2 thoughts on “Heteronormativity and the Rejection of Socialism in Catholic Social Teaching

  1. “‘the child belongs to the father,’ and is, as it were, the continuation of the father’s personality; and, to speak with strictness, the child takes its place in civil society not in its own right, but in its equality as a member of the family which it is begotten.”

    It’s interesting to me the ways the child gets situated as the inheritor of a place in civil society only through the “equality” that comes through *belonging properly* to their family. Perhaps this will be found to be off topic, but given queer critiques of hetero kinship structures, It seems that the reconciliatory gestures of the state in overturning DOMA and other gay marriage “advances” are performing a reconciliation of the estranged child back to the family from which it is begotten. My partner was telling me the other day about the ways wealth gets consolidated in gay men’s marriages because of the wage disparities that exist between men and women. This seems like a particularly useful union of power and patriarchy for the state’s purposes.

    Thus it seems like the child’s belonging to the father, the impossibility of estrangement, or, the dissolution of estrangement into a reconciled family is the way “equality” rhetoric in the gay marriage movement latched hold. Thus, we all are the same and have the same love, seems to hearken back to this transcendent family we are all supposed to “belong” to as a society. So, I’ve been pondering the anti-feminist underpinnings of gay marriage arguments, which seem as uncaring about feminist critiques of marriage as the RC church even as they reproduce a logic that is undoubtedly heterosexist.

  2. It is interesting to me the way in CST the State functions as both a punishment for sin and bulwark against the effects of sin. I wonder if it still works that way in the mass imaginary of people today, especially liberal proponents of gay marriage.

    I hope you’ll say more.

Comments are closed.