Washington D.C., May 18, 2012 / 04:09 am (CNA).-
A law professor at George Mason University believes that current
threats to religious freedom are intrinsically connected to the modern
understanding that “sexual freedom is about shaping yourself.”
Helen Alvaré, who has formerly worked with the U.S. bishops' pro-life
office, spoke on May 10 at the Catholic Information Center in
Washington, D.C. She observed that many modern threats to religious
freedom “are coming by way of a newly strong government position on
human sexuality.”
This view holds that sex is unrelated to procreation or the union of
man and woman, but is simply about “expressing oneself” and forming
one’s identity through various sexual acts, she explained.
Alvaré traced this understanding of sexuality through court decisions in the last 50 years.
In 1965, the Supreme ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that the
Constitution implicitly protects the “right to marital privacy” and that
married couples therefore have a right to contraception. At this point,
Alvaré observed, the union of the married couple was still intact in
the understanding of sex.
By 1992, however, the court upheld the “right” to abortion by
describing sexual decisions as a means of shaping one’s identity, she
said.
In its Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, the plurality opinion
affirmed “the right to define one's own concept of existence, of
meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
At this point, Alvaré said, sex has been “completely disconnected
from the other person” and is solely about expressing oneself and
building identity.
This view is reflected today, she explained, pointing to the
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S., which
distributes information to young people encouraging them to explore and
express themselves in different sexual ways.
This disconnected
idea of sexual expression as an individual right can also be seen in a
careful reading of the court cases supporting a redefinition of
marriage, Alvaré added. In these court opinions, “same-sex marriage is
not about the two people in the marriage. It’s about the individual
expressing themself sexually.”
It is in this context that the Obama administration’s contraception
mandate comes into being, with “no hesitation in divorcing sex from
everything” that it physically, emotionally and spiritually means, she
continued.
The mandate has been heavily criticized as a major threat to
religious freedom because it will require employers to offer health
insurance plans that cover contraception, sterilization and
abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their religious
beliefs.
Alvaré views the mandate as a “culmination” of a view of sexuality
that has become more and more disconnected from marriage, procreation
and the natural unity of man and woman.
She explained that this way of thinking began with the argument that
taking the babies out of sex would allow couples to flourish, women to
escape poverty and children to avoid being raised in bad situations.
But this has changed drastically, in a way that is evident by the
“models of freedom” used to defend the contraception mandate, she said.
Rather than a woman facing poverty or a married couple overwhelmed by
a dozen kids, the iconic figures in the sexual freedom debate today are
unmarried, highly educated, and fairly well-off financially.
She pointed to Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who
has become a leading figure in the push for free birth control.
These women are not talking about marriage, poverty or the wellbeing
of children, Alvaré observed. Rather, they are simply saying that they
want a regular sex life with a constant supply of contraception, and
they want someone else to pay for it.
This “right to a commitment-free, child-free sexual experience” has
become so elevated that no religious conscience is permitted to object
to it, she said, explaining that when disconnected sexual expression
becomes a basic and fundamental right, religious liberty suffers.
This can be seen today, as Catholic individuals and institutions are
told that they shouldn’t “even be able to have a critical stance” on
issues such as contraception, she said.
She also observed that proponents of the mandate are making claims of
a “war on women” and using “language of discrimination,” as if
religious individual seeking to follow their conscience were violent
members of the Ku Klux Klan, who should not have a voice in the public
square.
The Catholic Church’s idea of sexuality as being connected to
marriage and new life is “absolutely contrary” to the modern
understanding, Alvaré explained.
As Catholics step up to defend religious freedom, she noted, they
also have a chance to help change the way that human sexuality is
viewed.
“I really see this time as an opportunity,” she said.
