Loading ...
Having just returned from visiting friends in Vancouver (a decidedly pro-homosexual city in which we saw, among other things, two burly men in kilts crossing a busy street while holding hands) I thought it might be a good time for opening a discussion of prudential considerations relating to homosexual people. Concerns about how to treat homosexuals are becoming a regular part of life for those of us who believe homosexuality to be disordered. It seems very likely that the difficulties will only increase in the coming years as homosexuality continues to be more and more socially acceptable. For those of us who work in liberal environments (i.e. academia) it is already highly unsafe to admit that we actually take the Bible and the Catholic Church at its word in condemning homosexual acts as sinful. Even when expressed in impeccably civil language, such views have come to be classified as bigotry and hate speech, and have in some cases cost working people their jobs or earned students suspensions. If there is one Catholic belief for which we are likely to be persecuted in the course of our lifetimes, this is it.
Let me state right now, before going any further, that I do not wish this thread to turn into a discussion of whether or not homosexuality is wrong. I am going to assume that it is. Most of our readers probably will not take issue with this, but if the occasional liberal wanders through, I will just say: backchannel me if you wish at fraternalcorrection@yahoo.com, and I promise to read whatever you write. I don’t wish to sidetrack the discussion by getting into it publicly, for your sake as much as mine, because you will not find a sympathetic audience here. But I also don’t wish for this to become a forum for venting rage and hatred against gays and lesbians, so please be civil. I don’t normally exercise censorship all that heavily, but I will tell you right now that I don’t care for the dirty f-word for referring to gays.
The truth is, I don’t think there’s really much room for disagreement about whether a Catholic can condone homoeroticism (by which I mean, the performance of homosexual acts.) St. Paul condemns it pretty clearly, and the Catholic Church has been even more unambiguous on the subject. But quite aside from issues of obedience, it falls out pretty naturally for anyone who takes a Catholic approach to sexual ethics generally. It was actually somewhat liberating for me personally when I realized this, because I then understood that I could non-hypocritically state my views on this subject. I spent the first twenty-some years of my life harboring a general feeling that homosexuality was unnatural and probably wrong, but I felt sheepish about expressing this, because it seemed high-handed to pronounce judgment on people who were in a position that I certainly had never been in. I can recognize when a woman is attractive; to some degree I can even take pleasure in looking at an attractive woman, as one takes pleasure in seeing anything that is good or beautiful or well-made. But for me there has never been anything erotic in the appreciation of other women’s beauty.
I used to assume that homosexuals felt about members of their own sex exactly as I did about members of the opposite sex. Telling them not to act on these feelings seemed rather like telling people who had, unfortunately for them, been born with their heads on backwards that they must nonetheless walk in the direction their toes pointed. Even so, I wasn’t outraged that churches saw fit to make this demand. We all have crosses to bear, and for some people this might be their burden. Christian life isn’t easy, and the words of the Bible always seemed pretty clear to me on this point. However, I personally wasn’t at all anxious to announce the bad news to anyone. “It’s not my job to judge them,” I used to say of homosexual people, “and thank goodness for that!”
My time in the Peace Corps led me to reconsider this stance somewhat, for two reasons. First, I started reading a bit more about sexual ethics (I read, for example, John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility, which was sent to me by a Catholic friend.) But secondly, homosexuality was rife in my Peace Corps group, so I ended up hearing quite a lot about homoeroticism from many self-described homosexual or bisexual people. I had two important realizations during this period.
1) The head-on-backwards analogy isn’t very helpful. Most people in homosexual relationships are not exclusively attracted to members of their same sex, and a great number of them have been in relationships with both men and women at various points in time. Many people who have never thought of themselves as homosexual, are persuaded to be so when they come into contact with someone who is interested in them. Others, upon confessing at some point in their adolescence that they have some homoerotic feelings, are seized quickly by “support” groups, who encourage them to cement the sinful attraction as their core identity and take pride in it. This isn’t to say that homosexuality is mainly illusion, that people can turn off such feelings at will, or that we have no reason to feel compassion for people with strong homosexual attractions. But it’s worth bearing in mind that virtually everyone has to cope with feelings of attraction to off-limits people at some time or other, and that doesn’t condemn most of us to a life of loneliness. Learning how to cope with this is just part of becoming a moral and responsible adult. And the bottom line is that there are a lot of people who might very happily have entered into heterosexual marriages if they had never been encouraged to search their souls for their “sexual orientation.” It simply isn’t true that recent trends towards acceptance of homosexuality are only giving social sanction to activities that would have taken place in any case.
2) Even for someone like me who has suffered no temptation to this particular sin, it is not hypocritical to stand firm in the view that it is disordered, because that belief is only one part of a coherent sexual ethics which I take to be true. And, importantly, that position does impose real demands on me with respect to other aspects of my life. As an unmarried woman, I was obliged to avoid fornication and other immodest contact with men. As a married woman, the obligations change somewhat, but are ultimately no less demanding: fidelity to my husband, paying the marriage debt to him, and bearing and raising any children that are thereby produced. Homosexuals may in some respects have a harder burden to bear than most, but Catholic sexual teachings impose grave responsibilities on all of us, and if we accept these, it isn’t hypocritical – in fact, it is only consistent — to apply the same philosophy to other people as well.
So much for the theoretical aspect of the question. But in practice, how should we respond to people who obviously don’t accept the same ethical view? Here is the fact: there are many people in our society who openly declare themselves to be in permanent sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex. They sometimes adopt children. They take up residence together and expect to be treated as a social unit. And increasingly, they have the backing of the state, so that people can be required to recognize them as a social unit at least in “official” kinds of business. (What exactly that implies is being gradually worked out in courts and through legislative bodies all around the country.)
The Christian injunction to hate the sin and love the sinner has seldom been so hard to put into practice. Here we have sinners who like to identify themselves in very significant and visible ways with a grevious sin. The obvious knee-jerk response – to express hatred and contempt for such individuals in every capacity in which we see them – is problematic for several reasons. First of all, it is not Christian; we are not supposed to show hatred to anyone regardless of circumstance. But secondly, it is not prudent; one of the major reasons why gays and lesbians have made so much headway in recent years is because they have been perceived as victims. Liberals are already inclined to believe that Christians are motivated primarily by hate. Now, if ever, is a time for cool heads and neat apologetics, and showing the world that love does not always imply approval.
The trouble is that, most of the time, the question won’t arise in a cool intellectual discussion. More likely scenarios are the following:
I’m at the annual picnic put on by my department to welcome new students and faculty. Seeing someone I don’t recognize, I assume that it is a new student, so I walk over and introduce myself in a friendly fashion. “Are you new in the department?” I ask. “No,” he replies. “I’m X’s partner.” Ah.
Your child comes home from school/soccer practice/the local park, bringing with him a friend you’ve never met before. You let the boys play, and afterwards the friend asks if your son can play at his house the next time because, “my moms keep telling me that I should bring more friends home.”
You’re planning a family event (wedding, family reunion, etc.) and inviting all your relatives. Naturally you invite spouses too. But you know that one member of the family (to make it easier, we’ll suppose it’s an aunt, uncle or cousin) will probably bring a homosexual partner along even if you don’t explicitly frame the invitation so as to include both.
I could keep going on, of course. The bottom line is that families are utterly foundational to societies. If you don’t share the accepted view of what makes a family – and especially if you don’t want to cause scandal by seeming to condone such a view – you are constantly being placed in difficult situations where there really isn’t any clear way to avoid showing approval of the sin, while still treating the sinner with respect.
