaning that lies within their
"biological clock." Human persons can. We discover our dignity in so doing.
That is why the slogan "death with dignity" is so inappropriate.
It is just as inappropriate for the homosexual person to
"do what he wants with his body." The body speaks a language that we must
listen to; we either live the truth or live a lie. The human generative faculties
are not built for homosexual types of acts, and such acts cause serious
disease. This gives us a big hint, [15] written on our biological nature, that
there is a profound meaning to our biological heterosexuality. Personal meaning
is bound up with biological facticity--an integralist view of the person as
opposed to a separatist view. The integralist view sees the person as a unity
of body and spirit, whereas the separatist view sees the person as standing
over and against the body, the body representing raw material that can be
manipulated according to the individual dictate. According to the separatist
view, I can treat the body just as I see fit--no transcendent meaning inheres
in it.
Our generative faculties carry twin personal and
transcendent meanings within them. The language they speak to us is that, if we
are to live in accord with our dignity, we must use these faculties to express
permanent love (the unitive meaning) and to create children (the procreative
meaning)--in short, bonding and babies. Homosexual acts sever this
all-important link between the unitive and the procreative meanings. Precisely
because of this connection, contraception, adultery and fornication, as well as
new birth technologies like surrogate motherhood and artificial insemination,
also violate the natural law.
Consider the unitive meaning. When we rule out permanence,
we are treating the other as disposable rather than non-substitutable. Only a
permanent (as well as exclusive) union befits or is commensurate with the
dignity of each spouse. A permanent and exclusive union states boldly that the
other is not an object that can be replaced or substituted, but a person of
inviolable worth. When a couple makes the commitment of marriage, they say to
one another, and their conjugal acts say to each other, "You are irreplaceable
to me" and "Only to you will I give my whole self." Divorce or adultery or
serial polygamy, then, stand as statements that the partner isn't irreplaceable
after all. And in so saying, the inviolable dignity of the other is
violated.
Why can't two committed homosexual persons have this
permanence? Consider: why is it that in heterosexual marriage, violations of
permanence are the exception rather than the rule, while in homosexual
partnerships, violations are the rule rather than the exception? This is not to
say that heterosexual relationships are immune from such fragmentation;
numerous heterosexual persons lead lives just as promiscuous as many homosexual
persons. But when heterosexual persons fragment the unitive aspect, they are
simultaneously arbitrating against the procreative element, using
contraception, or at least acting with a contraceptive mentality, or resorting
to abortion. Better for them to say, "We shouldn't be having babies together,
so we shouldn't be uniting sexually with each other." Permanence and
procreativity go together, heterosexually.
Homosexual acts by their nature arbitrate against the procreative dimension. (Note
the natural law argument presented here is just as critical of contraception as
it is of homosexuality.) In both cases, the conjugal act is turned into a
different kind of act; the generative faculties are used in a way contrary to
their natural inextricably connected ends of unity/procreativity. In short, permanence
is driven by procreativity. When children are ruled out, the unity of the two
turns inward upon itself instead of opening outward. Homosexual relationships
do not have the character of permanence because this particular reason or end
for permanence is missing. It is true that permanence is a value in and of
itself, but it is a value connected to procreativity.
Couples who struggle with infertility are poignantly aware
of how intrinsic the procreative dimension is for their own commitment. They
are profoundly honest in listening to and responding to the language of the
body, and hence are courageous witnesses of that language. Listen to them: they
tell us that profound permanent unity, valuable in itself, is connected to
children. Some factor from the outside, beyond their control, prevents them
from having children. But their permanent unity is a procreative kind of unity,
their conjugal acts are procreative kinds of acts. (In this sense, their
progeny is procreativity itself.) They could turn to the new birth
technologies, but here too they listen to and affirm the language of the body.
The conjugal act, profoundly unitive, is a procreative kind of act, and the
gift of the child is to be profoundly linked to the spouses' incarnate gift of
self in that conjugal, not merely copulatory, act. Infertile couples can shock
us out of our complacency, our tendency to think of the child as a right. They
know supremely what we tend to see dimly, that the child is a gift. That's how
God works through human nature, and that nature itself is a gift of the
Creator--hence, we say that bodily nature speaks a transcendent language to us.
The infertile couple sees this giftedness all the more poignantly through the
lens of their pain, and hence more boldly than others they proclaim the truth
of participatory theonomy. The homosexual person likewise can profoundly
proclaim participatory theonomy: marital friendship is itself a great gift, not
a right. The fallen condition--which is the root of all disorders--is said to be
somewhat of a felix culpa, a happy
fault; the distortions that result from it make us more aware than ever of the
giftedness of nature. Our fallenness alerts us to and orients us toward
participatory theonomy, the voice of God speaking through nature, a voice
deeply respective of our personal dignity.
Data from Divine Revelation
Thus far we have focused on the natural transcendent
meanings that inhere in the body, particularly in the generative faculties.
Revelation--Scripture and Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium--takes us
a step further by placing the male/female relationship in a liturgical context.
