• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

USA Scalia's Son Says Homosexuality Doesn't Exist, Plans To Address Group That Encourages Lifelong Absti

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
Scalia's Son Says Homosexuality Doesn't Exist, Plans to Address Group that Encourages Lifelong Abstinence for Gays

SUBMITTED BY Brian Tashman on Tuesday, 7/2/2013 2:25 pm

Courage, a Roman Catholic group that encourages gays and lesbians to live lifetimes of abstinence, is planning to hold its annual summit this month at the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill., which will include a speech by Fr. Paul Scalia.

Paul Scalia, son of Antonin Scalia, is a Roman Catholic priest affiliated with Courage, a group that "ministers to persons with same-sex attractions," according to its website. He is also a featured speaker at Courage's annual summit, taking place this year between July 25 and July 28 at the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill.

Paul Scalia is the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and his involvement in Courage is well known.

The conference’s website lists Scalia as “the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Courage apostolate” and says he will speak on “Fearing the Lord ... and Not Being Afraid.”

Courage also points to an article Scalia wrote for the Fall 2012 edition of Humanum: Issues in Family, Culture & Science, in which he reviews three books authored by Courage founder Fr. John Harvey.

Scalia’s piece claims that critics of homosexuality are being silenced and mistreated, while in “this radical transformation of society, one of the greatest casualties is the individual who experiences homosexual attractions but who desires to live chastity.” He adds that it is unfortunate that Harvey used the term “homosexual person” since according to Scalia, those people do not exist: “We should not predicate “homosexual” of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations.”

After hailing Harvey for having eventually “ceased using the term “homosexual” or “homosexual person,” Scalia goes on to claim that many people have “have found freedom, to varying degrees, from homosexual attractions” and deny that people have sexual orientations: “Homosexual tendencies (to use a term from magisterial documents), do not constitute a fixed, unchangeable aspect of the person and therefore should not be considered an “orientation”…. Either our sexuality is oriented in a certain direction (i.e. toward the one-flesh union of marriage), or it is not.”

Consider how swiftly American society has changed as regards homosexuality. The “Stonewall riots,” the touchstone and unofficial beginning of the gay rights movement, occurred in June 1969. Since then, the demands from the gay community have progressed from simple tolerance, to acceptance, to the right to marry, to now the silencing of any opposition as bigoted and “homophobic.” Those who once insisted on tolerance for their lifestyle will now tolerate no disagreement. Society now requires everyone’s approval of what not long ago was regarded as morally abhorrent.

In this radical transformation of society, one of the greatest casualties is the individual who experiences homosexual attractions but who desires to live chastity. He finds, on one hand, the homosexual community encouraging him to live out his sexual desires, to claim his gay identity, to embrace the lifestyle, and so on. Worse, even some in the Church will encourage him to do so. Unfortunately, among those to whom he turns for help, he may find insensitivity, ignorance, misunderstanding, or simply an unwillingness to help. This individual is caught in the crossfire of the broader battle. He suffers great loneliness and often despair in the face of a struggle that some see as futile and others ignore.

In these books Father Harvey repeatedly articulates and explains the principle that guided his work and the work of Courage – namely, the distinction between the person and his homosexual attractions or tendencies. Those who advocate the goodness of homosexual acts and lifestyle do so because they identify the person – always a good – with the homosexual inclinations. They therefore conclude that such inclinations must be good and so also, of course, the actions. Likewise, those who feel shame and loneliness do so precisely because they have come to identify themselves (their very persons) with their same-sex attractions, which they know (both intellectually and affectively) to be wrong. The work of Courage (and of the Church as a whole) turns on the person/attraction distinction. We can fairly summarize that work as distinguishing the person to be loved from the attractions to be resisted and even overcome.

In this regard we must note the unfortunate title The Homosexual Person (and therefore also the unfortunate title of the CDF document). In short, we should not predicate “homosexual” of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations. The chronology of the books helps us to see the development in this area of language. Indeed, the Church is still trying to find the right vocabulary to speak about this modern phenomenon. Thus in his last book, Father Harvey ceased using the term “homosexual” or “homosexual person.” His thought and ministry brought him to realize that it is better to speak of someone with “same-sex attractions.” Although lacking brevity and ease of speech, this phrase has the virtue of precision. It acknowledges both the person/attraction distinction and the complexity of the condition – not fairly summarized as an “orientation.” Which brings us to another matter of vocabulary.…

Father Harvey’s use of the term “orientation” also underwent a deserved change. In his first two books we find the use of this word to describe homosexual inclinations or attractions. In the last book, however, he deliberately avoids it. This reflects the increased appreciation for the fact that homosexual tendencies (to use a term from magisterial documents), do not constitute a fixed, unchangeable aspect of the person and therefore should not be considered an “orientation.” Further, the term does violence to a proper understanding of human sexuality. Either our sexuality is oriented in a certain direction (i.e. toward the one-flesh union of marriage), or it is not. We cannot speak of more than one sexual “orientation” any more than we can think of the sun rising in more than one place (i.e. the orient).