For the sake of discussion, I’ll give my best take on the above scenarios, with the caveat that this issue causes me a lot of anxiety and I’m open to other suggestions. In the first situation (which has happened to me before), I am friendly and polite, but try as far as possible to make no reference to the relationship per se. A little conversational maneuvering normally makes this possible. I might ask, “So what do you do?” or “Where did you grow up?” but never “How long have you and X been together?” or “Where do you guys think you’ll go next?” I don’t think it’s my job to be rude to anyone, particularly if I’ve just met them and have no reason to believe that they crave my approval anyway. But it is necessary to be aware that discussing a homosexual couple’s life and plans in the same way you would do with a heterosexual one, is giving a kind of sanction to the lifestyle. If they bring up an impossible subject (e.g. making plans for their union ceremony) I try to change the subject or else excuse myself from the conversation.
The second case is heartbreaking, because the life of a completely innocent person is involved – the adopted child can’t help the circumstances of his life. (Incidentally, I think this in itself is an excellent reason not to give children to homosexual couples for adoption. Whether or not the homosexuals intend this, the children will in actuality be used as a kind of battering ram to establish the adopted parents’ normalness, and the rest of us are left with a choice between punishing the child and implicitly sanctioning the entire family arrangement. That’s a heavy burden to lay on a child.) Anyway, I don’t think we can go teaching our own children to regard a certain class of people as inferior or worthy of contempt based on circumstances beyond their control. So I would allow the friendship, and welcome the friend to my own house whenever he cared to come. But I would draw the line at sending my own child to play in the house of a homosexual couple. Whether I liked it or not, this would be sending a message, to my own children and to the world, that the entire family arrangement, even if not ideal, was at least acceptable. And I wouldn’t want to put my children in the same sort of awkward social situations I’ve been describing, at least not when they’re young.
I won’t say much about the third scenario, since it’s so difficult, and so dependent on circumstance. I don’t think it’s right to sever all contact with a homosexual family member, but it also seems wrong to accept their partner into the family as you would a legitimate spouse. If the relative is eager to be respectful of your beliefs, he might be persuaded to leave that part of his life as “private”, and some sort of compromise might be arranged. If he’s determined to be confrontational, controversy will almost certainly arise. I don’t think I’d send bouncers to forcibly remove a relative’s partner from my wedding, but if he tried to be in the family photo, I think I would be willing to say, as kindly as possible (and I do realize that it isn’t very possible), “Oh, that’s all right, we won’t be needing you for this.” But I think it’s important to try as much as possible not to look eager to embarrass or publicly humiliate others. It’s always best to establish, if you possibly can, that it’s the sin, not the sinner, that is hated.
These scenarios should be enough to illustrate my general suggested approach. But I realize that these situations can sometimes be quite agonizing and I welcome the opinions of others with the same worries. For the purpose of limiting the topic, I’m focusing on social situations, but I should also mention in passing that legal pressures to accept homosexuality are also becoming increasingly common. Those whose professions involve celebrating or strengthening marriage (e.g. wedding photographers or marriage counselors) need to consider their limits for what they can ethically do… and they may need to make plans to change careers if necessary. We’ve already seen what can happen in the case of the Catholic adoption services of Boston, and I think more cases of that kind are just around the bend.
As a final note, I am going to an academic conference today, and may or may not have internet access for the next few days. Of course people may carry on a discussion in my absence, but if you do, please be civil! I give my fellow contributors leave to exercise censorship if it should prove necessary in my absence.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Great post!
Another situation: You have an old family friend, almost family, really. She is now in a lesbian relationship. Though she is not confrontational (Latin for “in-your-face”) about it, this information is public. The couple comes to family events together. You do not approve, but have not had a suitable opportunity to express this. You are writing postcards from vacation. Normally you definitely would send a card to this close family friend. Do you address her without mentioning the partner? That will inevitably result in the family friend noticing her partner’s absence and raising the issue in an embarrassing way. Do you address both of them? That will seem to sanction their “couplehood.” Do you not send her a postcard at all? That will seem like a slight.
I opted for the third. My recommendations to everyone is, should you do this, it is between God and you. If other people in the family, the ones who are “fine” with the homosexual relationship ask about why you never sent so-and-so a card, be VERY cautious about what you say. It is important to be honest, which can lead to problems, but it is also important not to give others occasions of sin — including their own sinful inclinations toward preferring this “non-confrontational” homosexual relationship to your “confrontational” Catholic “bigotry.” So have I learned.
Just to be clear, there were other family friends and cousins to whom I did not write, so I could have excused my failure to write on other grounds. “Oh, I had to limit myself — college buddies, aunts, and uncles already made up quite a list.” I did see the person in question later, so there need not have been any impression of “blacklisting.” And remember, I did not avoid writing because the person in question was in such a relationship, but rather because I saw no tactful way I could write without having to mention her “partner.”
A very good reflection, Clara, thank you for writing it up.
If there is one Catholic belief for which we are likely to be persecuted in the course of our lifetimes, this is it.
I don’t suppose that thought had occurred to me before, but now I think that’s not unlikely to be true.
Great topic! How about prudential issues regarding other relationships? How should a Catholic family member be treated who is either divorced or separated from his/her spouse and is “married” or living with someone else? Such people are often brought to family functions and eventually are accepted by many families. Is it prudent to go against the tide and avoid and exclude these people?
Clara,
I agree with how you suggest handling situation 1 and 2. Regarding situation 3, the question of children becomes key. If you have children you should not allow them to be around Uncle Bob’s special friend.
Children should not be exposed to this unnatural vice at all.
Regarding Cephas’ point - my FSSP priest, in private conversation with me, made this very distinction regarding situations of unnatural versus natural cohabitation or concubinage.
His point was that in some cases prudence might allow or even dictate associating with family members who have remarried outside the Church or who have taken on a concubine. This is entirely different when it comes to homosexual situations. Even our obligations under the Fourth Commandment to visit the home of our mother or father would be voided if they, or someone who would be around their home (like a brother or sister), had a homosexual partner with them AND we had children with us. Children should not be exposed to this unnatural vice at all.
As a military officer, I’ve never worked with open homosexuals. There have been a few soldiers, now and then, who are rumored to be homosexual, but rarely do we have any problems with partners coming to unit functions or something like this.
However, in my current job I’m working with a lot of State Department folks — here the social rules are different. There is one apparent lesbian couple that my wife and I meet at social events and also one of these ladies sings with my wife in a local community choral group. They are very nice pleasant ladies. They are always conservatively dressed. And never show any public affection at all. Truthfully, all I feel is profound sadness when I see them. Especially at events with kids present - and our little ones are all around us. Another military family here at this location has 8 kids with number 9 on the way. And then the normal care and attention that we as Christian men give our wives – opening doors, carrying heavy things, foot massages, etc… To me, I just feel badly for these women who don’t get to share in any of this.
As Catholics we don’t shun. We have to treat our worst enemy the same as we would treat a friend. Why not acknowledge Uncle Bob’s friend on your Christmas card to Uncle Bob? Or send him a happy birthday email? They should be clear as to what we believe at Catholics, but they deserve common courtesy. Again, in terms of associating with them, everything changes when children are entered into the equation.
Actually, Catholics do indeed “shun,” or should. One who would back me up on that would be John Henry Cardinal Newman. You won’t get very far in his sermons without running into exhortations to assiduously avoid the company of (”shun”) various groups of individuals exhibiting behaviors and attitudes that we postmoderns would find absolutely trivial in the nastiness rankings — definitely not up there in the “crying-for-vengeance” category. I’m afraid that even us tough-nut traditionalist Catholics (myself definitely included) just cannot find it in ourselves to get beyond the prevailing attitude of “niceness”-uber-alles. We should be shunning left and right, with a vengeance, and now more than ever.
Of course, as usual, language is the problem, and it sort of depends on what the meaning of “is” is, and on what the meaning of “shun” is.
