Good intentions aren't enough

Thoughts on sexual morality

A recent post by OCA Archpriest Geoffery Korz (Conservative vs. Liberal Clergy?) was described on Twitter as “Your must read of the day.” While I agree with him that we can’t impose the liberal/conservative division on the Church his rhetoric is frequently sloppy.

For example, he says that

Any priest or bishop who expresses the teaching of the Church, as it is outlined in the Scriptures, the Canons, the Church Fathers, and all of Holy Tradition, is not “conservative” – he is simply Orthodox, following the traditions of the Church.

 Any priest or bishop who does otherwise is not Orthodox.

The first paragraph is fine as far as it goes. The second paragraph is simply wrong. Someone who deviates from the teaching of the Church might be mistaken or even malicious but he is still an Orthodox Christian.

What Orthodox is first and foremost Holy Baptism. Adherence to dogmatic or moral teaching is important secondary. If it weren’t then we couldn’t baptize and commune infants or children.

Again, a bad Orthodox Christian is still an Orthodox Christian.

The author’s assertion toward the end of the post is also well intended but sloppy.

Any priest or bishop who draws his teaching for moral, medical, psychological, and family decisions strictly from the Holy Tradition of the Church – the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers – is not “conservative”: he is simply Orthodox.      

Any priest or bishop who gives weight in teaching on these areas to the “enlightened” teachings of the human intellect, believing them to be much more progressed than the Holy Tradition of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers is not “liberal” – he is simply not Orthodox. 

Yes, by all means, let us follow the teachings of the fathers. But fathers such as St Justin Martyr, St Basil the Great, and St Gregory Palamas, all saw value in secular wisdom. No, they didn’t view them as better or more true than Holy Tradition but neither did they dismiss them out of hand.

LGBTQ issues that the author references are a good example. The psychology of sexual attraction and gender identity is very much in flux and far from providing the clarity hoped for by either the conservative or liberal side of the cultural debate.

Too often in the Church, I’ve met people on one side of this cultural issue who simply don’t understand the science. There is simply no empirical evidence that one is “born” gay. At the same time, it isn’t strictly speaking true that one has “chosen” one’s sexual orientation (or for that matter, gender identity).

The Catholic philosopher, James Chastek, who blogs at Just Thomism has a number of interesting (and in my view insightful) short posts about the philosophical underpinnings of the category of sexual orientation (here).

What makes these especially useful is that he calls into question not only the idea of homosexual orientation but of heterosexual orientation. In effect, he argues that whether gay or straight, sexual orientation like all human desires (sexual or non-sexual) begins as “more or less vague urges” that grow and develop over time in response to events around us. It is because of this developmental process rather than any “innate or naturally-developing orientation” that “satisfying sexual habits is more integral to our sense of self.”

Chastek's language is a little abstract so let me see if I can explain what I think he's getting at.

Human beings are social creatures by nature. Our openness to others is part of what Chastek calls our “first nature.”

As with sexual desire, I only slowly come to understand that I am a social creature. But I don't know myself as a social creature in an abstract sense. Rather what begins as a vague need for others, over the course of years takes on a more and more concrete need not just for friends in general but for MY FRIENDS. And not just my friends.

I learn to speak my “native” language (English) and to understand what it means to be an American. There comes a point in which even if I can speak other languages or visit other countries, these might not feel quite as “natural” as speaking English or being an America.

My family, friends, the English language and American culture are all how I discover and express my social nature. While I am not—by (first) nature (or ousia) an American— being American is so bound up with how I understand myself that it feels “natural.” My American identity we might say is part of my “second” nature.

Even though our sexuality is a facet of our social (i.e., first) nature, our sexual orientation, like national or cultural identity, only develops slowly over the course of years but these are contingent expressions of my social nature. While these may all feel as natural as my skin, they are in fact learned.

The bottom line for Chastek is this: Just as no one is by (first) nature American, no one is by (first) nature gay or straight. These are all identities that are crafted over time. What is important morally is that when it comes to our second nature, much of what know and take as “natural” are things don’t we simply learn but learn BEFORE we are able to affirm or reject the lessons. This is as true of cultural identity as it is sexual desire.

And what we are taught, feels “natural.” But if we reflect on on our second nature we realize that its origins are lost in early childhood and so mysterious.