A properly ordered heterosexual relationship is a liturgical event because it
is a mirror image--a sacrament--of the covenant between God and mankind,
between Christ and the Church. Many biblical texts point to this imaging
(Hosea; Isaiah 62:4-5; Jeremiah 7:34, 31:31; Psalm 88:26; Mt 9:15; John 3;
Ephesians 5:32; Revelation 21:2) The unity of the spouses images God's
permanent and exclusive unity with his people, and the procreativity of the
spouses images God's generosity, particularly the outpouring of his own
Trinitarian life into our being (grace). In short, the body speaks the language
of the covenant. Since the covenant between God and man culminates in the
redemptive work of Christ, sacramentally re-presented in the Eucharist, there is a close reciprocity
between marriage and the Eucharist. The Eucharist is marital (God marries his
people) and marriage is Eucharistic (a sacrament of the covenant). The language
of the body is not only natural, it is also sacramental.
It is due to this profoundly personal sacramental meaning
of the body that we find a consistent teaching about homosexuality in the Bible
(Gen 3; Gen 19:1-11; Lev 18:22 and 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9; Rm 1:18-32; 1 Tim 1:10)
and throughout the Catholic tradition, wherein this teaching is infallibly
taught by the ordinary universal episcopal magisterium. But again, homosexual
acts are not wrong because of this consistent pattern of teaching; rather, this
pattern is consistent precisely because homosexual acts are not friendly to our
nature. Our very being partakes in God's loving plan, and his law, rather than
being capricious and heteronomous, reflects that plan. The Judeo-Christian
tradition must be articulated through the lens of participatory theonomy.
It is in this context that the arguments of John Boswell
and others are best met. They argue that there is no ethical condemnation of
homosexual acts in the Bible. Rather, the condemnations must be seen in the
light of ritual impurity--homosexuality is condemned because of its use in
cultic worship practices, as found in Canaanite religions and then imitated in
ancient Israel. The best way to meet Boswell's argument is to grant for a moment
that the Old Testament prohibitions refer to idolatrous worship practices, that
homosexual acts are wrong because they are used liturgically in false worship
of false gods and goddesses. That's just the point--homosexual acts are, in a
sense, in and of themselves "liturgical" acts, inextricably reflective of
idolatry. These acts are wrong precisely because they are "inverted
sacraments." Just as the ethical conduct in an ordered marriage images the
covenant, so too the unethical conduct of homosexuality is a false image for
the covenant, or images a skewed understanding of man's relation to God. The
reason why sexual practices are used culticly (sacramentally) is precisely
because that ordered or disordered ethical activity itself is an image of the
true or false relationship between man and God. In response to Boswell, then,
we can say that the Old Testament does not condemn ritual usage of
homosexuality, leaving other uses to the side. Sexuality speaks a "liturgical"
language, and thus to condemn the ritual usage of homosexual acts is to condemn
homosexual acts in themselves. Most importantly, the condemnation is not a
heteronomous end in itself; it points us, along the route of participatory
theonomy, to the full sacramental/liturgical outgrowth of respecting the
natural language of the body.
The Societal/Legal Dimension
The homosexual rights movement asks, "Why can't you just
let us do what we--consenting adults--want to do? How does that harm you?" Any
criticism of homosexuality is presented as tantamount to unjust discrimination.
You are suddenly committing a crime as heinous as racism or sexism. The answer
to this objection must be made from within the framework of participatory
theonomy.
Although it looks like we are speaking of freely chosen
activity between consenting adults, that is only half the picture. Anyone who
succumbs to activity contrary to the natural law does not, in a certain sense,
really want to do so, and hence he does so "involuntarily," using that word in
the deepest sense. Of course the person has free will, and his act will be
voluntary in the sense that it stems from that will. But he is using his free
will wrongly, not in accord with his nature. This wrong use is in the context
of his disorder--hence, the sense of desperation. He feels he wants to act
contrary to nature, but he doesn't need to; it is not in his best interest as a
person; it can't make him authentically free. That is why we say to our
friends, "You don't really want to do
that" right at the moment they are "voluntarily" doing something contrary to
their nature as persons. Participatory theonomy shatters the illusion by which
we tell ourselves, "Consenting adults can do what they want, as long as its
voluntary and as long as they don't hurt anyone else." It isn't authentically
free, and it is profoundly harmful.
The rewards society offers to married couples must be seen
in this light. As Michael Pakaluk notes: "Because the friendship of marriage
results in children, and it is a burden of sorts to raise children, and because
society benefits greatly if this is done well, it is usual for society to
separate out the friendship of marriage from other friendships, to give it
special recognition, and to award it distinctive benefits." [16] If society
were to give similar benefits to homosexual persons, then it would have to give
the same benefits to any sets of friends that so desired them! Instead, society
tries to protect what is in everyone's real
best interests.