Calvin Hazelwood makes good points. We’ve run into this sort of debate here with the word “curse,” which strikes moderns as a thoroughly repugnant word. “Shun” has taken on arch-sinister overtones in our contemporary idiom. It is the similar to “anathema” in this respect If anathemas can be charitable, so can shunning; anathemas, in fact, implied shunning to some extent. Obviously the Church has a mission to all. Our Lord “reached out” to Samaritans (who were schismatics and heretics), Roman (i.e. heathen Gentile) occupation forces, publicans (combination mafiosi/IRS agents/Roman collaborationists), and prostitutes. The Church needs to reach out to the equivalent folks today: separated brethren, sexual deviants, pornographers, abortionists and mothers who’ve had abortions, addicts, drug dealers, gang members, racist thugs, and mafiosi. Yet not all of us can undertake each of the Church’s missions, and it may be best to separate ourselves from (i.e. shun) some or all of these categories of people. When a loved one falls into these vices, we need to exercise charity, patience, and prudence. And as sad as it may be, *sometimes* even with these relatives and friends there is a time to be “far from embracing.” The merciful father let the prodigal son hit rock-bottom and come back on his own, he did not go out hunting for the son in order to further subsidize his auto-demolition.
I’m not concerned at all with being nice. I’m only concerned with being traditionally Catholic.
Not shunning has nothing to do with being nice.
There’s absolutely no reason to not wish someone a Merry Christmas. I don’t care what he’s done.
This type of shunning is found among the baptists and mormons, but has no place within Catholicism.
Just because you do not shun someone does not mean that you are accepting his or her lifestyle. To the contrary, it may allow you more opportunities to remonstrate, by word or by deed, that their behavior or lifestyle is wrong and sinful.
Like I said above there might be prudential reasons (the biggest I can think of is having to do with protecting innocent children) to “shun”, but I don’t think you can make an objective case for shunning for any particular vice.
The whole question of toleration or shunning of the excommunicated seems to be a complicated and interesting canonical question (at least before 1983).
See:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
JSP, I for one was not saying to break off all contact with a loved one over a vice they’re dealing with. You’re right — they need support, preferably from their ordinary support system. How many homosexuals have rationalized their vice and been reinforced by their family’s blacklisting? I am not saying, “Don’t wish someone Merry Christmas.” I had a particular quandary with a postcard and didn’t know what to do since I never, ever had voiced my objection to the relationship so my card might be seen as condoning it. And when I saw both of the people in question at a party later, I greeted both of them. Was I over-cautious? Maybe, I don’t know.
But the issue of avoiding certain people is distinct. It’s not to enforce the sort of nasty “disfellowshipping” that Jehovah’s Witnesses do. Indeed, I have not seen fit to shun any of my friends who are homosexuals. However, as a general point, there are some groups of people we all avoid as a matter of caution. People like dope-pushers, crooks, loose women, womanizing men, etc. It may be better not to get involved with this sort (we tell our kids to have virtuous friends, right?). I think we can exercise prudence here without thereby failing to imitate Our Lord Who broke bread with sinners. Now if your brother or sister or cousin becomes one, that’s a different story — you *need* to deal with him or her. Or if you are specifically performing a corporal or spiritual work of mercy, that can be quite different from normal familiarity, which may be abused by any of the aforementioned groups of people. This cautious, selective discrimination fits my definition of “shun” insofar as some people inevitably are avoided (not to say they are denied small talk and greetings on the street and assistance in hardship) on principle. Perhaps it does not fit your definition.
So some “shunning” can be explained as a defensive measure. Some people constitute a near occasion of sin. Let’s say you’re very attracted to another man’s wife. In her presence it is extremely difficult not to have covetous thoughts. Though she is a co-worker, you can easily avoid her most of the day without causing offense. So you avoid her. There the woman in question is not even guilty of anything, yet she is being avoided. Alcoholics often need to break off “friendships” with their drinking buddies. A guy I know who had an absolutely horrible drug problem now no longer speaks with his so-called “friends” from that period. They would be a near occasion of sin for him — the sin of wrath, if nothing else. Etc., etc.
As for what one can and cannot say to a person who’s on the wrong path, 2 John 10 says that we should not tell a heretic so much as “God speed you.” I honestly do not know how far this applies, or when, or how.
Thanks, Samuel J. Howard!
For those excommunicated with the title “vitandi” (”to be avoided”), the following were forbidden:
“(8) Civilia jura
Civilia jura, i.e. the ordinary relations between members of the same society, outside of sacred and judicial matters. This privation, affecting particularly the person excommunicated, is no longer imposed on the faithful except in regard to the vitandi. The medieval canonists enumerated the prohibited civil relations in the following verse:
Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur,
namely:
(a) conversations, exchange of letters, tokens of benevolence (osculum);
(b) prayer in common with the excommunicated;
(c) marks of honour and respect;
(d) business and social relations;
(e) meals with the excommunicated.
But at the same time they specified the reasons that rendered these relations licit:
Utile, lex humilis, res ignorata, necesse,
that is to say:
(a) both the spiritual and the temporal benefit of the excommunicated and of the faithful;
(b) conjugal law;
(c) the submission owed by children, servants, vassals, and subordinates in general;
(d) ignorance of excommunication or of the prohibition of a particular kind of intercourse;
(e) finally, any kind of necessity, as human law, is not binding to this degree.”
So if you intended to play cards with the guy and didn’t see any spiritual benefit to come from it for him, you could not play cards. If you thought you could try to remonstrate with him while playing cards, fine. As I said, a selective limitation of social intercourse, which the author of the article in question still calls shunning.
After Clara’s stern warning, I wasn’t expecting to see fire and brimstone coming from this page, yet I am rather surprised not to find just a little thunder.
We all seem to agree that we should hate the sin but love the sinner yet in reality there is little hatred for the sin and a weak form of love for the sinner—the opposite being “tough love.” The misuse of this principle often promotes sin and encourages the sinner.
Saint Thomas Aquinas refers to Sodomy in the Summa as the Unnatural Vice and calls it the greatest sin among the species of lust, even worse than that categorized as Sacrilege—lust by or upon someone consecrated to God’s service. All sin is in the will to do it and when the will is impaired by passion the degree of guilt is less. In Sodomy there are two barriers that must be breached for it to be committed: there is no natural passion for it, at least in the very beginning, and it is against reason. Therefore the will must be deliberately exercised in an unnatural manner—a manner completely against one’s nature.
Now Saint Thomas maintains that Sodomy and sins against nature, take on an added degree of malice since in militating against the proper natural order established by God an injury is done to God as the author of nature. He quotes Saint Augustine. “Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which has not so made men that they should abuse one another. (Notice God did not make people homosexual.) For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the Author, is polluted by the perversity of lust. (IIa IIae Q.154 Art. 12)
Reference has been made in this discussion to “shunning” of homosexuals is not traditional Catholicism but behavior worthy of Jehovah Witnesses and yet Saint Augustine maintains that Sodomy “should be everywhere punished.” I don’t know how he would separate the sin from the sinner. Our own country and all Christian Europe at one time punished Sodomy as Saint Augustine suggested. If the state will no longer punish, as individuals we should be at least able to “shun,” it wherever we find it openly displayed.
Today a third barrier that used to help prevent the sin has also been breached—the natural shame associate with it. When a practicing homosexual (or anyone willing to be deemed one) comes out of the closet and is publicly seen cavorting with someone of the same sex, his will and his heart is quite hardened at that point. In such a case I think you could invoke Saint John, the Apostle of Love, and avoid even greeting them lest you seem to agree with his actions. (cf II John). Our model, Christ, drove the buyers and sellers out of the temple because they perverted the place of worship turning it in to a place of profit. With no warning or greeting he drove them out with a whip, which leads me to believe “shunning” can be Christian behavior. Don’t get me wrong. There is a place for confronting the issue—usually right then and there. This is how I deal with it and after that, they, i.e. sodomites, usually shun me. I make it known that I don’t hate them and are trying to get them off the path to perdition..
We face a unique situation in society today but still one that can be handled according to traditional norms. Take the scenarios given above and change them to situations dealt with in the not too distant past—say, before the Council. At that time the main issue was divorce and remarriage. Anyone who dared do such a thing was immediately and unconditionally ostracized. Parents would not see their children or at the very least they would never talk to their child in the presence of the new partner. The other children would not be allowed to be with the sinner and would not even see their innocent cousins. That’s how it was traditionally and with the Church’s approval. “Don’t ever darken my doorstep again unless you have come to your senses.” And that’s why divorce was a rare thing.
