Dear _____,

Thanks very much for your call yesterday and conciliatory email today.

I agree that discourse between un-likeminded people is important. In fact, one of the problems I see in the Left’s relentless labeling of all who hold beliefs like mine as hateful, ignorant bigots is that it undermines or destroys any possibility of discourse or relationships between those who hold opposing views on the nature and morality of homosexuality.

In a diverse world, most people I know are perfectly capable of enjoying the company of, appreciating the admirable qualities of, and even deeply loving those who hold beliefs and make life choices that they believe are wholly misguided. Most of us do it all the time. Most of us have figurative and literal brothers and sisters whom we sit down with, eat with, and love, but whose beliefs, behavioral choices, and relationships we believe are flawed and will undermine human flourishing (which is not necessarily the same as human pleasure).

But I disagree with your implication regarding the appropriateness of publicly stating which behaviors constitute moral acts. And I would be surprised if you apply it consistently. I doubt you would argue that all public statements regarding which acts are sinful/immoral are off-limits. You likely believe that there are a whole host of public statements that can and, indeed, should be made about what constitutes sinful/immoral acts. You likely say that homosexuality is the one topic about which negative moral propositions should not be publicly expressed because you believe homosexuality is at the core of an immutable identity and because you believe homoerotic acts are ontologically and morally equivalent to hetero-erotic acts. But that’s the unsettled debate. I reject all those ideas as objectively false. This leads to a larger discussion of “identity,” a subject on which we would surely disagree also.

The public square is not merely about friendships between individuals (e.g., you and me). It’s also about the full, free, and messy exchange of ideas that have real life implications for individuals and society. Feelings get hurt. People get angry. Despite what the culture says, our feelings are not superordinate to all other aspects of human experience. In fact, feelings are woefully unreliable arbiters of truth and morality.

I believe that your same-sex attraction is unchosen, powerful, persistent, and disordered. It is a tragic sin predisposition. Welcome to the world that every single human—save one—has inhabited. The reason I and others must talk about this topic more than other sin predispositions is that homosexual activists and their ideological allies are talking about it vociferously and volubly. And they’re coming in to our public schools and teaching their subjective beliefs to children while censoring competing views.

Moreover, they want the public square to themselves. They arrogate the right to make public statements about the nature and morality of homosexuality to themselves alone. In our phone conversation, you asserted that my statement that unchosen same-sex attraction is a “sin predisposition” was a vile, hateful conversation-stopper. Well, describing homosexuality as a sin predisposition is just about the mildest way to describe conservative beliefs on homosexuality. There is no less offensive way to say it while still representing conservative beliefs. If I were to concede to your request (or demand) not to use “inflammatory conversation-stoppers,” I would have to refrain from expressing conservative moral propositions at all, while you and others who share your views would be free to express yours in any way you see fit in public schools, the mainstream press, the arts, and political halls of power. If the term “sin predisposition” is a “conversation-stopper,” it’s because some on your side get huffy and pouty and stop conversing. They won’t converse with anyone who expresses any propositions with which they disagree.

You want to have conversations as long as you can establish the ground rules, first and foremost of which is that I must concede to your definitions of terms, your ideas, and your assumptions and that I not use any terms or arguments that hurt your feelings, or—in your view—“harm” people. And I have to use your definition/understanding of “harm.” In my experience, the Left believes that harm is significantly or centrally constituted by the presence of uncomfortable feelings (e.g., guilt, shame, sadness). I, on the other hand, believe that sometimes, perhaps often, the presence of guilt, shame, and sadness are indicators that people (including me) are doing something wrong. But in any case, to be honest and comprehensive, discourse on controversial topics will be uncomfortable. 

What’s most fascinating in the public debate is that the Left has so intimidated conservatives and so abused the notion that uncomfortable, unpleasant “feelings” = harm that conservatives rarely demand that “progressives” actually defend with reasons their own presuppositions.

 

• For example, how exactly is homosexuality per se analogous to race?

   

• Or, if marriage is solely constituted by romantic feelings, why should it be limited to two people?

   

• Or, since the Left claims that the expression of moral propositions about volitional behavior is equivalent to hatred, are they guilty of hatred when they claim polyamory or consensual adult incest, or income inequality is wrong?

   

• Or, what is the evidence that homosexuals are “born that way”? If the evidence is simply that they have experienced unchosen powerful, persistent, seemingly intractable feelings from a young age, do they then argue that acting on all unchosen, powerful, persistent, intractable feelings is inherently and automatically moral (and central to identity)? My orthodox Christian faith is central to my identity, and as a Calvinist, I don’t believe I chose my Christian identity. I believe God called me inexorably to him. And yet I don’t believe that everyone must affirm or approve of my beliefs. Nor do I call people hateful and vile for thinking my beliefs are wrong and destructive. I actually know there are people who love me despite our passionate disagreements on sexual morality and theology.

As for “yelling,” at me, water under the bridge. All of us lose our cool on occasion, especially when we care deeply about something.

I do wish you all that’s good and true and beautiful. And God tells us what that is.

Sincerely,

Laurie

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Dear Father Jenkins,

I work for the Illinois Family Institute on the board of which sits a Notre Dame alumnus. In addition, we have a number of Notre Dame alumni subscribers.

I want to thank you for your efforts to obtain an exemption from the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act and urge you to pursue these efforts with vigor and tenacity. If institutions like yours do not oppose every effort that chips away at the religious liberty of faith-centered organizations, what possible hope do individuals have to preserve their First Amendment religious rights—rights that are daily under assault (particularly from those seeking to normalize homosexuality).

I also want to express my disappointment that Notre Dame has chosen to recognize a “student organization” initiated and shaped by those who affirm homosexual acts and acts related to gender confusion as normative and morally defensible. In permitting an organization that affirms subjective moral propositions that defy Catholic (as well as orthodox Protestant) doctrine, Notre Dame’s distinct Catholic identity has been weakened. Would Notre Dame recognize other “student organizations” initiated by those who affirm other sin predispositions (e.g. polyamory, consensual adult incest, or the “sexual orientation” recently designated “minor-attracted persons”)?

If the Notre Dame-recognized “LGBT” organization had been initiated by those who were committed to helping “LGBT” students live lives that embody Catholic beliefs on sexuality and gender, such an organization would be a service to Notre Dame students. Unfortunately, the central goals of students who affirm a homosexual or “transgender” identity are contrary to Catholic doctrine and as such can bring nothing but temporal and eternal harm—intellectual, emotional, physical, and/or spiritual harm—to “LGBT”-identifying students and the larger Notre Dame community.

On the profoundly significant dimensions of human nature that reflect the very foundations of God’s created order (i.e., sexuality and gender) the homosexuality-affirming community has little to say that reflects truth and much to say that violates Scripture, Catholic doctrine, and Notre Dame’s mission statement:

A Catholic university draws its basic inspiration from Jesus Christ as the source of wisdom and from the conviction that in him all things can be brought to their completion….There is…a special obligation and opportunity, specifically as a Catholic university, to pursue the religious dimensions of all human learning.

I would urge your administration to reconsider the wisdom and biblical justification for recognizing an “LGBT” organization, all such organizations of which are based on false, anti-biblical assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality.

Sincerely,

Laurie Higgins