Indeed, one of Father Harvey’s contributions is his discussion of the possibility for healing of homosexual attractions. He deftly navigates the extremes (on one hand, that change is impossible… on the other hand, that it is morally obligatory) to present the simple truth that many have found freedom, to varying degrees, from homosexual attractions. Thus we cannot speak of it as a fixed, unchangeable, unchanging “orientation.” (For this reason also the Church made a similar correction in the second edition of the Catechism, removing unfortunate language that implied homosexuality is a fixed orientation.)

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...ns-address-group-encourages-lifelong-abstinen

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/04/paul-scalia-homosexuality-antonin-scalia_n_3543284.html
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
Spnadmin ji,

Guru Fateh.

Judging, prejudging are two intertwined words especially among the lifetime members of The SCOTUS. These people become old in their ideas with time. They are like the old oil lit dim lamp posts trying to shed some light on a street corner. Justice Scalia is one of those lamp posts.

There is always a lot of hue and cry about the protection of the constitution without understanding the changes it needs with time. I want them to have term limits so the fresh minds can infuse some updated energy in the patinaned mindsets.

Now coming back to the Junior Scalia, Il Sacredote- The Priest. Allow me to steal Harry ji's wit about "the blind man in a dark room trying to kick a black cat that does not exist".

If denial becomes the cornerstone of any religion, then the religion becomes the blind man kicking the non existent black cat. This is what is happening, especially in the Catholic Church who has been fighting against the objective reality of nature since the time of Galileo.

It is sad to know that they did not learn anything from the slogan "Just say no" coined by Nancy Reagan. I am sure she must have used it often when Ronnie was one virile stud of Hollywood.

Fighting against the nature is a very ungodly endeavour in any aspect and abstinence is that nature's thorn stuck in their behinds. Pun intended.

After the Doma decision by the SCOTUS, one could see in Justice Scalia's dissent the bitter defeat laced with homophobic epithets. He could see the light at the end of the tunnel of darkness and showed how painful it was for him to accept reality.

All these right wingers who were for Doma must have some choir boys/girls in their own families. Chief Justice Robert's cousin is a lesbian and I saw her interview on TV after the decision.

It is about time the Religiousos of the world came to grips with the queer phenomena of the nature. It would make their lives a lot gayer in a happy manner.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
 
Last edited:

Harry Haller

Panga Master
SPNer
Jan 31, 2011
5,769
8,194
54
It is about time the Religiousos of the world came to grips with the queer phenomena of the nature. It would make their lives a lot gayer in a happy manner.

We should send them all to a little camp to air their differences
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Tejwant ji

Thanks for your insights, wise as usual. Coming up with ersatz cures and controls for homosexuality has no connection at all to the constitution, specifically the DOMA strike-down by the court. Rather the other way around, meddling with sexual orientation is at odds with the 14th amendment. All epithets aside, Scalia could not stand a loss on a topic that is ingrained by his own religious orientation. He therefore should try harder than the others to separate church and state. DOMA imposed unequal treatment - ON A TAX MATTER - on gay couples who had been joined in civil union in their home states. The states not the federal government set statutes that cover marriage and civil union.

Logic dictates that if atheists or anyone other than a gay person, joined in a civil union, are recognized as legally "married" by the federal government, all should enjoy equal protections. So it would be true for tax considerations; so it would be true for anything else. Otherwise the law is being applied unevenly. That was the point of the recent court decision put in simple, simplistic terms.

Religious convictions had no place in the decision; nor should they have a place. In a secular society marriage is a contract. Sanctifying that contract with a religious ceremony is a choice not a requirement.

It is no secret that DOMA was invented to exert prejudice against LGBT couples, and only a matter of time before things came to a boil. The majority opinion upheld the principle of equal treatment under the law; and it preserved the rights of states to decide on matters of marriage and civil union, under the 10th amendment. The same characters who are screaming about the Supreme Court decision, are also the characters who scream that the federal government has usurped the power of the states. Less federal government they say! They cannot have it both ways.

Sorry to all for the lengthy rant.
 
Last edited:

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

Top