There is today a social AIDS. Homosexual behavior is all around us and perhaps very close to home. I have noticed that when any evil hits home, that evil becomes less so. I have seen dedicated pro-life activists do an about face when their daughter becomes pregnant and due to extenuating circumstances (of course) terminating the pregnancy is condoned. Once the body of society stops resisting sodomy, the evil spreads.
For the unnatural crime of Fratricide, Cain became a marked man. No one was to hurt him but to avoid him. Homesexuals usually display signs of their sins so that they too can be avoided. In youth, we naturally avoid those with lisps, delicate walks, and sissified manners, but as the years go by we do case studies and a lot of refined knit picking about sending a Christmas card to Aunt Betty and her significant other. This is not traditional Catholicism.
Often times, positions like this mirror someone with a fantastic spouse and a number of wonderful children and grandchildren who consequently has no idea what it is like to be alone, told you must always stay alone, hating yourself and constantly begging God to change who you are so that you can have relationships and eventually marry like all your friends and everyone else you know (for no other reason than deep-seated cultural assumptions poking their way through the interpretation and translation of five minor biblical passages). These sort of arguments and opinions often come from people who, quite plainly, do not have any idea what his/her suggestions imply in the hearts and lives of believers who will attempt to put them into practice. Truisms about “carrying one’s cross” are not very helpful in light of such pain. Every single opinion like this I’ve ever read is always quick to illustrate the theological, sociological and phycholigical aspects of the problem, then quite conveniently leave out the emotional aspect. (ei: the Human aspect) With all due respect; frankly, this is an area of discussion where heterosexuals should not venture because they are acutely un-prepared and un-qualified to give an educated and meaningful opinion.
Re: Discipulus. Good points.
“a lot of refined knit picking about sending a Christmas card to Aunt Betty and her significant other.”
Boy, I wish I’d never brought up that particular problem.
Re: Giacomo Russo. I think that you may fall into the category that Clara recommended write her at the yahoo address given. That may be best for all involved.
“for no other reason than deep-seated cultural assumptions poking their way through the interpretation and translation of five minor biblical passages”
The deep-seated assumptions belong to the natural law, not just to this or that culture. In fact, it is the acceptance of homosexual behavior that is found only in this or that culture. Additionally, the Church has the authority to interpret and translate the Bible correctly, and she has done so. There are no minor biblical passages — if five Biblical passages mandated acceptance of homosexuality, I hardly think you would count the number as small or the passages as “minor.” One of those passages (e.g. Genesis) has God destroy two whole cities over the sin. Another (the beginning of Romans) says that homosexuality is a blight that God sends as a punishment for previous sins. So the passages are not “minor.”
“With all due respect; frankly, this is an area of discussion where heterosexuals should not venture because they are acutely un-prepared and un-qualified to give an educated and meaningful opinion.”
If this restriction on us heterosexuals (and who says that we all are?) refers only to the emotional, subjective aspect, okay. If this refers to the matter as a whole, then your statement seems to mandate solipsism.
Giacomo,
Oh please! You don’t feel the way I do, so you can’t say anything about my life. Right, so the coach can’t say anything to the player if he’s never played at that level? The priest can’t give marital counseling because he’s never been married? You don’t know how I feel, cries the teenager.
I’m perfectly willing to concede that the emotional aspect of this sort of temptation can be wrenching; but many sorts of temptations are emotionally wrenching. It’s time to grow up and suck it up.
“After Clara’s stern warning, I wasn’t expecting to see fire and brimstone coming from this page”
Didn’t God use fire and brimstone to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? If that was intentional, Discipule, bravo.
At the risk of being censored I think Discupulus is full of baloney.
First, I think it’s silly and insulting to imply that our debating these prudential matters of associating, and to what degree, with public sinners is equal in someway with reprobate “catholic” parents taking their daughter to an abortion clinic.
All you did in your post was launch into some caricatured diatribe about the pre-conciliar society - not addressing any of the issues raised.
Yes, I’m sure that prior to 1963 kids really did have to walk 3 miles to school uphill both ways too, but can we stick to the issues? The issues of prudence? Of competing or conflicting virtues?
How about the Fourth Commandment? What obligations under the Fourth Commandment do we have toward parents who’ve fallen into lives of open sin? Is it really as simple as you suggest - shun?
How about the selected passage from the Catholic encyclopedia — which was written based on the writings of the Fathers and Doctors. Five reasons were given for licitly associating with the excommunicated! The run-of-the-mill homosexual or divorced-and-remarried-Catholic is not excommunicated even - so if there are 5 reasons why we could not only licitly, but might in fact be obligated morally to, associate with the excommunicated, shouldn’t this give you some pause before you open your mouth?
Can we make some distinction between those who are willing to listen to us remonstrate with them and those who are not so willing? Those who are willing to listen to us and those have no intention even of doing so? Those who show some consideration for our position (e.g. by not engaging in acts of affection in our presence) and those who are not willing to do that much? There are people who insist on their “lifestyle” to the extent that they would not allow us the five good reasons for association. I set out what I regard as some reasons for discrimination in one’s associations — neither total toleration nor total blacklisting. What, JSP and Discipulus, do you think of those criteria?
OK, JSP, I agree there is a place for discussing these issues the way Clara set out to do and I apologize for the insulting implication.
Tobias Petrus, I was going by what Clara laid out: “Here we have sinners who like to identify themselves in very significant and visible ways with a grevious sin.” With that distinction I have no trouble in shunning the first even if it means losing my job, in the second the boys would not play with a kid with two moms. (JSP agrees) Before the Council, it was common for Catholic kids to stick to Catholic friends. And as they got older, dating protestants was taboo. That’s what my father told me anyway. Scenario three is an easy one, “Aunt Betsy’s not getting an invitation. Even if Betsy were my mother, I see no obligation to invite her to the party or even wedding. I agree pretty much with Clara excepting the part about the bouncer. Actually, I wouldn’t have or need a bouncer but would do it discreetly myself—discreetly if they allowed it to remain so.
I disagree JSP with the social examples you give. And you say, “As Catholics we don’t shun…unless children enter the equation.” I think there are a lot more reasons why we can and should shun. Uncle Bob’s homosexual friend does not “deserve” a happy birthday card. (Just maybe a pink bubbly balloon o gram…Just kidding.) I agree children should not be put in that situation because it could have many adverse affects. And yet adults too, can be affected: one being that the sin loses its natural revulsion. The media is constantly trying to do just that. It’s in your face all the time and it has to be manfully resisted.
I don’t totally blacklist and actually have had many conversations with them but only on the issue. Let one be sincere in trying to lead a regular life and I’ll help in whatever way I can. I won’t discuss it with those who show no sign of good will. I think Our Lord had some strong advice about that. In this discussion on making prudential calls, I am not accusing anyone of sin.
And yet adults too, can be affected: one being that the sin loses its natural revulsion. The media is constantly trying to do just that. It’s in your face all the time and it has to be manfully resisted.
A good observation. There are certain sins or behaviors in regard to which we would have no hesitation about invoking the “shun” principle - perhaps those who are publicly known to get their jollies from torturing kittens, or some such thing. I can imagine people doing things which are awful and yet not illegal or something or, at any rate, far worse than many illegal things, and we wouldn’t hesitate about shunning them because we’d be so disgusted. Why not in the case of this sin of which Discipulus has already pointed out the heinousness which St. Thomas attributes to it?
I guess it’s easy to forget sometimes, out of sight, out of mind. I imagine that we would avoid, simply through distaste, flamboyant homosexuals. We often aren’t horrified by the sinner because he’s not sinning in front of us; if we had the misfortune to witness the deed, we’d have a harder time.
