Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education

Volume 44 Article 5

9-1-2013 : An Ethical Challenge: Changing Awareness, Changing Attitudes Patrick Hornbeck

Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversations

Recommended Citation Hornbeck, Patrick (2013) "Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge: Changing Awareness, Changing Attitudes," Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education: Vol. 44, Article 5. Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversations/vol44/iss1/5 Hornbeck: Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge: Changing Awareness, Changing

Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge Changing Awareness, Changing Attitudes

By Patrick Hornbeck

n recent decades, secular and religious advo - tions: federal, state, and local governments; hospitals, cates for social justice have examined the schools, universities, and churches. dynamics of systemic oppression. Rather than For those who work in Jesuit colleges and universi - describing racism and sexism in terms of indi - ties, issues concerning are now more vidual acts of bigotry, intolerance, and vio - salient than ever. Six of the 28 U.S. Jesuit institutions of lence, scholars have studied more deeply how higher education now host centers that take diversity in society and its institutions privilege, often gender and sexuality as a primary concern. At least 21 latently, some persons, identities, and ways of sponsor student, staff, or faculty organizations for living over others. This mode of analysis, LGBTQ persons and their allies; 15 organize events to known in theological circles as “structural sin” mark Day, the Day of Silence in remem - or “social sin,” has evoked compelling new insights brance of the victims of homophobic bullying, or the Iabout race, class, gender, disability, and sexuality. graduation of LGBTQ students. Simultaneously, howev - Patricia Beattie Jung and Ralph F. Smith’s book er, these initiatives have often been critiqued from out - Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge (1993) marked an side as signs that our institutions has lost their way with important moment in Christian theological engagement regard to their Catholic identity. And the U.S. Catholic with the sexual other, that is, with the persons, identities, bishops have opposed civil marriage for same-sex cou - and practices often designated LGBTQ (, , ples as a key plank in their religious, social, and politi - bisexual, , and ). Jung and Smith cal agenda. argued that interwoven beliefs in society and in religious Official Catholic teaching on (formal institutions perpetuate the view that “ is church documents speak of “homosexual persons” and the normative form of human sexuality,” and they “homosexuality” rather than gays and , and there demonstrated that these networks confer a range of ben - are few, if any, such documents, that discuss bisexual or efits on heterosexuals and heterosexual couples at the transgendered persons) is complex and contested. It expense of non-heterosexuals. Heterosexism stretches affirms that homosex ual persons “must be accepted with far beyond the views that any individual might possess, and thus to dismantle heterosexism requires deep, often painful changes in social structures as well as individual Patrick Hornbeck is assistant professor and associate attitudes. Indeed, the summons to overcome heterosex - chair in the department of theology at Fordham ism is applicable to a wide range of American institu - University, Bronx, New York.

8 Conversations

Published by e-Publications@Marquette, 2013 1 Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, Vol. 44, Iss. 1 [2013], Art. 5

respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Violence “in “legally domiciled adults.” Some institutions do not grant speech or in action” against such persons “is such benefits at all. Institutional leaders may not consid - deplorable,” and “[e]very sign of unjust in er the implicit and explicit ways that policies, statements, their regard should be avoided.” Yet at the same time, and campus traditions can relegate LGBTQ individuals to the church describes as disordered not only same-sex second-class status. sexual activity but also “the particular inclination of the However, Jesuit institutions of higher education are homosexual person,” what we might call sexual orienta - by no means uniquely heterosexist. Many other reli - tion. Because of this condition of “objective disorder,” giously affiliated colleges and universities –- not to men - “[s]uch persons…find themselves in a situation that tion a great many public institutions –- observe all the gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and policies described above. Although the religious identity women.” For this reason, in 2005 a Vatican congregation of Jesuit colleges and universities may contribute to het - prohibited the admission of openly to the erosexism, it would be unfair, not to mention counter - priesthood and to religious orders, although some stud - productive, to scapegoat an institution’s Catholicism for ies have estimated the percentage of gay men in the all its shortcomings in this regard. Catholic priesthood at 30 percent or higher. The church’s Instead, a characteristically Jesuit way of proceeding official position, then, is not so much a matter of “love may enable us to overcome heterosexism in our institu - the sinner, hate the sin” as it is that gay men and les - tions. Ignatius of Loyola, in writing the Constitutions of bians, by virtue of their , undergo “a the Society of Jesus and in dealing with the diverse trial” and can be incapable of fully human affectivity. group that he and the other early Jesuits gathered The Catholic theologian Gerard Jacobitz has pointed together, urged that those in authority come to know out that this position stands in tension with the church’s deeply the strengths, weaknesses, aspirations, doubts, teachings on “the intrinsic and unconditional dignity of and dispositions of their colleagues, in order that they the person, and…the essential reliability of human rea - might be able to tailor their decisions to what would be son informed by practical experience.” Other scholars in best for each individual and for God’s greater glory. a variety of Christian denominations have produced his - Rather than prescribing a uniform set of solutions to the torically sensitive readings of the biblical texts once problem of heterosexism, we might examine which ele - thought to condemn same-sex partnerships and sexual ments of living and learning on each of our particular activity. They have sought to understand the ethics of campuses promote and which elements hinder the full human sexuality by tending to questions of justice human flourishing of LGBTQ persons. In addition, we between persons rather than by applying an exclusively can ask: In what ways can fundamental Catholic and act-based morality, and they have sought the counsel of Ignatian commitments to the dignity of the human per - scientific studies on human sexuality. On the whole, son, to the primacy of conscience, to the search for God Catholics are more accepting of homosexuality than are in all facets of creation, and to the promotion of social the members of every other Christian denomination in and ecclesial justice inform our response? the U.S., and clear majorities of U.S. Catholics favor civil These questions are not easily answered, nor are marriage for same-sex couples, employment protections their answers easily put into practice. For the short term, for LGBTQ persons, and the adoption of children by Jesuit institutions must continue to inhabit the tensions gays and lesbians. between official church teachings, the conscientious Where does the interplay of all these conflicting statements and actions of their ecclesial defenders, the forces leave Jesuit colleges and universities? It seems that equally conscientious work of theologians who have Jesuit institutions could be called heterosexist by Jung reached different conclusions, and the rapidly shifting and Smith’s definition. For instance, housing policies attitudes of Americans in general and college students in presume that students are heterosexual and cisgendered particular. All agree that what’s unacceptable is the per - (i.e., their matches up with their assigned sistence of episodes of homophobic bullying, violence, biological sex) and, thus, should be roomed with mem - and suicide. As more of our institutions courageously bers of the same rather than the opposite gender. face up to how they have participated in the systematic Instructors unconsciously cause LGBTQ students to feel privileging of heterosexuality, space will open up to excluded when the terms and examples they use in class engage in deeper reflection on what it means to be assume the heterosexuality of all their students. Where human, what it means to love with one’s whole person, institutions grant benefits to the same-sex partners of and what it means to witness to the all-encompassing employees, they often do so under euphemisms like love that Christians call God. ■

Conversations 9 http://epublications.marquette.edu/conversations/vol44/iss1/5 2