Philosophically there is much attention to the concept of identity. In sacred scripture the same is the case. What constitutes our identity?
In the philosophy that examines “being” or ontology, our identity is rooted in our “whatness.” What you are, determined who you are. This whatness is not merely your essence, but it’s tied intrinsically to your “why-ness” that is a pre-determined purpose that is imposed upon you by your existence. To some this seems oppressive, to others it’s a matter of discovery and humility. In this category one does not determine their own purpose. Psychologically that would be absurd since one is drawing from their nature to determine a preferential purpose, thus at least latently basing their existential self first in their own nature. This is where the notion of dignity stems from, and since it is rooted in our being, personal choices do not dissolve this dignity, nor do states of development.
The second type of identity is sometimes called “moral character.” This, while of itself springs from our nature, nonetheless does carry with it existential notions of self-creation. Here, we are not creating “being” or “what/why we are” but “how” we are. For the Christian, this is what, in part, determines our our salvation, in conjunction with or without our cooperation with grace. We are responsible here for our moral character, and sometimes this is how people identity.
Today, sexual relativism defines identity around sexual attractions, or affective states. The primary focus is not on one’s ontology as a human (male or female), but rather the sexual inclinations and affective-guided self concept. Sexual attraction is often conflated with the tautology “love is love.” Love is not initially defined as to will the good of the other here, otherwise further phrases such as “you don’t choose who you love” would not accompany the movement. This is about desire, since in disinterested friendships love can be chosen and should be as such.
Since Christ, our identity has been rooted in his choice to adopt us as His children, not in one’s sexual disposition, or affective desires in any particular regard, including pleasure, wealth, money or power. In baptism the Church teaches that one is changed “ontologically.” Thus the identity in whatness and whyness has also changed. God extends this call to be changed by His love, which transcends mere sexual desires, but pertains to a concern primarily for the good of the other.
Knowing these distinctions is important as it will help people navigate chronic shame, and be rooted in not something ultimately hedonistic or defined primarily by affective desires, but rather rooted in the Creator who defines us by the relationship He freely and universally extends to all, that some may be saved.
Photo: Anthony Intraversato, Unsplash / PD-US
4 thoughts on “What Constitutes Our Identity?”
More traditional interpretations of church teachings on sexuality are coming into direct conflict with the medical and scientific communities. Once again the church is creating its own form of categorization, albeit a categorization that attempts not to categorize (“with same sex attraction” rather than “Lesbian” or “gay.”) Our identities have always been made up of many parts – including our inherited and/or chosen religions, ethnicities, genders and even political inclinations, to name a few. To suggest that sexual orientation is somehow irrelevant or less relevant to our identities is irreconcilable with reality.
The “traditional” view of identity is rooted in both “faith and reason.” From sacred scripture, Identity stems from the grace we receive in Christ through a relationship. Thus, the emphasis through rebirth tends to be as a beloved child of God. Through reason in conjunction with faith we understand it in terms of “ontology.” So its not a pejorative type of “tradition” but one that is rooted in both faith (revelation) and reason (philosophy).
Pastorally, its important not to define people by their desires or inclinations. If we did this universally we would run into all sorts of problems. Rather, “what” someone is, is more important than how that person experiences themselves, since interpretation of experience is quite fallible, but one’s nature is not.
Pingback: Five Not-So-Polite Radical Things Jesus Said in the Bible, Concerning the Death of St. Joseph, and More Great Links! - JP2 Catholic Radio
Pingback: Five Not-So-Polite Radical Things Jesus Said in the Bible, Concerning the Death of St. Joseph, and More Great Links! – christian-99.com