So maybe the suggestion on the table is that we should rethink our comfort level; we don’t mind hanging out with know homosexuals, as long as they’re not too upfront. Maybe we shouldn’t be comfortable with even that. But if we weren’t, where do we draw the line?
Re: Asinorum,
Your advise about growing up and sucking it up as well as your ball game analogies are exactly what I mean by heterosexuals being “acutely unprepared and unqualified to discuss this matter.” If you doubt that, try explaining or describing the color blue in a summer sky to someone who was born sightless. You may very well know what blue looks and feels like to you, but your description of it simply will not translate to the blind person.
Thank you for conceding that the emotional aspect of this sort of temptation can be wrenching; but, would you refer to your identification as a heterosexual person “a sort of temptation”? I hardly think so. Rather, it goes right to the heart of you as a person; who you are and what you feel about the world around you. And therein lies the rub. People relegating homosexual’s deep seated, emotional attractions to those of the same gender as simply just another temptation just doesn’t cut it unless you want to be intellectually lazy for the sake of convenience.
Re: TobiasPetrus
As Catholic Christians, are we supposed to be somehow proud that “Our own country and all Christian Europe at one time punished Sodomy as Saint Augustine suggested”? Or that “Pope St. Pius V, of blessed memory, ordered that sodomites be burnt at the stake?” Let me quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church - PP#2358: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
Now, hopefully, I don’t have to explain to any civilized person in the 21st century why burning homosexuals at the stake is not exactly accepting them with “respect, compassion and sensitivity” or how doing so is not exactly avoiding “unjust discrimination”. In addition, the jury is still out as to exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (I suggest you research this, you may be surprised.) and the word homosexual wasn’t even known during biblical times. People didn’t have any concept as to what a homosexual person was and the words heterosexual and homosexual didn’t even exist.
Giacomo, read what Clara wrote — you should be emailing her, for you will not receive welcome responses here.
“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”
And who are “they”? People who have deepseated homosexual tendencies. God provides all people sufficient grace to overcome their temptations. In other words, everyone who willingly, intentionally commits a sin of sodomy is giving in. Those are the people who were punishable under the law — those who transgressed the commandment willingly.
Yes, I think we should return to public criminal prosecution and punishment of the *sin* of sodomy. Not the punishment of the *tendency*, or of the *temptation*, which is a spiritual trial. Look, there are people who have very, very strong lusts for women. Shouldn’t these guys be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity? Yes. And when those same lustful perverts give into those passions and commit the sin and crime of rape, they should be severely punished. Sodomy is like rape in this respect. Help in the form of support for the one tempted, and help in the form of punishment (which can be medicinal) for the one who transgresses.
By the way, strong social censures against homosexual behavior *are* a form of compassion for the effeminate and the homosexual — they prevent these people from giving into shameful activities, and limit the spread of such unnatural tendencies.
So the Catechism is not stating the entire truth. Mercy for the person grappling with temptation, yes, but also punishment for the transgressor and shame for those who try to propagate perversion as normalcy. That is true of any other form of sexual vice. (And yes, I am aware of St. Mary Magdalen, whom Our Lord spared from stoning. But this cannot be a universal precedent for the abandonment of all criminal sanctions against vice.)
“Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. ”
Yet another imperfection in the Catechism — it does not define what discrimination qualifies as just and what as unjust! Of course unjust discrimination is wrong, by definition. But there *are* just forms of discrimination here, such as the Church’s official ban on admitting people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies into the priesthood. I fully support keeping gays out of the military — the former total ban should replace “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I also think we should restrict the influence of effeminate men and masculine women as role models for impressionable youths. That is just discrimination, since it is to help children grow up with proper understanding of male and female roles.
“Now, hopefully, I don’t have to explain to any civilized person in the 21st century why burning homosexuals at the stake is not exactly accepting them with “respect, compassion and sensitivity” or how doing so is not exactly avoiding “unjust discrimination”.”
There, I just explained to you how this practice was not necessarily inconsistent with *true* “respect, compassion and sensitivity” for *those in temptation*. In fact, as the people who got caught were given the opportunity of the Last Rites, they were receiving “respect, compassion and sensitivity” too. Nor was it necessarily “unjust discrimination.” We lock up rapists, don’t we? And rapists have pretty deep-seated tendencies that constitute trials for them! And murderers, too, no matter how deep-seated their tendencies were and how much they struggled with their urges. Wife-beaters have deep-seated rage they need to cope with, yet wife-beating is a crime. So there are all sorts of deep-seated moral vices and temptations that, once translated into action, are immediately punished socially and criminally.
Look, I just cite St. Pius V as historical precedent for past punishments. I am not advocating a return to that. I am sorry that I provoked you with that example — that alone might have cost you any esteem you might otherwise have placed in my arguments. But criminal laws against sodomy (the *act*, not the tendency), those I advocate.
“In addition, the jury is still out as to exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (I suggest you research this, you may be surprised.)”
No, the jury is not out. The Church has always interpreted those passages as referring to the act of homosexual intercourse. I don’t care what modernists write in order to rationalize unnatural lusts.
“the word homosexual wasn’t even known during biblical times. People didn’t have any concept as to what a homosexual person was and the words heterosexual and homosexual didn’t even exist.”
What, do you mean the modern *English* words “homosexual” and “heterosexual”? Well, of course speakers of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek didn’t have them. They did have words for “liers with mankind” and for “unnatural use.” There were words for “real men” and for “effeminate guys.” Personally, I prefer to use the word sodomy, which refers explicitly to the sinful act, not the temptation or tendency thereto.
As to your criticism of Dr. Asinorum, heterosexuality is normal and natural. Homosexuality is not. Many studies show that homosexuals are not nearly as “deep-seated” in their attractions as heterosexuals are in theirs. Willing homosexuals have been known to develop the capacity for rewarding heterosexual relationships. Heterosexuals traditionally have shown no such interest. Homosexuality, no matter how deep-seated, still conflicts with the natural (and hence innate) law.
So homosexual attraction as such was not the problem with Sodom and Gomorrah. With the help of God, they could have become saints by combatting those desires. Rather, the problem was the *actual sinful act* of sodomy. This distinction explains why we can distinguish between chaste homosexuals and unchaste ones. As for the chaste ones — absolutely they need our support. As for the unchaste — first they need to be convinced what the right path is. As I argue above, prudence dictates how we do that in an immoral culture where homosexuality is being made ever more palatable to the mainstream society.
“Willing homosexuals have been known to develop the capacity for rewarding heterosexual relationships. Heterosexuals traditionally have shown no such interest.”
Whoops, what I wrote makes it sound as though heterosexuals have no interest in rewarding heterosexual relationships. What I meant was that heterosexuals traditionally have not shown interest in developing the capacity for “rewarding” *homosexual* relationships.
Plus, St. Mary Magdalen lived an examplary life of penance and chastity for the rest of her life. She was more or less a contemplative nun. It is not as though her sin were excused and she was completely left off the hook with the line, “hey, we all sin.” She repented, reformed, and then practiced true and penitential love, for which “many sins are forgiven her.”
Back from my conference, and glad to see that there has been some worthwhile discussion on this thread. Thanks especially to Tobias Petrus, for his thoughtful reply to Giacomo, which is very clear and to the point, and has covered many of the things I myself was going to write. In particular, I appreciated his drawing the distinction between homosexuals and sodomites – a very important distinction indeed when discussing just punishment.
I have to note, Giacomo, that there are some inconsistencies in the accusations you levy against me (and others) in your original post. You first charge us with neglecting the “emotional and human” elements of the question. But then, in almost the next breath, you insist that we (at least, those of us who are heterosexuals) could not possibly understand this aspect. Didn’t it occur to you that I largely agree with the latter claim, and that this explains why I did not presume to discuss it? But your conclusion – that heterosexuals should not venture into this subject at all – does not follow.