To grant a special set of rights to homosexual persons
would work against those real interests. Crimes violating the legitimate rights
of homosexual persons are intolerable. "But the proper reaction to crimes
committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual
condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual
activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to
protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church
nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and
practices gain ground, and irrational eruptions increase." [17]
As the saying goes, no one has a right to do what is
wrong. "What is wrong" is that which is unfriendly to our nature, that which
short-circuits our full participation in the meaning-laden nature given to us
as embodied human persons. The homosexual person may initially recoil at the
perspective presented here, but that is because he easily confuses human nature
with what "feels natural" or what "comes naturally"--in his case, the powerful
desire to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same sex. He is only
following the cue given by secular culture, which has bombarded him since
adolescence with the view that human fulfillment is tied to whatever form of
sexual "satisfaction" "comes naturally." By habitually following what "comes
naturally" he has used his free will wrongly, and has become enslaved. The path
out of this desperation, toward authentic freedom, comes in participating in
the caring plan that God has built into his nature, and participation made
possible by the shining grace of Christ who has "set our freedom free from the
domination of concupiscence." [18]
This article originally appeared in Catholic Dossier (March/April 2001).
ENDNOTES:
[1] The strategy is analogous to that of the pro-life
organization CareNet. Their research found that the excellent arguments offered
by the pro-life cause for the personhood of the human fetus did not meet the
existential situation of many women considering abortion, who perceived the
unborn child, despite his personhood, to be a threat to their lives.
[2]
This is the suggestion of Fr. John Harvey, a genuine modern-day hero when it
comes to genuine care for homosexual persons. His most recent book is The
Truth About Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996).
[3]
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association reversed its designation of
homosexuality as a disorder, under pressure from the National Gay Task Force.
See Elizabeth Moberly, "Homosexuality and Hope," First Things 71 (March 1997), 30-33, at 30.
[4]
William Main, "Gay But Unhappy," Crisis
(March 1990), 32-37, at 36. This is an excellent summary of van den Aardweg's
insights. His most accessible book for the laymen is Homosexuality
and Hope (Ann Arbor: Servant Books).
[5]
World, May 20, 2000, 51-54. See the work
of Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), especially chapter 5 on
twins.
[6]
Jeffrey Satinover, "The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?" in
Christopher Wolfe, ed., Homosexuality and American Public Life (Dallas: Spence, 1999), 3-61.
[7]
See Fr. John Harvey, The Truth About Homosexuality, chapter 4, for an excellent overview of the many
practitioners.
[8]
"The Cause and Treatment of Homosexuality," Catholic World Report (July, 1997), 51-52.
[9]
See the excellent chapter in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity called "Morality and Psychoanalysis."
[10]
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, On the Pastoral Care of
Homosexual Persons, no. 11. Hereafter PC.
[11]
This realization might play an important role in reparative therapy itself, as
a central antidote to the sense of "self-pity-become-neurotically habitual"
that some theorize is one of the central causes of the disorder. See Main, "Gay
But Unhappy."
[12]
PC, no. 11.
[13]
PC, no. 11.
[14]
See Veritatis Splendor, nos. 47-53, the
pope's response to those theologians who claim that Catholic teaching regarding
sexual morality succumbs to a brute biologism whereby moral laws are
automatically spun out of mere biological laws. The heart of Catholic moral
teaching does not fallaciously deduce a moral "ought" from only a biological
"is."
[15]
As Richard John Neuhaus notes ("Love, No Matter What," in Wolfe, Homosexuality, p. 245), most people are disgusted, in an intuitive
and pre-articulate way, by "what active homosexuals do." So too are many among
the 2 percent of the population that is homosexually oriented. (The 10 percent
figure from the earlier Kinsey Report was fallacious.)
[16] "The Price of Same-Sex Union," Catholic World Report (July, 1997), 49. Also see Family,
Marriage and "De Facto" Unions, Pontifical
Council for the Family (2000).
[17] PC, no. 10.
[18] VS, no. 103.
Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Excerpts, & Interviews:
• Homosexual Orientation Is Not a "Gift" | James Hitchcock
• Can I Quote You On That? Talking to the Media About Homosexuality and the Priesthood | Mark Brumley
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley
• Marriage and the Family in Casti Connubii and Humanae
Vitae | Rev. Michael Hull, S.T.D.
• Viagra: It's Not Just for Old Guys Anymore | Mary Beth
Bonacci
• Practicing Chastity in an Unchaste Age | Bishop Joseph F. Martino
• Kinsey: Dedicated Scientist or Sexual Deviant? | Benjamin Wiker
Dr. Mark Lowery
teaches moral theology at the University of Dallas. His articles have appeared in
scholarly journals such as Communio, Faith and Reason, the Catholic
Social Science Review, and the Irish
Theological Quarterly, and in such popular
periodicals as the New Oxford Review, The Catholic Faith, Homiletic
and Pastoral Review, Envoy, and Social Justice Review. He is the author of
Living The Good Life:
What Every Catholic Needs to Know About Moral Issues (Charis, 2003).
Visit
the Insight Scoop Blog and read the latest posts and comments by
IgnatiusInsight.com staff and readers about current events, controversies,
and news in the Church!