As I see it, you might have meant two things by this. You might have meant, first of all, that we heterosexuals can say nothing about the morality or immorality, or the naturalness or unnaturalness, of actions and temptations that we do not understand experientially. Or, secondly, you might have meant that, for those of us who are not inclined towards sodomy, it would be most fitting to have compassion for those who do suffer this temptation, and, in effect, to mind our own business.
A Catholic cannot under any circumstances affirm the first of these positions. Experience is not the only way of knowing about morality. In fact, it isn’t always a very good way, since sinful actions deform the soul and distort our perceptions of what is really good. Tobias Petrus already pointed out to you that, taken to its logical conclusions, your position would mandate complete solipsism. Your own analogy to describing the color blue for the blind only serves to underline this point. None of us, after all, can really know how anybody else feels, and if this prevented us from evaluating others’ actions, every word of praise or blame ever uttered (unless directed towards oneself) would be the unjustified opinion of an unqualified judge. But that is clearly silly. Surely you yourself would be willing to classify a large number of actions as categorically ‘wrong’, including some, I expect, to which you yourself have never been seriously tempted. (Murder? Rape? Pedophilia? Injustice towards the weak?)
The truth is that we can sometimes approach moral questions intellectually, and we can also, if we are faithful Catholics, consult the teachings of the Church. After doing so, no faithful Catholic can seriously doubt whether sodomy is wrong. The same source you cited (the CCC) also states, as I’m sure you are aware, that sodomy is gravely sinful. Your intuitions may tell you otherwise, but being a Catholic requires that we affirm the clear teachings of the Magisterium above our own intuitions. But even beyond that, if we adopt a Catholic understanding of human sexuality and its meaning in human life, we will ourselves come to see (intellectually, not experientially) that sodomy cannot be a natural expression of it. Homosexuality is not fruitful, even theoretically or potentially, and God intended that erotic love should be fruitful. (Those inclined to object that some heterosexual love is also unfruitful – because the couple is barren, or elderly, or simply because the woman is not at the right time in her cycle – must study further what the Church means when she deems an act ‘potentially’ or ‘naturally’ fruitful. Even when particular circumstances are not conducive to it, heterosexual love is the kind of thing that does lead to the bringing forth of new life. Sodomy can never do this, under any circumstances.)
Also, heterosexual love embraces the complimentarity of the male and the female, which God intended should be mutually supportive of one another. In a Catholic understanding, this complimentarity goes deeper than the arbitrary constructs of any particular society; it is a part of the fabric of the universe, as woven by God himself. This is why heterosexual attraction can be deemed ‘natural’, and St. Thomas tells us that it existed even before the fall. Homoeroticism is a perversion of this good and natural tendency, and we can understand this intellectually without needing to experience it. My husband, though he did not go into all these explanations in his comment, does understand them and could explain them if asked. He is not being “intellectually lazy” when he classifies homoerotic attractions as temptations to sin. He is being Catholic.
So much for the first interpretation of your suggestion. If you intended the second – that we should have compassion for homosexuals, and mind our own business as much as possible – I more or less agree with you. Certainly we ought to have compassion on those afflicted with temptations; as St. Paul reminds us, we ourselves may be the next to experience it. But, as TP has already explained, compassion does not always imply approval, and sometimes requires the reverse. As for minding our own business, I’m in favor of that as well, insofar as it is possible. Provided they are not intimately connected to me or under my authority, and provided they keep their actions very private and do not beg public sanction for them, I for one am quite happy to leave sodomites alone. We are not supposed to speculate idly about the sins of others, which in most cases are no concern of ours. (Obviously the situation changes somewhat when the people in question are under our authority, when they are criminals and we are employed by the justice system, etc.)
But in our present society, homosexuals are aggressively lobbying for greater acceptance, both legal and social. Minding our own business is not always possible in a world in which we receive invitations to gay weddings and meet people at parties who openly introduce “my partner X” with the clear expectation that we will have no problem with this. It is especially not possible when the law may actually put pressure on us to cement the relationships of homosexuals as legitimate (for example, by helping to place children in their homes.) There is no way to be neutral in such cases. You must either support the normalization of homosexuality, or you must fight against it; the homosexual community has in effect demanded a nationwide referendum on their lifestyle, and regardless of our qualifications, we must take a position of some kind. As Catholics, the moral status of sodomy is pretty clear, but specific questions about what we should say or do in this or that situation are often rather difficult. So sometimes it’s good to talk about them. Actually, viewed in the right light, you should be appreciative of a thread like this one. I do want to be both just and compassionate towards people with temptations to homoeroticism. But it’s necessary to do this without compromising my Catholic beliefs or furthering destructive social trends. Hence this discussion of social niceties.
One final word, on deep-seatedness and the suffering of homosexuals. First of all, I’m firmly convinced that the suffering of which you speak is greatly intensified by the permissiveness of our society. Every sin becomes much harder to overcome when it has been entrenched in our lifestyle. In my original post I referenced people who are ushered, in adolescence, into “support” groups, that teach them to identify their homoerotic feelings as central to their identity, and to think of other homosexuals as their natural community. This is a grave, grave scandal. Adolescents are notoriously confused, both about sex and about their own identities. Many of these people, given proper guidance, would probably find that their homoerotic feelings faded in time and were replaced by the kind of natural, heterosexual attractions that would allow them to marry and raise a family without any regrets at all. But if they are flattered and taught to take pride in the disordered attraction, it will be very difficult for them to dislodge it later in life. Other people in homosexual relationships have told me that they “don’t differentiate much between men and women” and that they are “simply attracted to beautiful people.” For this group, the prohibition against sodomy doesn’t seem like a particularly terrible burden. Yes, they will have to resist some possible attractions, but doesn’t everybody have to do this at some time or another? Once they are actually in a longstanding homosexual relationship, however, it obviously gets much harder.
The bottom line is that we are not always reliable judges of which aspects of our “identity” (as we understand it) are really true to our original created nature. All our lives we have suffered the effects of the fall, and hence we are disordered in ways we ourselves do not always understand. The idea that we are each the greatest authority on ourselves is a thoroughly modern one. Have you heard of the inscription on the Greek Oracle at Delphi, which warned all comers to “Know Thyself”? The ancients understood that this was one of the most difficult of life’s tasks. We Catholics should recognize it too, and trust the Church.
Even if you think all that rather pie-in-the-sky, you can surely see that the consequences of allowing each person to be the authority concerning his own sexuality, are rather repugnant. People have been known to feel erotic attractions to, among other things, corpses, children, and beasts. Must all these sexual perversions be sanctioned if the individuals in question insist that they are strong and “deep-seated”? Or shall we recognize instead that this is one of the areas in which we least understand ourselves, and perhaps the part of our lives in which we are most in need of pastoral guidance?
I am truly sorry for the sufferings of homosexual people, which in many cases are surely acute. I think it would be a nice thing if the Church were to do more in some cases to assist celibate homosexuals in finding a direction in life – for example, by issuing more pastoral documents discussing particular ways in which celibate people with strong homosexual inclinations might contribute to the life of the Church. And of course, it’s also appropriate to try to help them overcome this temptation in whatever way seems most prudent. However, as with all suffering, theirs will be removed only in God’s time, and until then must be borne as patiently as possible. You should never be so presumptuous to assume that your pains are greater than anyone else’s – after all (in an argument after your own line), how would you know? There are many different sorts of trials in this world. As baptized and confirmed Catholics, we have promised to give God absolutely everything – everything we have, and everything that we are, including our own “identities” as we understand them. “For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?”
When homosexuals can see their sufferings in this light, instead of agitating to have their disordered desires respected and approved, then they may truly have that sense of inclusion that they so obviously desire – inclusion in the ranks of saints and martyrs throughout history who have been willing to pay any price for inclusion in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I’m sorry this conversation has had to go on in public. If you had emailed me privately I would have been happy to carry it on in that way. As it is, I don’t have your private email address, but I would be willing to remove all related posts from the thread if you asked me to do so. I do not think the Doctor or Tobias Petrus would mind.
Excellent reply, Clara! We have missed you much in this discussion.
“Provided they are not intimately connected to me or under my authority, and provided they keep their actions very private and do not beg public sanction for them, I for one am quite happy to leave sodomites alone. We are not supposed to speculate idly about the sins of others, which in most cases are no concern of ours.”
Amen!
“As it is, I don’t have your private email address, but I would be willing to remove all related posts from the thread if you asked me to do so. I do not think the Doctor or Tobias Petrus would mind.”
Absolutely I would remove them. It might have been better for me just to have left the reply to Clara. And sorry again for bringing up the fact about St. Pius V, which though true does not seem to have been a helpful comment. I would remove that, too, if you, Giacomo, or you, Clara, wish.
Trust me, some heterosexuals as well have to make deep sacrifices in order to live in accordance with the Church’s teachings on sexuality. Pornography, self-abuse, and promiscuity are all serious temptations, each of which can carry with it severe burdens of shame, self-hatred, and frustration, at times despairing. They too stunt and blunt natural human maturity and relationships. Each of us has a cross. Yet social approval would only exacerbate these vices. Same goes for sodomy and lesbianism.
As a gay, chaste (not sexually active), conservative Catholic (I attend the Tridentine Mass), I am appalled by the hypocrisy of fellow Catholics posting to this site, with the exception of the person who asked about what to do in situations where there is a divorced family member living in sin with a new “spouse”. Is not that sin equal to engaging in homosexual activity? I was born gay. I did not choose this. I don’t understand why that’s such a difficult concept to grasp. The argument that it’s not “natural” doesn’t float, either, as you can read many scientific studies citing homosexuality in nature amongst various species. After all, why would I choose something that, by and large, is still socially unacceptable? I’m not looking for acceptance, I’m not looking to have a relationship sanctioned, as I’ve chosen the path of chastity so that I can continue to lead a sacramental life. I’m simply asking you all, as Catholics, to exhibit some compassion in your language and drop the hypocritical fascination with gay sex. When you get up on your soap boxes on sites like this, you’re no better than the radical right GOP members of Congress who consistently preach anti-gay hate speech (some of whom have now been caught attempting to seek gay sex in airport bathrooms). Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, no? And by the way, St. Paul also admonishes all women to cover their heads while worshiping God. So let all you women who don’t do this be anathema. Maybe I’ll exclude the female members of my family who don’t cover their head at Mass from family portraits.
James,
I’ve written quite a bit on this thread. Please explain, more clearly: where is the hypocrisy in what I’ve said?
I don’t have any fascination with gay sex. I don’t know where that’s coming from at all. In two years of writing for this blog, this is the first post I’ve ever written on this topic, and I think I made my prudential motivations quite clear. Actually, I have no wish at all to think about the private activities of sodomites, but the point of the thread is to discuss how to respond to the public ramifications of homosexuality, of which there are many these days.
It’s not difficult to grasp the concept of people being “born gay.” It’s just that, in my experience, not all homosexuals describe themselves that way. Many admit openly that their homosexual attractions have been encouraged and increased by various contingent circumstances (in short, that they choose to be gay) and that they have at times been attracted to members of the opposite sex. I say many; I did not say all. But for those many, public sanction of homosexuality will obviously encourage them in unchaste lifestyles that they would otherwise be likely to avoid.
I don’t in the least doubt that many people feel that they were born gay. I have no reason to distrust the testimony of people like yourself; however, I still maintain that it is an unnatural expression of human sexuality. This has nothing to do with soap boxes or high-handedness. It is the teaching of the Church, and, as I said, falls out naturally from the general understanding of sexual ethics to which I subscribe. Even if you were, in a sense, born with such an inclination, it wouldn’t prove that there’s anything natural about it. We were all born with the marks of original sin, and they manifest themselves in all of us in slightly different ways. Often these tendencies seem innate to us, but they still are not “natural” in the Catholic sense of that term. The fact that animals occasionally show homosexual tendencies also proves nothing. It is interesting to speculate as to whether animals can demonstrate “fallenness” or not, and if so, how. But it’s perfectly obvious that animals often display sexual behaviors that we take to be unnatural for humans. Female spiders eat their males after mating. Animals very often abandon their mates after one union, never to see them again, and in many animal species it is quite normal for a male to mate with a whole series of females all in the course of a day or a week. Also, animals have been known to use inanimate objects for sexual pleasure (which, according to Catholic moral teachings, is wrong for us to do). Need I go on? In some cases animal behaviors might be taken to be “fallen” in some sense; in other cases we might suppose that their telos is different from ours and that it is thus appropriate for them to behave in ways that are unacceptable for humans. But either way, we can’t use animal behavior as any kind of proof of what is natural for human beings. And anyhow, homoeroticism in animals is quite rare. Certainly it’s the exception and not the rule.
This is not about casting stones. I commend you for your chaste lifestyle. Temptations to the sin of sodomy are not themselves sinful; if you refuse to succumb to them, I’m sure you will be rewarded with graces. Even for homosexuals who are not chaste, I’ve already said that their private activities are none of my business, provided they don’t ask my approval (either explicitly or implicitly.) And I’ve agreed that, in order to avoid hypocrisy, I must consider myself bound by the laws of chastity also… which I do. It isn’t reasonable to hold the members of this Society accountable for the sins of Idaho senators.
But, if you accept the Church’s position on homosexuality, you cannot be blind to the fact that this position is under assault in our society as a whole. Increasingly heavy pressure is being put on us to abandon the Church’s teaching on this point. We have to determine the most appropriate way to respond. That isn’t being hypocritical. It’s being a conscientious Catholic.
For the record: I do cover my head at Mass.
Good reply, Clara.
James, I commend your commitment to chastity and recourse to the Sacraments.
However, traditional Catholic theology does indeed cite sodomy *in se* as a worse sin than adultery insofar as it is unnatural. I suppose that *circumstances* could make a given act of homosexual “intercourse” less grave than a given act of adultery. But your apparent contention that homosexual and heterosexual sexual sins are equivalent is not in synch with traditional Catholic moral theology.
I mentioned pornography and self-abuse as sexual vices that plague heterosexuals as well as homosexuals and result in debilitating addictions to mortal sin. Absolutely we will be judged by the standards with which we are judged. But compassion for the sinner can indeed coincide with revulsion at the sin, as Romans I indicates (there, St. Paul points out that some of his congregants had engaged in homosexual practices). The conversation here had to do with the propagation of an immoral lifestyle as moral and the incipient persecution of those who disagree.
After my first postings to this site,
I was met with nothing short of egotistic, mean spirited, un-Christian, uncharitable argumentation. (and am still reeling from the “sodomites burnt at the stake” comment) It made me realize that Catholic fundamentalists are alive and well in the 21st century.
I’m puzzled as to what sort of person you people thought you were communicating with, but I suspect you thought of me as some heterodox, pitiful, perverted, “sodomite”.
For the record: I’m a middle aged, conservative, traditional, single gay male who, like James, is also chaste. I go to confession approximately quarterly and recieve communion regularly. (I simply couldn’t live without Him.) I tell you this only so you’ll realize that there are many more of us than you know.
For your information, I accept the teaching authority of the true Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. I accept Natural law and I realize that gay people today are their own worst enemy as far as attempting to gain respect from the society at large. Too, I realize and admit that there is indeed a “gay agenda”, regardless of what gay groups claim to the contrary. I don’t have a gay themed bumper sticker on my car, I don’t read gay literature, I’ve never attended a gay pride parade or a gay film festival and I never will.
In an effort to “change’ my sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, I’ve gone through a psychiatrist, a psychologist, an evangelical “Change Therapy” group, (Elutheros – Orlando, FL) as well as a psycho-therapy organization, The Aesthetic Realism Foundation –NYC. No one I know was more positively disposed or determined to “change” than me. None of it worked, (including a great deal of deep prayer to Jesus Christ literally begging him to “change me”) and I’m honest enough to admit that.
By the way, it’s 2007. Get your heads out of the 18th century and stop calling people sodomites. The term “sodomite” is as disrespectful to homosexual people as “heretic” is to our Protestant brothers and sisters.
In case you don’t know, not all non-chaste homosexual persons even practice those sorts of sexual activities. What would you call them? Would you call validly married heterosexuals who do practice those activities sodomites as well? The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t use that word and neither should you. It’s clearly disrespectful and uncharitable.
Giacomo, I mean no offense, and quite sympathize with your particular struggle, but I do honestly think that most of the things you’re finding “clearly disrespectful and uncharitable” are nothing of the sort.
If one can’t reference any terms or opinions older than the CCC without being disrespectful, I hardly see how any worthwhile discussion can take place.
Giacomo,
I’m sorry that you don’t feel you’ve been treated respectfully, but I really think we are trying. Perhaps it would help to point out that this conversation was never meant to be about people like you and James. I admit to being a bit confused about your overall position; based on what you said in your last post, it doesn’t sound like we have much to disagree about, but in your first two you seemed to be hedging towards the position the homosexual and heterosexual attractions (and acts) are equally natural. Perhaps I just didn’t understand you. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. If I had started a thread to discuss the experieces of people like you, you probably would have been justified in telling me that I was in no position to say anything about it. My sole intention, though, was to determine the appropriate response to people who are aggressively seeking public endorsement for their homosexual coupling. Our answer to that question really shouldn’t affect you at all, given the sort of lifestyle you lead.
I see that you took offense at the use of the term “sodomite”, but perhaps you don’t understand the way the term is being used. I never made any assumptions about your lifestyle before, but I see clearly from your last post that you are not a sodomite. Sodomites are people who engage in homosexual acts (i.e. sodomy). In the CCC, the term “homosexuals” is used to describe such people, and people like yourself would be described, not as homosexuals, but as “persons with deep-seated homosexual attractions.” They are trying to be sensitive, but I think it’s a very unfortunate way of wording things. First of all, it is cumbersome, since the latter expression is so long. Secondly, it tends to breed confusion and to blur moral lines, since the language makes it very natural to lump together under one heading persons who engage in homosexual acts, and chaste persons who merely have some homosexual feelings. But these are not in the least morally equivalent, and such equivocation is particularly unfair and injurious to people like yourself, who cannot help your feelings but who have remained chaste. It would be much better to preserve separate terms for these groups, and I think the best way is to use the term “homosexual” to refer to people who are simply attracted to those of the same sex, and “sodomite” to refer to those who succumb to this temptation. The latter is certainly an ugly word, but that is appropriate, since it is a greviously sinful thing. The former is less morally charged, which is also proper, since there is nothing sinful per se in being tempted; some of the great saints have been beset by particularly fierce temptations to lust.
Perhaps part of the trouble here revolves around the question of identification. You may be assuming that I, because I use the word “sodomite”, am inclined to associate whole groups of people primarily with their sexual sins, and to think them inferior (in your words, “heterodox, pitiful and perverted”) on that basis. I assure you, I don’t want that at all, and I try as much as possible to avoid thinking, or even knowing, about other people’s private sins. I only use pejorative labels (murderer, liar, hypocrite, adulterer, or sodomite) in circumstances in which the sin is of direct relevance to the discussion at hand.
Perhaps I could make a helpful comparison to the term “fornicator.” I believe fornication to be a serious sin, and a goodly percentage of the people I know (including some I love and respect very much) have been guilty of it at some time in their lives. When this fact becomes known to me, do I then place all such persons in a separate mental bracket (”the fornicators”), refer to them henceforth with a new title, and treat them with contempt? No, of course I don’t. That would be uncharitable, not to mention absurd. Most of the time people’s sexual activities are simply not my concern, so I just try not to think about them at all. But occasionally, someone actually involved in a premarital sexual relationship might ask my advice (this has happened occasionally), or, if the fornicator is a close friend or relative, I might sometimes feel it appropriate for me to say something to them. In the course of that conversation, I would not hesitate to use the word “fornication” in a gentle but unambiguous way. It’s an ugly word, but only because it describes an ugly thing, and there’s no point in beating around the bush about ain being sin. Outside explicit discussion of the relevant actions, I would never use the word “fornicator” to refer to any actual living person, and I don’t think about people that way, either.
My wish is to have the same approach to the word “sodomite.” Unless homosexual acts are actually relevant to the conversation, I never use that term in talking or thinking about people. But if I do have good reason for referring to this particular sort of sin, I will call a spade a spade. What’s the point in making up a new word for it? Any word we generate will come to have pejorative connotations merely in light of the actions it describes.
The problem is complicated, of course, by the fact that many homosexuals wish to identify themselves publicly with their sexual behaviors. But that is their wish, not mine. I would never choose to build anyone’s identity primarily around either a) their sins and temptations, or b) their sexual proclivities.
Also: you seem to be assuming that I have never had personal friends or close connections who are in a position similar to yours. That is not the case. I don’t want to elaborate on other people’s personal stories, but I have found, among people I know in positions like yours, that they simply do not want their homosexual attractions to be seen as a large or defining part of their personality. They would rather their friends just didn’t think about it too much. So I don’t. I would not think of them as “my gay friend X”, but just as “my friend X.” That seems to me to be much the best way.
Giacomo, I have already apologized for bringing up St. Pius V, and I have removed the statement. Incidentally, I have in the past brought up the burning of heretics, as many a long post here can testify. To make that statement in a heated discussion was foolish and selfish. But on the whole I don’t see how the bulk of commentators here have been selfish. We have been talking about how to deal with people who identify with the “gay” (a term I object to) lifestyle, in other words, people who, unlike you and James, are not trying to do the right thing. Prudentially speaking, how should we address this situation when we deal with it? As we were *not* discussing chaste homosexuals, the matter of compassion for such folks simply was not relevant to the topic at hand. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
When you mentioned the fact that the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are relatively new, yes, I got cute. That is because your initial posts did not make your position clear. I still do not know what your point there was. It is true that those terms are recent, and they imply that these attractions are more central to one’s personality than they seem to be in a number of circumstances. (For instance, it is highly unlikely that Greek pederasts had any innate inclination to “homosexuality” — they gave into a societal norm that permitted sexual attraction to boys at the cusp of puberty.) But there certainly were terms for people who committed homosexual acts with some frequency, and hence probably had “strong, deep-seated” desires to do so. Those phrases — “tribad,” “sodomite, “lier with mankind,” “effeminate,” “unnatural,” “soft,” etc. — are all much more insulting than “homosexual” and “heterosexual.”
I have re-read some of the posts above. If you want to know, Giacomo, why some of us found you “heterodox,” the reason is your allegation that there are “deep-seated cultural assumptions poking their way through the interpretation and translation of five minor biblical passages.” That is quite a bold statement, and not the sort of statement that would normally indicate that the author is in tune with the Church’s teaching on chastity (which you don’t know how glad I am that you are!). The Church does indeed use those passages as texts that condemn the sin of homosexual intercourse. I honestly believe that the driving impetus behind the modernist claims to the contrary is the desire of modernists to deny the Church’s teaching on this. So I am not interested in reading their critiques. As I stated, there are NO minor passages in the Bible (i.e. it’s all there from God for a reason), and even if the Genesis passages were ambiguous, those of St. Paul at the beginning of Romans are not in any way.
And I addressed the matter of the Catechism above — it simply does not address everything that it could and should in regard to this matter. Catechisms may indeed be imperfect in such respects. I am sorry you regard so many comments here as “egotistic,” etc., but I did make some valid points.
“Would you call validly married heterosexuals who do practice those activities sodomites as well?” Yes, actually, to be fair. But normally they don’t advertise the fact, so they don’t qualify for *the topic of this post* — how to respond to people who publicly proclaim their homosexual relationships.